Sameera Casmod | sameerac@radioislam.co.za
13 December 2023 | 15:31 CAT
2-min read

Picture: United Nations

In the wake of the recent US veto on a proposed UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, discussions have emerged on navigating around such vetoes by permanent security council members. Yasmin Sooka, a member of the Board of the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa, discussed UN Resolution 377A, also known as Uniting for Peace, which was invoked by Egypt and Mauritania.

Resolution 377A

Sooka explained that Resolution 377A is a UN General Assembly resolution invoked in emergency situations where the UN struggles to fulfil its primary responsibility for international peace and security.

Recently invoked by Egypt and Mauritania after a security council resolution was vetoed by the US and the UK, this resolution allows the secretary general to convene an emergency session of the general assembly within 24 hours.

On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly met in an Emergency Special Session. The resolution, which demands an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, was adopted by member states, according to the UN. The resolution was passed with a majority of 153 in favour and 10 against. Sooka noted that the 23 abstentions are likely to come under scrutiny.

The role of the resolution in ending the genocide

Sooka explained that while the resolution is influential and can establish a UN emergency force to monitor and neutralise conflicts, it is not legally binding on nations.

“… One of the challenges, of course, is that the United States is quite openly opposed to a ceasefire, and, in fact, agree with ‘Israel’ that there won’t be any ceasefire until Hamas is destroyed completely. And the reason ‘Israel’ can act with such impunity and commit the kind of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which many people are calling a genocide, is because it enjoys impunity. And this is because the US gives it weapons and openly supports it,” Sooka explained.

Historical context

The interview touched upon the historical use of Resolution 377A during events like the Korean War and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. However, the contemporary geopolitical landscape, with the power of veto-wielding permanent members, presents significant hurdles in the security council.

Implications for ceasefire in Gaza

Sooka explained that the UN General Assembly is a UN emergency court and does not work like a peacekeeping force. For the resolution to work, ‘Israel’ would have to agree to a ceasefire, agree to remove its occupying forces from Gaza and the West Bank, and Hamas would probably have to release the detainees. The general assembly cannot enforce the resolution.

Listen to the full interview on Sabaahul Muslim with Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat.