Why the US 'ceasefire' resolution failed at the UN

Yet another resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was turned down at the United Nations Security Council on Friday (22 March).

This time, however, what happened was somewhat unique. It was the  United States' turn to be denied from passing one  – which they drafted and tabled – that claims addressing a cease to Israeli invasion in Gaza. 

Criticisms came early, even before the draft was brought to the UNSC table, that this attempt would also fail because of how the US articulated their proposal – using puzzling jargon and evading a clear call for an "immediate ceasefire" in its language. 

Russia and China vetoed, as did Algeria. Guyana abstained from voting.

One may wonder if there is more to this – for instance, whether the souring relationship between Russia and the US propelled the former to halt the attempt. 

The build-up to the US 'ceasefire' resolution

Before the latest failed version, the US, Israel's key political and military ally, vetoed the 20 February 2024 draft by Algeria. (If anyone is keeping count, that was the US' third veto).

The latest US veto was because the resolution demanded an immediate ceasefire without ambiguity. The same day, they countered with their version which would seek a "temporary ceasefire." 

On 5 March, US President Joe Biden vowed for a ceasefire but suggested that the terms were "in the hands of Hamas." While Biden has been more critical than ever of Israel's far-right prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – especially on the looming unlawful Rafah evacuation – he did not back down from claiming that the Israelis were 'cooperating' in sending aid.

On 18 March, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan hinted at a six-week temporary ceasefire provided Hamas "just handed over the elderly, the women and the wounded." 

On 21 March, the US formally introduced its draft, which "determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides."  

It also "unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages."

The point to note was that the US sees an immediate "and sustained" ceasefire as 'imperative' meaning doing such would be highly recommended, but is not a 'must' – posing a loophole.

The resolution sounded typical when it rejected "any forced displacement of civilians in Gaza" and condemned "all acts of terrorism" that include Hamas's 7 October attacks, as well as "Israeli ministers for the resettlement of Gaza or demographic changes." 

Since the Israeli mulling of Palestine post-7 October, condemnations such as these have been frequent from the US, but added nothing new nor barred the Israeli government from running catastrophic operations in Gaza which, many noted, is genocidal and apartheid in nature. 

Why did it not work? 

Al Jazeera's Diplomatic Editor James Byes, upon receiving a copy of the resolution before the vote took place at the UNSC, doubted it would pass. He suggested that while it was "certainly the strongest language yet" by the US, it still lacked "demanding" a ceasefire but rather pointed to the 'importance' of a ceasefire. 

Such ambiguity in the language surely puts doubt on the intention of the US – whether it actually wants a ceasefire, or allows Israel to do its job while making sure the aids reach the Gazans. 

This is what Russia, China, and Algeria exactly aimed at. 

Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, at the UN, used very strong words when he criticised that the US was to "sell a product" through this draft by using words like 'imperative' in it.

Noting that there was no clarity in the text concerning an immediate ceasefire, he accused the US of "deliberately misleading the international community."

Nebenzia then argued that this resolution was more of a throwing a bone to the US voters amid the upcoming US election, and passing this would be a 'disgrace.'

China was equally critical in that the "Council has 'dragged its feet' over a clear and immediate ceasefire." China's Ambassador Zhang Jun urged for an "immediate and unconditional" ceasefire, and said that the US and UK's criticisms of China's veto were 'hypocritical.'

Algerian spokesperson Amar Bendjama said that this resolution would have 'green-signalled' the "continuing bloodshed." Guyana's representative Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, as the Guardian reported, expanded by saying that a ceasefire should not be linked to the hostage release, for "two wrongs cannot make a right."

The ambiguity in the proposal was so palpable that, as she explained, the occupying power was mentioned only once in the penultimate paragraph of a document spanning over 41 paragraphs.  

Language, or is there more?

Russia is known as a vocal proponent of a two-state solution and has maintained good ties with both of the parties. It is important to note that, unlike the US, Russia never labelled Hamas as a terrorist organisation – despite condemning its actions.  

On the other hand, Russia's tie with Israel dates back to decades. Before 7 October, Netanyahu touted their relationship on billboards with images of himself and Russian President Vladimir Putin shaking hands.

Recently, however, the tie might have somewhat loosened. On 10 December last year, the two had telephone conversations in which they not only disagreed over the Gaza attacks but strongly voiced their opinions to each other.  

It should be noted that amid the ongoing Russo-Ukraine conflict, relations between the US [and US allies] and Russia have probably been at their lowest point since 2022. Sanctions and bans forced Russia to seek partnerships with China and the Middle Eastern countries, Iran in particular. 

While this may or may not have incited Russia to veto, it is important to understand the context.

China, meanwhile, has maintained close business relationships with Israel - despite being perceived as a 'pro-Palestine' force since the era of Mao Zedong. She too has been vocal in implementing the two-state solution. 

After 7 October, while China condemned all forms of atrocities, she also called out the Western allies for fanning an already burning flame in Gaza and strongly opined for an unconditional, immediate ceasefire.

But as Rorry Daniels, managing director of the Asia Society Policy Institute, hinted during The Guardian interview – while verbal support takes no cost to offer, the goal of China may have been to keep a distance from any conflict that may spill over into their territory. 

Think tanks around the Global North believe that because China is too strongly tied to the West when it comes to businesses, for them it would be quite difficult to hit the sweet spot between proactively standing for Palestine and doing business as usual. 

Still, China's aspiration to become a formidable global power would always benefit from any chance she gets to geopolitically berate the US. Given there is allegedly an air of brewing 'anti-semitism' in China, a conflict surrounding Israel always gives her a leeway in doing so. 

What if it would have passed 

Not much may have changed, given how the US penned the resolution. First, it does not directly account Israel for the killing of 32,000 Palestinians and bulldozing or bombing thousands of buildings, hospitals, schools and beyond. 

Rather, the resolution links Israel's action to Hamas – which gives a very subtle validation of Israel's onslaught.   

The second is that the resolution has focused extensively on the diplomacy needed to bring Hamas and Israel under the same umbrella. But it does not necessarily illustrate what would happen in the meantime, or worse if the diplomacy failed.

Could this resolution propel reaching humanitarian aid? Could this make sure that the Israeli forces would not intercept aid  – as they have consistently in the recent past? 

There are doubts it could, thanks to the extent of its unclarity. More so, sending aid does not ensure a long-term sustainable solution. While it might have helped the Western hemisphere to recover some of its lost image before the world, an unconditional ceasefire is what must be the ultimate intent.