Analysis
The security council vote is a significant moment
– but the US says its Gaza policy is unchanged
Patrick
Wintour
Diplomatic
editor
Washington’s decision not to use its veto is an
acknowledgement of its failure to lead the UN Gaza agenda
Mon 25 Mar
2024 19.17 GMT
Diplomacy
occasionally has the capacity to surprise, and when it does it often portends a
deep shifting in the landscape.
Few as
recently as the end of last week saw much chance that the UN security council
would be able to put aside five months of division over Gaza and agree terms
for an immediate ceasefire, yet on Monday that is precisely what happened, in
no small part due to some British diplomatic persuasion and a significant
American change of heart.
As a result
the US did not use its veto to block a resolution demanding an immediate
ceasefire in Gaza.
What
practical difference it makes on the ground in Rafah and Khan Younis it is too
early to say, but judging by the initial furious Israeli reaction, and cries of
US betrayal, this is about more than some words in the text of a UN resolution:
it marks another moment in the painful, almost anguished US diplomatic
distancing from its chief ally in the Middle East.
Two weeks
ago the terrain looked very different. The US at the UN headquarters in New
York had started a concerted effort to reassert its diplomatic leadership role
over Gaza. It felt it had been pushed on the back foot, three times vetoing
ceasefire resolutions, and wanted to show it could draft a positive policy on
Gaza rather than just being cast in the role of Israel’s last diplomatic
redoubt.
Yet last
Friday this plan fell apart when its lengthy draft resolution was vetoed by
Russia and China and rejected by Algeria. The draft was widely billed in the
media as backing an immediate ceasefire, but any close examination of the
contorted US text showed the sentiments were more complex. It said a ceasefire
had to be connected with the release of all hostages, making it a conditional
call. The draft also made few explicit demands of Israel, even if many were
implied.
At the same
time a rival draft ceasefire resolution, much shorter and less conditional, was
being circulated at the UN headquarters by the 10 non-permanent members of the
security council, including many allies of the US.
When the US
text was blocked by Russia on Friday it was assumed this alternative ceasefire
text would in turn be vetoed by the US.
Over the
weekend US diplomats duly pushed for the ceasefire call in the draft to be
linked to the release of the hostages. But the non-permanent members stood
their ground, insisting that while both the release of hostages and a ceasefire
were imperative they could not be linked, since to do so would provide
justification for Israel to continue military action in Gaza on the grounds
Hamas had not agreed terms for the release of all hostages.
The
absolute priority had to be saving civilians in northern Gaza from imminent
starvation, and in southern Gaza the displaced had to be saved from a
threatened Israel ground offensive in Rafah.
Similarly
the non-permanent 10 did not allow the talks between Hamas and Israel that were
being overseen by the US to be anything more than acknowledged in the
resolution’s text. This meant the UN could not be treated any longer as a
bystander to US-led diplomacy on the ground. The UN had come to its own view of
what was necessary and that was an immediate ceasefire and release of the
hostages, two self-standing events.
The US
faced a difficult choice, especially since its closest ally the UK was not
prepared to abstain. David Cameron, the foreign secretary, could no longer hide
his fury at Israel’s prevarication over the supply of aid.
So could
the US for the fourth time block a humanitarian ceasefire, leaving the
civilians exposed to Israel’s promised Rafah attack? Or could it instead
finally implicitly acknowledge that continually acting as Israel’s diplomatic
protection squad had not won it much influence over either Benjamin Netanyahu’s
military or political strategy?
In the end
the US acknowledged that its effort to grab the UN Gaza agenda had failed, and
instead acknowledged the wider mood at the UN. The applause at the security
council after the resolution passed was an outpouring of relief, recalling for
some the moment when the French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave his
stunning speech against the Iraq war in 2003.
Israel had
already sensed the way the wind is blowing among western allies, but is in no
mood to stop fighting until Hamas is entirely crushed. “All those countries
turning away from Israel now will look back at this moment as a mark of shame,”
said Israel’s strategic affairs minister, Ron Dermer, last week. “After all
those statements in support of the Jewish people when we’re victims, you
abandon us now, on the last leg before our victory against a genocidal
terrorist force? Shameful.”
The sense
of abandonment in Israel will now be acute, but it may not be enough to deter
it from testing American resolve by marching ahead alone. However much sympathy
Israel retains, the vote is a significant moment in how the world views its
conduct in this war.
There is
little sign that Biden wants to use the vote as a springboard for a
confrontation with Netanyahu. Faced by virulent Republican and Israeli
accusations of betrayal the Biden administration has instead tried to play down
the significance of the vote, saying the US abstention does not represent a
change in policy, and pointing out that references to ceasefire and hostages
are in one sentence.
Biden’s
diplomats also surprisingly claim the resolution is non-binding – a judgment
not shared by the British, who say it should be implemented immediately. It
serves to underline how little the US is in control of events.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário