2 days ago
Why is the United Nations not doing more to stop the starvation in Gaza?
The prognosis for life in
Gaza
is unimaginably bleak. A
Donald Trump
-brokered permanent ceasefire that sees the return of the remaining hostages taken by
Hamas
on October 7th, 2023 cannot come soon enough. In theory, this will see the cessation of Israel's bombardments. Whether there will be a return to UN-managed humanitarian aid distribution, replacing the death traps of the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid stations, remains to be seen.
Whatever happens, even if tens of thousands of
Palestinians
were to avoid death by starvation in the coming weeks and months, Gaza will live in rubble for at least a generation, with the permanent effects of malnutrition, war injuries, disease, familial death and PTSD. Basic housing, healthcare, education or social services will not be restored for years, if ever. There is no long-term Israeli vision for Gaza that involves its reconstruction under any form of Palestinian self-government. As Hamas appears to be replenishing itself to the point where some commentators believe that it has as many active fighters now (through new recruits) as it had before October 7th, the worldview of many on the Israeli right has become a self-fulfilling prophecy: any Palestinian or foreign-led protectorate government in Gaza will inevitably become infiltrated by Hamas and cannot be allowed. The Israeli plan, if there is one, appears a deliberate attempt to starve, slaughter, weaken and traumatise Gaza to the point where two million Gazans consider 'voluntary' resettlement elsewhere. We will not find out for years whether the
International Court of Justice
determines that Israel's actions have met the legal threshold of genocide.
Where is the
UN
in all this? Why can it not do more? There are, in fact, two UNs: the first is the intergovernmental system, where the 193 Member States debate and pass resolutions on various matters under mandates given to them by themselves. The second is the operational system, under which the secretary general oversees the various secretariat departments and appoints the heads of UN agencies.
The latter system has largely done (and continues to do) all it can, as the UN operational system can only do what the member states allow. Senior UN officials, such as human rights commissioner Volker Türk, have documented Israel's grave breaches of international humanitarian law, while continuously calling on Hamas to release the hostages. The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, who is not a UN official and whose pronouncements carry moral rather than legal weight, has used the term 'acts of genocide'.
READ MORE
[
Francesca Albanese: 'The struggle against the Mafia has marked me and my sense of justice'
Opens in new window
]
Nevertheless, the UN operational system has been humiliated and sidelined by an Israeli regime that loathes it, believing without evidence that Unrwa was implicated in the October 7th attacks via Hamas infiltration. For the Israeli right, allowing UN agencies to feed and shelter the Gazan population inevitably means feeding and sheltering Hamas. This leaves the UN's ability to work freely in Gaza in serious doubt.
But more can be done within the intergovernmental system. While chapter VII of the UN charter authorises member states to use force in their own legitimate self-defence, UN military action 'to restore international peace and order' must be authorised by the security council. This has been done on 12 occasions since 1945, almost always with the tacit approval of the member state most concerned.
What has never happened in its 80-year history is for the security council to authorise UN military action against a member state engaged in the mass killing, starvation or ethnic cleansing of either its own people or people living in disputed territory under its occupying control. To do so would require not only the approval of the security council, but also member states to supply military assets and personnel to ensure a successful military outcome, as well as support for a post-military political process.
This is the context in which the UN finds itself in Gaza. As long as the Trump administration supports Israel's war aims, the US will wield its veto in the security council and permit only resolutions that call for humanitarian access and the safe return of hostages, rather than mandating action.
It is, therefore, to the UN General Assembly, where resolutions are passed by simple majority, that those hoping for greater UN intervention in Gaza must turn. While the assembly has condemned Israel's 'starvation as a method of warfare', it has shied away from considering a stronger interventionist response. It shouldn't. The UN charter clearly gives it the authority to mandate peace operations and it has a track record of doing so ( as in Indonesia in 1962). While the consent of the 'host country' is required for such peace operations deployment, Israel is not the host country in Gaza, which the assembly itself recognises as Palestinian territory. The 1950 United for Peace Resolution gives the assembly the authority to consider peace and security resolutions when the security council has vetoed same.
As a result, therefore, the assembly should request the security council to adopt a resolution condemning Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and Hamas's continued illegal detention of Israeli hostages, and mandating Chapter VII UN military action to forcibly open humanitarian aid corridors. Any veto would have to be explained to the assembly within 10 days.
Secondly, the assembly should adopt a further resolution appointing a special representative of the secretary general for Gaza, indicating its intention to establish a peacekeeping force to ensure aid distribution and the co-ordination of reconstruction efforts. It should call upon member states to voluntary impose a trade embargo and other economic sanctions on Israel should it resist. Finally, the resolution should request other intergovernmental bodies such as the EU or the Commonwealth to explore military options to open aid corridors.
[
Hagai El-Ad: Sanctions against individual settlers are hopelessly inadequate. The real settler organisation is Israel
Opens in new window
]
Precedents for the UN co-operating with other intergovernmental bodies in the implementation of military activity exist, most notably in Bosnia in the 1990s, where the UN authorised Nato to impose a no-fly zone.
Would the EU, the Commonwealth or any individual UN member state be prepared to conduct military operations to open Gaza aid corridors, citing the approval of the general assembly? Unlikely. But such a resolution could just move the political dial and put pressure on Israel to meet its international humanitarian obligations. What is the alternative?
Niall McCann worked worldwide in various electoral capacities for the United Nations Development Programme, as well as the United Nations Mission in Liberia, from 2005-2022. He is co-author of The UN at Country Level – A p
ractical guide to the United Nations Operational System
