To Raise the Voices for Peace, the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five Must Also Submit Themselves to a Global Ceasefire

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
May 19, 2020
Funeral of Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by American drones (Tehran, Iran, 7 January 2020). Image by saeediex via Shutterstock. Funeral of Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by American drones (Tehran, Iran, 7 January 2020). Image by saeediex via Shutterstock.

To Raise the Voices for Peace, the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five Must Also Submit Themselves to a Global Ceasefire

By : Mandy Turner

On 8 May 2020, the United States blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for a global ceasefire to allow the world to concentrate on battling the COVID-19 pandemic. Weeks of careful negotiation over the text crashed, first because of a reference to the World Health Organisation, one of the Trump administration’s current nemeses, and ultimately because of an attempted compromise draft that made only a generic reference to specialized health agencies was rejected by Washington. 

The United States refused to endorse a resolution that mentioned the international health agency. China initially insisted it should be in there, but then removed the stipulation as negotiators sought a mutual compromise. Yet after the initial agreement to move the resolution to a vote, the US representative blocked the vote in a volte-face that left negotiators and other UN Security Council members stunned.    

It is easy to be cynical and argue that UN proclamations are unlikely to persuade militaries and militias to lay down their weapons. Yet over one hundred nations have expressed their support for the ceasefire, and armed factions in more than twelve countries have observed a temporary truce. An international ceasefire endorsed and supported by the Security Council would be unprecedented and indicate united global leadership for the challenges ahead. 

Seeking a solution to this diplomatic impasse, Germany and Estonia submitted another resolution on 12 May that borrows and builds on the failed French-Tunisian proposal, as well as what has already been agreed on by the UN Security Council. This new resolution makes no reference to the World Health Organization.  

But the real travesty does not come from this war over words. Nor does it come from the way in which the Trump administration continues its damaging attacks on the United Nations’ international health agency during a global pandemic. It lies in the fact that the proposed ceasefire resolution has been emptied of all meaning; even if it passes, this global call for peace will be partial and hollow.

It is nearly two months since UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres made the appeal for a global ceasefire in a commentary carefully crafted to capture the international imagination. On 23 March, Guterres called on the world to “silence the guns; stop the artillery; end the airstrikes.” Ten days later, he repeated his appeal, adding that “to silence the guns, we must raise the voices for peace.”

But one voice that has remained conspicuously silent is that of the UN Security Council. Charged with ensuring international peace and security, the Security Council is the United Nations’ most powerful agency and has the authority to make and impose legally binding decisions on member states. In other words, when the Security Council speaks, the world takes notice.

Explanations for this absence have emphasized bickering between China and the United States, especially after this recent debacle.

There is no doubt that rivalry between the Security Council’s permanent five members (P5) blocks debates and the passage of resolutions. Yet the earlier delays were not down to rivalry but due to diplomatic maneuvering designed to ensure the resolution does not impinge on the interests of the P5.
During this global pandemic, none of the P5 have halted their military interventions or stopped selling weapons to their allies.

The resolution proposed by France and Tunisia, and now this one by Estonia and Germany, excludes any military operations defined as counterterrorism. And there will be no halt to the international trade in the weapons of war.

During this global pandemic, none of the P5 have halted their military interventions or stopped selling weapons to their allies. By excluding these issues, the proposed resolution lets the P5 off the hook. But surely to raise the voices for peace, we must try to silence the guns of all. Furthermore, violent conflict is sustained by the global arms trade and the P5 are the world’s top exporters to other nations. Yet there has been no pause in the international trade in weapons. 

Some regard the coronavirus pandemic as signalling the end of the September 11 era. This is wishful thinking. The P5 seem desperate to cling on to this era because it created a permissive environment for international intervention. Under cover of the “global war on terror,” military actions increased and the international laws of war were shrugged off as a frivolous extravagance or relics of an era long gone. 

Being able to label military operations as counterterrorism is not a convenience extended to everyone. But it is for the P5 and their allies.

A comprehensive ceasefire resolution would have interfered with the military operations of the P5, so what is being proposed instead is a watered-down version—a ceasefire that does not apply to the most powerful states. Any Security Council ceasefire resolution that is passed now will allow exceptions to be made at the discretion of individual states.

Backroom diplomacy has emptied the secretary-general’s call of all meaning. So, it appears to be business as usual for the Security Council, pure and simple.

The United States lobbied to have its operations excluded because it wants to be able to continue attacks in Iraq, and to carry out targeted assassinations of foreign leaders as it did against Iran in January. And it would resist any attempt to inhibit Israel’s ability to engage in military operations in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the occupied Palestinian territory.

Russia lobbied too because it does not want its hands tied from involvement in Syria or Libya, or to halt its operations in Ukraine, particularly its daily shelling of the Donbas region. And it does not want key strategic allies, such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, hampered by restrictions. 

China’s position is more complex. While neighbours fear its growing military prowess in the Asia-Pacific, China largely uses “soft power” aid and investment as an international intervention strategy. A global ceasefire, of any description, will not obstruct China’s plans. But a new cold war with the United States could. 

Even the P5 members that openly back Guterres’s call have continued with their military interventions abroad. Only one week after giving its support to the global ceasefire, the United Kingdom carried out airstrikes in Iraq. And French special forces operations continue in the Sahel even while President Emmanuel Macron campaigned for a Security Council ceasefire resolution. 

COVID-19 is a decisive test for the relevance of the United Nations in the twenty-first century. The Security Council is failing the test. 

The most we can expect from the Security Council will be a global ceasefire resolution underpinned by a common hypocrisy: do what we say but not as we do. The guns of the P5 will remain loaded and engaged, and their arms industries will continue to enjoy a booming trade. Because of this, international peace and security will just have to wait.
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Countering “Day After” Narratives: Notes Towards A Practical Program For Palestinian Liberation And Global Solidarity

      Countering “Day After” Narratives: Notes Towards A Practical Program For Palestinian Liberation And Global Solidarity

      As we near the fifth month of Israel’s war on Gaza, discussions have increased over what happens the “day after” a permanent ceasefire. While it is difficult to contemplate this at the current moment, it is crucial that Palestinians and their supporters counter this and articulate a vision for what comes next. This article offers some suggestions towards a progressive and practical paradigm for Palestinian liberation and global solidarity rooted in a reclassification of Israel’s occupation as colonialism, a rights-based approach to conflict resolution, and the UN’s “triple nexus” framework. This paradigm insists that Palestinians’ right to self-determination must not be subject to Israel’s veto or control, that Palestinians must direct and govern their future, and that a sustainable Palestinian economy no longer reliant on international aid or Israel can only be built by removing current obstacles.

    • Chatham House and the Call for the Decolonisation of Israel and Palestine

      Chatham House and the Call for the Decolonisation of Israel and Palestine

      This short opinion piece was originally commissioned by Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Chatham House is the UK’s leading international affairs think-tank and advertises itself as an “independent voice.” It is the second most influential international affairs think-tank in the world after the Brookings Institution.   

    • Why Israel Fears the Facts: Reporting on Israel’s Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the UN

      Why Israel Fears the Facts: Reporting on Israel’s Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the UN

      In early 2017, I received an invitation to speak at an event in Stockholm organized by the Swedish Institute for International Affairs (SIIA) to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Or so I thought. But when the publicity materials were circulated a few months later, the event was billed as an analysis of the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, with no mention in the title or abstract of Israel’s occupation, contrary to earlier exchanges with the organizers. When I questioned and challenged this, I was told by a senior researcher at SIIA that no one was disputing Israel’s occupation but this was the title and abstract for the event. If no one was disputing it then why, I asked, was SIIA deliberately trying to avoid using the term? I threatened to pull out of the event if the title and abstract were not changed to reflect the international consensus on the status of Palestinian lands occupied by Israel since 1967. I refused to participate in a discussion that shied away from using the term “occupation” which would imply that this (nearly) universally agreed international legal definition was in dispute and up for debate. Unfortunately, I was not successful in this endeavor; my concerns were brushed aside, the event was canceled, and no explanation (or apology) was offered.
Jan 31, 2013 Lebanon
Noura Erakat By :
Noura Erakat

Setting New Precedents: Israel Boycotts Human Rights Session

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism that intends to review the behavior of states without distinction. The UN General Assembly established it in 2006 as part of the functions of the Human Rights Council. It is a state-driven process to comprehensively assess a state`s compliance with human rights law. The Human Rights Council is to hold three two-week sessions each year during which time they review the files of sixteen member states. Accordingly each state will undergo the review every three years. As of 2011, all 193 UN member states had undergone a review.

The Human Rights Council conducted Israel`s UPR in 2009.  In response to the findings, Israel`s ambassador to the UN explained that it took the Review process "very seriously" because it is "an opportunity for genuine introspection, and frank discussion within the Israeli system" 

Israel`s second UPR is scheduled to take place in 2013. A coalition of Palestinian human rights organizations submitted their concise report on Israel`s violations between 2009 and 2012.  This document will not be read, however, because Israel is boycotting the UPR, citing bias.  In May 2012, Israel described the Human Rights Council as “a political tool and convenient platform, cynically used to advance certain political aims, to bash and demonize Israel.”

Israel`s condemnation of the Human Rights Council followed the body`s initiation of a fact-finding mission to investigate the impact of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today, the Council released its report at a press conference in Geneva. It states that Isreal must cease all of its settlement activity  "without preconditions" and  "must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers", or face prosecution before the International Criminal Court. Sources in Geneva tell me that Israel`s threats of boycott aimed to derail the Council`s fact-finding mission`s report. Failing to do that, Israel unilaterally withdrew from its Universal Periodic Review all together.

This is not Israel`s first attack on the UN. It has cited bias in the past in response to the UN`s critique of its human rights violations, specifically after the World Conference Against Racism (2001); the International Court of Justice proceedings on the route of the Separation Barrier (2004); denial of entry to Special Rapporteur to the OPT, Richard Falk (2008); and its refusal to cooperate with the Human Rights Council`s fact-finding delegation to Gaza in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead (2009). 

Israel is unique for its boycott, which evidences the tenuous nature of the voluntary compliance process. In fact, human rights advocates and governement officials worry that Israel will open the door to non-cooperation by other states. The battle for accountability continues even in the UN. Despite its acceptance of international law & human rights norms, even within the multilateral human rights body, the last word on human rights matters is political.