Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2023/12/09 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains the implications of the recent UN vote on ceasefire, detailing what it takes for the US foreign policy move to succeed, facing challenges ahead for a durable peace in Gaza.
Foreign policy analysts
The full transcript provides a detailed analysis of the current UN vote's implications and the challenges ahead for US foreign policy success in Gaza.
Well, howdy there, internet people, it's Beau again.
So today, we are going to talk about the vote at the UN
and what it means for foreign policy.
And we will go through what it takes for this not
to be a really, really, really bad move.
Because at this point, US foreign policy
is they're betting on something occurring,
a series of things occurring.
OK, so if you don't know what happened,
the UN Secretary General invoked Article 99,
which means it draws something to the attention of the UN
Security Council.
They're asking for a ceasefire.
The vote was 13 to 1, with the United States being the only vote against it.
However, the U.S. has veto power.
It is a 15-member council the United Kingdom abstained.
What that means is the U.K. shared the U.S. position but didn't want to take the heat
on it, which is understandable.
Okay, so the US is engaged in a very big gamble here.
Again, we're talking about foreign policy, not moral implications or anything like that.
For this to go down as anything other than a bad foreign policy move, a series of things
have to occur.
First, Israel has to be able to degrade the combat effectiveness of Palestinian forces
inside Gaza.
They won't be able to defeat them, but they have to degrade them to the point that the
Palestinian authority can then assert governance over Gaza.
That's the first thing.
I am skeptical of this.
It's not impossible, but that's a big ask.
That's a big request.
I am skeptical that that is going to occur.
The Palestinian Authority then has to be actually capable of asserting governance over Gaza.
Yeah, that can probably happen.
And then the third one is that the Arab coalition the United States has been trying to build
behind the scenes has to commit to that international peacekeeping force to stand between the two
sides in Gaza and build a durable peace.
I am skeptical.
Those three things have to occur for this not to go down as a really bad vote.
I give it a little bit less than even odds.
It's not impossible, but I would not stand here and say it's a likely scenario.
But that's what they're angling for.
The US has been meeting with the Palestinian Authority behind the scenes and trying to
build an international coalition of Arab states to act as peacekeeping force.
There has been reluctance on the part of Arab nations to commit troops to that, understandably.
It's going to be a mess.
That's what the U.S. is banking on right there.
I know that people are like, well the U.S. always vetoes it, yeah, yeah, but it normally
doesn't have almost a hundred co-sponsors.
The U.S. is in essence standing alone with the UK over there in the corner going go ahead,
go ahead, we got you.
That's what's going on.
has now become make or break. They have to be able to pull this off. If they
don't, this goes down as a really bad decision. Now I know foreign policy
people here standing there saying, well what else could they do? They couldn't
allow a ceasefire to be enforced on a regional ally and you're going through
all of that stuff in your head. If you are making those arguments, you don't
to pretend like you're brand new at the same time. If the ceasefire had gone into effect,
how long until somebody violated it? There were other options from a foreign policy standpoint.
The Biden diplomatic team, they're going to be working overtime and they've got their work cut out
for them. Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}