Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2024/03/24 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
The US faces tough decisions at the UN regarding resolutions on ceasefires, navigating political dynamics and humanitarian concerns while aiming to avoid exacerbating the crisis.
Diplomats, policymakers, activists
Insights into the potential impacts of UN resolutions on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the importance of balancing political considerations with humanitarian needs.
#UN #Resolution #Ceasefire #Diplomacy #HumanitarianConcerns
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we are going to talk about UN resolutions, plural.
Plural, two of them.
And we're going to talk about what happened and what might
happen next week, because this is an ongoing thing now.
And we're just going to run through the positions of
countries, the conventional wisdom, and then the debate that is certainly
occurring. Okay, so if you missed it, the US had its own resolution at the UN that
was pushing towards a ceasefire. Went up for a vote. China and Russia, they
exercised their veto, stopped it. Why, right? I mean that's the obvious question
because they've kind of been pushing for it. There's three reasons. One is they
said that it was soft. It was soft. Is there any truth to that? They want, demands
a ceasefire, calls for a ceasefire. The US framed it as it's an imperative that a
ceasefire occurs or something like that. So yeah, from their position, from their
foreign policy position, that's a defensible argument from their side. The
other issue that they had with it was that they said it was written more for a
domestic political audience in the United States. Is there any truth to that?
that? Yes, but not as much. It's not as clear cut because certainly because of the pressure that
the Biden administration is under, they did put a lot of extra detail and extra wording in it that
didn't really need to be there for a domestic political audience. At the same time, it still
People would have opened the toolboxes to apply the pressure.
So there is some truth to that.
I don't know that that alone is enough to veto it though.
The third one is they didn't want to condemn Hamas.
Those are the three reasons.
Okay, so the US resolution is now, it's gone, that's done with.
It probably still had some effect though, because it illustrated, when we talk about
Russia and China, we always kind of joke about it's a friendship without limits.
No, there are always limits.
And this did illustrate that there were some between the U.S. and Israel.
So even though it didn't go through, it wasn't without effect.
Okay now, Monday there's another resolution coming up.
This one demands an immediate ceasefire through Ramadan.
It has the support, from what I understand, of Russia and China.
United States has said, well that's going to impact the ongoing negotiations, the
real ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Is there any truth to
that? I mean yes, there is. At the same time the US seems to be assuming that it
would impact it negatively. I don't have the information to make that assumption
But one of the big asks from Hamas is a ceasefire. So if they're getting that, it is certainly going to impact the
negotiations.
At the same time, those negotiations aren't going anywhere. They're pretty locked up.
Maybe a change in dynamic would be a good thing.
Especially given the fact that Ramadan, what, it ends April 9th?
So it's not lengthy.
Now under normal circumstances, if the US is saying this is going to impact these negotiations,
the US would exercise its veto.
I would imagine there are incredibly intense conversations
going on about that right now,
and will go on throughout the weekend
from the White House State Department all over the place,
because there are going to be differing opinions on that.
And the reason the cause for concern
from a U.S. foreign policy standpoint
is the humanitarian situation.
There has reportedly been some increase
trucks going in, but it's still nowhere near the level it needs to be. The gates
have to get open, the trucks have to go in. If the US exercises its veto and then
there is an offensive into Rafa and that causes civilians to flee and it
exacerbates the humanitarian situation as projected, the US is going to own that.
So regardless of normal dynamics, because the US is saying, well, this is going to impact
these negotiations, generally speaking, that is a guaranteed veto right there.
I don't know that it's guaranteed because the situation is different.
I don't believe the Biden administration wants to own that if it occurs and if
they use that veto and that offensive happens and what was projected occurs,
they're not going to be able to say they didn't know it was coming.
My guess is there are a lot of emails being fired off right now about this.
I have no way of knowing how that debate is going to play out, but I can assure you that
it's occurring.
So that's where it sits.
We won't find anything out about that until probably Monday.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}