.jpg)
The US (Morgan Ortagus, right) on Thursday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, as well as the lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid deliveries to the strip.
In a move that has reignited global debates over the role of the United Nations in resolving international conflicts, the United States exercised its veto power on Thursday to block a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. This marks the sixth time the U.S. has used its veto to block similar resolutions since the onset of the ongoing conflict in Gaza nearly two years ago, a conflict that many critics describe as a humanitarian catastrophe and genocide. The veto has drawn sharp international condemnation, with accusations that the U.S. is obstructing efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions in Gaza and enabling the continuation of violence.
The resolution, drafted by the Security Council’s ten non-permanent members—Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia—was supported by 14 of the 15 council members, underscoring broad international consensus on the need for urgent action. The resolution sought to address the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where a confirmed famine, widespread displacement, and intensified military operations have pushed the region to the brink of collapse. Despite this near-unanimous support, the U.S. stood alone in rejecting the proposal, citing its failure to address Hamas’s role in the conflict and Israel’s right to self-defense.
Details of the Resolution
The resolution was a comprehensive call for immediate action to address the dire situation in Gaza. It demanded an unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into the territory, emphasizing the need for unhindered access to deliver food, medical supplies, and other essential resources to a population facing starvation and disease. It also called for the restoration of vital services, including water, electricity, and healthcare, which have been severely disrupted by the ongoing conflict and Israeli restrictions on aid and infrastructure.
The resolution urged all parties involved in the conflict to comply with the proposed ceasefire, stressing that peace was essential to halting the violence and enabling humanitarian operations to proceed without fear of attacks. It underscored the importance of adherence to international humanitarian law, including the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, in the delivery of aid by the United Nations and its partners. The resolution further demanded that Israel lift all restrictions on humanitarian assistance, which have been a major obstacle to addressing the crisis in Gaza.
In addition to its focus on humanitarian aid, the resolution addressed the broader context of the conflict, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held in Gaza. It also emphasized the need for a lasting ceasefire to create conditions for dialogue and long-term peacebuilding efforts. The document was carefully worded to reflect the principles of international law and the UN Charter, aiming to balance the urgent need for humanitarian relief with the complexities of the political and security dynamics in the region.
The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
The resolution was driven by the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza, which has been described by UN officials and aid organizations as one of the worst crises in recent history. Nearly two years of relentless conflict have left Gaza’s infrastructure in ruins, with hospitals, schools, and residential areas heavily damaged or destroyed. The United Nations has confirmed a famine in parts of Gaza, with acute malnutrition affecting thousands of children and adults. The blockade and restrictions on aid have exacerbated the crisis, limiting access to food, clean water, and medical care.
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), over 1.9 million people—nearly 90% of Gaza’s population—have been displaced since the conflict escalated. Many are living in overcrowded shelters or makeshift camps with limited access to basic necessities. The destruction of water and sanitation systems has led to outbreaks of preventable diseases, while the collapse of the healthcare system has left many without access to life-saving treatment. The situation has been compounded by ongoing military operations, which have resulted in significant civilian casualties and further strained humanitarian efforts.
The resolution’s call for unrestricted aid delivery was seen as a critical step toward addressing these challenges. Humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières, have repeatedly warned that the restrictions on aid are a major barrier to providing relief. The resolution’s emphasis on restoring essential services, such as electricity and water, was also seen as vital to preventing further deterioration of living conditions in Gaza.
The Role of the Non-Permanent Members
The resolution was a collaborative effort by the Security Council’s ten non-permanent members, a group that represents diverse regions and perspectives. Algeria, a key advocate for Palestinian rights, played a leading role in drafting the resolution, working closely with other members to ensure broad support. Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia brought their unique perspectives to the table, reflecting the global concern over the situation in Gaza.
Speaking on behalf of the sponsoring nations before the vote, Denmark’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Christina Markus Lassen, underscored the urgency of the initiative. “We represent the will and expectations of the General Assembly members who elected us,” she said. “The catastrophic situation in Gaza is what drives us to act today.” Lassen highlighted the resolution’s focus on humanitarian aid and peacebuilding, arguing that an immediate ceasefire was essential to saving lives and creating conditions for dialogue.
Lassen’s remarks reflected the broader sentiment among the non-permanent members, who saw the resolution as a moral and legal imperative. The group worked tirelessly to build consensus, engaging in weeks of negotiations to craft a resolution that could garner widespread support. Their efforts were evident in the near-unanimous vote, with 14 of the 15 Security Council members backing the proposal.
After the U.S. veto, Lassen expressed disappointment but remained defiant, emphasizing the strong message sent by the majority of the Council. “Even though this resolution was not adopted today... 14 members of this Council have sent a clear message,” she said. “We want to see an immediate and lasting ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and the urgent lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid.” Her comments underscored the frustration felt by many members, who saw the veto as a setback to international efforts to address the crisis.
The Historic Context of the Veto
The veto came at a symbolically significant moment for the United Nations. The Republic of Korea’s ambassador, Sangjin Kim, who holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, noted that the meeting marked the 10,000th session in the Council’s history. The session also coincided with the 80th anniversary of the UN’s founding and the eve of the General Assembly’s high-level week, a period when world leaders gather to discuss global challenges.
Kim urged Council members to honor these milestones by fulfilling their mandate to maintain international peace and security. “This is a moment to reflect on the role of the Security Council in addressing the most pressing issues of our time,” he said. “The situation in Gaza demands our collective action, and we must rise to the challenge.” His remarks highlighted the tension between the UN’s lofty ideals and the realities of geopolitical divisions, particularly within the Security Council.
The Security Council, established under the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security, has long been criticized for its structure, which grants veto power to its five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. The veto power allows any one of these members to block a resolution, even if it has overwhelming support from the rest of the Council. The U.S. veto of the Gaza ceasefire resolution is the latest example of this power being used to shape outcomes in line with national interests, often at the expense of multilateral consensus.
The U.S. Position
The U.S. decision to veto the resolution was articulated by its representative, Morgan Ortagus, who described the proposal as “unacceptable” due to its failure to condemn Hamas or acknowledge Israel’s right to self-defense. “Hamas is responsible for starting and continuing this war,” Ortagus stated. “Israel has accepted the proposed terms that would end the war, but Hamas continues to reject them. This war could end today if Hamas freed the hostages and laid down its arms.”
The U.S. position reflects its long-standing support for Israel, a key ally in the Middle East. The Biden administration has consistently emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks by Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization. The U.S. has argued that any resolution addressing the conflict must explicitly address Hamas’s actions, including its role in initiating hostilities and holding hostages. In the view of U.S. officials, the resolution’s omission of these points made it one-sided and ineffective.
The U.S. has also expressed skepticism about the feasibility of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, arguing that such a move could undermine Israel’s security. Instead, the U.S. has advocated for a negotiated ceasefire that includes the release of hostages and guarantees for Israel’s safety. This stance has put the U.S. at odds with much of the international community, which has increasingly called for an end to the violence and the lifting of restrictions on humanitarian aid.
International Reactions
The U.S. veto has sparked widespread criticism, with many accusing the Biden administration of enabling the ongoing violence in Gaza. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, condemned the decision, arguing that it undermines international efforts to address the humanitarian crisis. “The U.S. veto sends a dangerous message that the suffering of civilians in Gaza is not a priority,” said an Amnesty International spokesperson. “This decision prolongs the agony of millions and erodes the credibility of the Security Council.”
Several countries expressed frustration with the U.S. position. Algeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Amar Bendjama, called the veto “a betrayal of the Palestinian people and a failure of the international community.” He argued that the resolution was a balanced and necessary step toward peace and urged the Council to continue pushing for a ceasefire. Other non-permanent members echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the need for collective action to address the crisis.
The veto has also reignited debates about the structure of the Security Council and the veto power of its permanent members. Critics argue that the veto system allows powerful nations to prioritize their geopolitical interests over the principles of international law and human rights. Calls for reform have grown louder in recent years, with many advocating for changes to limit the use of the veto in cases of humanitarian crises or mass atrocities.
The Broader Implications
The veto has far-reaching implications for the conflict in Gaza, the role of the United Nations, and the broader geopolitical landscape. In Gaza, the failure to secure a ceasefire means that the humanitarian crisis is likely to worsen, with more lives at risk from starvation, disease, and violence. Aid organizations have warned that the window to avert a catastrophic collapse is rapidly closing, and the veto has delayed critical efforts to deliver relief.
For the United Nations, the veto underscores the challenges of addressing complex conflicts in a polarized world. The Security Council’s inability to act decisively on Gaza has fueled perceptions that the body is ineffective in fulfilling its mandate. This perception could weaken the UN’s authority and embolden critics who argue that the organization is ill-equipped to handle modern conflicts.
Geopolitically, the veto reinforces the U.S.’s role as a staunch ally of Israel, a position that has strained relations with other countries, particularly in the Global South. Many nations view the U.S.’s repeated use of the veto as evidence of double standards, given its vocal support for human rights and international law in other contexts. The decision could also complicate U.S. efforts to build coalitions on other global issues, such as climate change and nuclear non-proliferation.
The Path Forward
Despite the veto, the international community remains committed to finding solutions to the crisis in Gaza. The non-permanent members of the Security Council have vowed to continue advocating for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, potentially through alternative channels such as the General Assembly or regional organizations. The General Assembly, which does not have veto power, could pass a non-binding resolution to reaffirm global support for a ceasefire, though such a move would carry less weight than a Security Council decision.
Humanitarian organizations are also intensifying their efforts to deliver aid, despite the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict and restrictions. The UN and its partners are exploring ways to work around the blockade, including negotiating with local authorities and leveraging international pressure to secure access. However, these efforts are unlikely to succeed without a broader political agreement to halt the violence.
The veto has also galvanized civil society and grassroots movements, with protests erupting in cities around the world to demand an end to the conflict. Activists are calling for greater accountability from governments and international institutions, as well as increased support for humanitarian initiatives in Gaza.
Conclusion
The U.S. veto of the UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza has deepened divisions within the international community and highlighted the challenges of addressing one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The resolution, backed by 14 of the 15 Council members, represented a rare moment of consensus on the need for urgent action to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. However, the U.S.’s decision to block it has underscored the limitations of the Security Council and the influence of geopolitical alliances on global governance.
As the conflict in Gaza continues to claim lives and exacerbate suffering, the international community faces a critical test of its ability to uphold the principles of humanity, justice, and peace. The veto may have delayed action, but the resolve of the non-permanent members, humanitarian organizations, and global citizens suggests that the fight for a ceasefire and relief for Gaza is far from over. The coming weeks and months will likely see renewed efforts to address the crisis, both within and outside the UN, as the world grapples with the moral and political imperatives of ending the violence and rebuilding hope for a region in despair.
