UN credibility crisis: The US veto shields Israel's destruction of Gaza
The United Nations Security Council in session. Photo: Reuters
Once again, the United States has used its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel from international accountability. Amid growing global concern over civilian suffering in Gaza, allegations of war crimes and the devastation caused by Israeli military operations, resolutions calling for ceasefires, humanitarian access and independent investigations have been struck down not by a lack of international consensus, but by a single vote from Washington.
It's an old pattern, and a deeply troubling one. Since 1946, the US has exercised its veto more than 80 times, many of those to block resolutions critical of Israel. From the 1981 veto of a resolution condemning Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, to the 2001 rejection of international observers in the West Bank, and the 2011 veto of a resolution denouncing settlement expansion, the US has repeatedly used its exceptional power to exempt its ally from scrutiny.
This raises urgent questions about the credibility of the Security Council itself. If one country can obstruct the collective will of the world even in matters involving alleged breaches of humanitarian law, what is the purpose of multilateralism? How can the law have meaning if it does not apply equally to all?
The veto power, granted to the five permanent members of the Council (the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China), was designed to ensure post-World War II stability. But it has become an instrument of selective justice. It allows powerful nations and their allies to avoid accountability, while weaker states face sanctions, interventions, or condemnation for far less.
The Security Council's paralysis in the face of human suffering in Gaza isn't just a failure of leadership, it's a systemic failure. It reinforces a rules-based order that applies rigorously to some, and not at all to others. And that breeds resentment, weakens global cooperation and damages the very idea of international law.
This is where South Africa's role matters.
With a history shaped by colonialism, apartheid and a long liberation struggle, South Africa's voice carries moral weight. The country has long drawn parallels between apartheid-era South Africa and the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The ANC has consistently endorsed Palestinian self-determination as a policy position, with its 2017 national conference resolving to downgrade South Africa's embassy in Tel Aviv, a move later implemented.
More recently, South Africa took bold legal action by instituting proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of genocide in Gaza. Whatever one's view on the merits of the case, it signals a powerful shift: a Global South nation using international law to challenge impunity where diplomacy has failed.
But this cannot be the end of South Africa's engagement. Our government must:
Continue building global and regional coalitions that push for reform of the Security Council, particularly the limitation of veto use in cases of mass atrocity;
Encourage African states to take coordinated action in solidarity with Palestine, whether through diplomacy, trade, or civil society partnerships; and
Mobilise Global South alliances to demand the equal application of international law, especially in forums outside the UNSC where veto power does not apply.
The UN is in a credibility crisis. Its effectiveness depends not only on its resolutions, but on its moral authority. Right now, that authority is being eroded not by those violating the law alone, but by those enabling that violation through silence, paralysis or political convenience.
If we are serious about a fair and just international order, one where law applies equally and no state is above accountability, then reform must follow. That reform will not come from the powerful. It must come from voices like South Africa's, speaking clearly and persistently not out of charity or sentiment, but out of principle and shared historical understanding.
The veto must no longer be allowed to block justice. And silence must no longer be mistaken for neutrality.
Nkosinathi Mtshali is a Bachelor of Laws student at University of the Free State.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
an hour ago
- The Herald
Trump tells Iran to do deal now after Israel blasts nuclear, military targets
At around 8am, an order to Israeli citizens to remain near protected areas had been lifted, suggesting that most or all of the drones had been intercepted. In a televised message, President Masoud Pezeshkian urged Iranians to stand by their leaders and said a powerful response "will make Israel regret its foolish act". The price of crude leapt around 8% on fears of wider retaliatory attacks across a major oil-producing region. But the national Iranian oil company said refining and storage facilities had not been damaged and continued to operate. Iran's Nournews said 78 people had been killed and 329 injured in Israeli attacks on residential areas in Tehran. An Israeli security source said Mossad commandos had been operating deep inside the Islamic Republic before the attack and the Israeli spy agency and military had mounted a series of covert operations against Iran's strategic missile array. Israel also established an attack-drone base near Tehran, the source added. The military said it had bombarded Iran's air defences, destroying "dozens of radars and surface-to-air missile launchers". Iran said several top commanders and six nuclear scientists had been killed, including the armed forces chief of staff, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, and Revolutionary Guards chief Hossein Salami. In all, at least 20 senior commanders were killed, two regional sources said. The head of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace force, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, was also reported to be among them. Iran's Fars news agency, citing a security source, denied Israeli reports that Tehran had launched drones towards Israel. IRANIAN NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT PLANT REPORTEDLY DAMAGED Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz suffered significant damage, Israeli military spokesman Brig-Gen Effie Defrin said. Briefing journalists online, Defrin said 200 Israeli fighter jets took part in the strikes, hitting more than 100 targets, with others to work through, and that the operation might be lengthy. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, invoked the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust to justify his decision to attack Iran, framing the strikes as a decisive step to protect Israel from a future existential threat. His office said he would speak to Trump later in the day.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
eNCA
15 hours ago
- eNCA
UN summit celebrates ocean protections, but drops fossil fuels
A global oceans summit concludes Friday with nations taking major steps toward marine protection and vowing a showdown over deep-sea mining, but criticised for leaving fossil fuels off the agenda. Countries hoping for new financial pledges to assist with combating rising seas and overfishing were also left disappointed at the UN Ocean Conference in France. More than 60 heads of state and government joined thousands of business leaders, scientists and environmental campaigners over five days in the southern city of Nice. The United Nations says the world's oceans are facing an "emergency" and the Nice gathering was just the third -- and the largest yet -- dedicated entirely to the seas. - Treaty tide - Activists unanimously praised concrete progress toward ratifying a landmark pact to protect marine life in the 60 percent of oceans that lie beyond national waters. "This week's ratifications of the high seas treaty mark a major milestone for ocean action," said Rebecca Hubbard from the High Seas Alliance. Some 19 countries formally ratified the treaty at Nice, taking the overall tally to 50. Sixty nations are needed to enact the treaty. France's special envoy for the oceans, Olivier Poivre d'Arvor, said the numbers would be ready in time for a formal ratification ceremony in September in New York. The treaty should then take effect in January 2026, he added. - Plastic push - The conference sought to rally global action on marine protection as countries prepare to tussle over global rules for deep-sea mining in July and a plastics treaty in August. More than 90 ministers issued a symbolic call in Nice for the hard-fought plastics treaty to contain limits on consumption and production of new plastics, something opposed by oil-producing nations. - Elephant in the room - The summit rallied a defence of science and rules-based oversight of common resources -- most notably the unknown depths of the oceans -- in a direct rebuke of US President Donald Trump. Trump was not present in Nice and rarely mentioned by name but his spectre loomed large as leaders backed the global multilateralism he has spurned. In particular, leaders condemned Trump's push to fast-track seabed mining, vowing to resist his unilateral efforts to exploit the ocean floor. - Seabed row - Leaders "made it unmistakably clear: deep-sea mining is one of the biggest threats facing our ocean, and the world is saying no," said Sofia Tsenikli from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. French President Emmanuel Macron called it "madness" while Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva warned against a "predatory" race for critical minerals. But a global alliance opposed to deep-sea mining, and spearheaded by France, only attracted four new members during the summit, taking the total to 37 nations. Poivre d'Arvor said the alliance would flatly reject any call at a meeting of the International Seabed Authority next month to permit deep-sea exploration. The authority, backed by the UN, has 169 member states. - Overfishing - Many nations took the opportunity to unveil plans to create vast new marine protected areas and restrict bottom trawling, which was recently captured in grisly detail in a new David Attenborough documentary. Activists had wanted countries to go further, advocating for a total ban on the destructive fishing method that sees heavy nets dragged across the ocean floor. - Missing millions - Some 8.7 billion euros ($10 billion) was committed over the next five years by philanthropists and private investors for the sustainable development of ocean economies. But pledges were less forthcoming from wealthy governments, with France announcing two million euros for climate adaptation in Pacific Island nations. - Flat finish - The summit will close later Friday with a joint political statement, negotiated over many months between nations, that critics slammed for omitting any reference to fossil fuels -- the key driver of ocean warming. Laurence Tubiana, CEO at the European Climate Foundation, said Nice showed global cooperation was still possible "but let's not confuse signatures with solutions". "No communique ever cooled a marine heatwave," she said. Former US special climate envoy John Kerry, who was present in Nice, said in a statement that it was impossible to "protect the ocean without confronting the biggest root cause bringing it to the breaking point: the pollution from unabated fossil fuels pumped into the atmosphere". By Nick Perry And Antoine Agasse
