By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2024 – After nearly six months of a devastating war in Gaza, the UN Security Council has at last adopted a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The resolution calls for the ceasefire to come into effect for the month of Ramadan, demands the unconditional release of all hostages and ensures humanitarian access.

On Monday, resolution 2728 (2024) was passed with fourteen votes in favor, with only the United States abstaining from voting. The draft was presented by Mozambique’s Ambassador Pero Afonso on behalf of the ten elected members of the Council, or the E10. He noted that all members of the Council were mandated under the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security and that their “actions impact the entire international community.”

“The E10 has always respected the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as a fundamental step,” he said. “For this reason, and in respect for the holy month of Ramadan, we have proposed the present resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire during this sacred period, leading to a permanent and sustainable ceasefire.”

As noted by the representative of Korea, this resolution is the first text adopted that has been introduced by elected Council members on a regional agenda item. Members of the Council expressed the hope that this resolution would only be the first step towards a lasting peace and a more permanent end to the war in Gaza, wherein efforts to send in humanitarian aid and rebuild the state could proceed without interruption.

E10 speaking at the security council stakeout after the humanitarian ceasefire resolution.

“We delivered the strongest signal thus far: we demand an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, leading to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire,” said the representative from Slovenia. “It is a call we have all been desperate to hear from the council. A short and focused resolution is the firm sign from the council that this conflict must stop.”

“An immediate ceasefire is a priority step, but it is only the first step, given the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza,” said the representative of Switzerland.

The representative of Guyana noted that women and children have been disproportionately affected by the war, with pregnant and lactating women and children being the most vulnerable to the risk of famine and malnutrition. She added that the hostages’ families were “in anguish” as there seemed no clear prospect of their loved ones’ return. “After more than five months of utter terror and destruction, a ceasefire is the difference between life and death for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and others.”

The resolution also acknowledged the diplomatic efforts of Egypt, Qatar, and the United States to reach an agreement between the parties involved.

The United States’ decision to abstain from voting was a signal of the mounting pressure from the international community as the threat of famine looms over Gaza and the toll of devastation continues to rise. It also signals the Biden administration’s growing frustration with Israeli leaders’ lack of cooperation. US Ambassador Linda Thompson-Green stated that support for the objectives of the resolution was “not simply rhetorical.”

“We’re working around the clock on the ground through diplomacy because we know that it is only through diplomacy that we can push this agenda forward,” she said in her statement to the Security Council. They would support “some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution.”

Thompson-Green also added that the US delegation disagreed on some points, such as a lack of condemnation of Hamas for the October 7 attacks.

The United States has previously used their veto on three separate occasions to vote down ceasefire resolutions introduced since the beginning of the current conflict. The most recent instance was in February, when Algeria presented a draft resolution. It was following this session that the US delegation announced that they would put forward their own resolution for a humanitarian ceasefire and would allow for the safe return of all hostages, as well as a direct condemnation of Hamas. When the time came for the US resolution to be voted on earlier in March, it failed to pass when both China and Russia used their veto.

Speaking at the Security Council, Riyad Al Mansour, the permanent observer of the State of Palestine, remarked that the international response to Israel’s involvement since October 7 should be one that “enforces consequences for these crimes”.

“Accepting any justification for such crimes is renouncing our humanity and destroying the rule of international law beyond repair,” he said.

For Palestinians, the ceasefire resolution had to signal a turning point.

“This must lead to saving lives on the ground. This must signal the end of this assault of atrocities against our people. Save the lives of those who survived against all odds. Tell them help is on the way. End this injustice; end it now. All of this is long overdue.”

Once the meeting had adjourned, Afonso, representing the E10 Group, told reporters that resolutions passed by the Security Council were binding and mandatory. “Every member state is under the obligation to implement those measures,” he said.

Mansour also reiterated this, adding: “If Israel is not going to implement it, then it is the duty of the Security Council to use Chapter 7 to take punitive measures in order to make them obey the measure of the Security Council.”

Beyond the Security Council, the response to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the resolution “must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.”

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini expressed his thanks to the Secretary-General for his support of UNRWA and the people of Palestine. On the matter of the Security Council resolution, he said on Twitter: “We now hope for its implementation so that people in Gaza [and the] region can finally get some respite and  the peace they all aspire to.”

Human Rights Watch’s UN Director Louis Charbonneau said in a statement: “Israel needs to immediately respond to the UN Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza’s population, and halting unlawful attacks. Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage. The US and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel.” 

Israel’s response to the resolution so far does not suggest that they will respect the Security Council’s decision. Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan expressed disappointment that while the Council has previously condemned terrorist attacks, including the most recent attacks that occurred in Moscow over the weekend, it had not condemned Hamas for October 7, the events of which he described as “the most wide-spread and barbaric massacre suffered by the Jewish people since the Holocaust.”

He remarked that the resolution’s denouncement of the taking of hostages was “what should have been the driving moral force.”

He added that the Council should “not settle for words but take action” when it comes to ensuring the return of hostages. “It is unfathomable that when it comes to hostages, we still only see inaction. Yet when it comes to the situation in Gaza, the Council rushed to take action.”

It was also announced that Prime Minister Netanyahu canceled a planned trip to Washington, D.C., shortly after the Council resolution was adopted. This was in response to what was perceived as the US shifting its position, which would affect war efforts against Hamas and its efforts to rescue the hostages.

As binding international law, the Security Council’s decision should be respected, and it must not be held back from implementing its measures at any cost. The limited time of the remaining weeks of Ramadan should urge the Security Council and other enforcers of international law to implement a more lasting, if not permanent, ceasefire.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2024 – The UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution for a temporary cease-fire in the ongoing conflict in Gaza— adopted by a 14-0 vote with the US abstaining –- marks a significant step forward in momentarily halting the five-month-old fighting which has claimed the lives of over 32,000 Palestinians and 1,200 inside Israel.

But a lingering question remains: how will Israel respond?

Clearly, Israel has had a longstanding notoriety for flouting UNSC resolutions —and still never having to pay a price for such violations—primarily because of the unyielding support of the United States.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively and authoritatively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “By my count, Israel has initially stood in violation of as many as 40 UN Security Council resolutions for at least a decade following their passage, though they eventually came into compliance with about a dozen of those. They remain in violation of the others”.

Successive U.S. administrations, including the Biden administration, have made clear they would veto any UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions or any other kind of pressure to force Israel into compliance, he said.

While it is certainly a positive development that the Biden administration did not veto Monday’s Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire as it has previously, the United States again demonstrated its isolation in the international community by being the only country to not vote in favor.

The Biden administration threatened to veto the original draft resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire, only agreeing to not cast a veto in return for dropping the word “permanent.”

White House spokesperson John Kirby said the United States did not vote in favor because the resolution did not condemn Hamas, despite the fact that it did not condemn Israel either.

The wording of the various clauses which the Biden administration also apparently demanded are revealing: While it “demands” that Hamas release the hostages, the United States made sure that the resolution only “emphasizes the urgent need” to get desperately-needed aid to Palestinians and that it did not mention that it is Israel that is preventing it, said Dr Zunes, currently Torgny Segerstedt Visiting Research Professor, at the Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

At the same time, even though the ceasefire resolution, if honored, would only stop the fighting for two weeks, it is significant that the United States allowed for even a temporary ceasefire resolution to pass without conditioning it on the release of Israeli hostages, he noted.

“This is no doubt a reflection of the growing domestic and international pressure the Biden administration has been facing over its support for Israel’s horrific war on the people of Gaza.

Whatever the wording of the resolution, however, it is unlikely that Israel will abide by it and the United States would certainly veto any attempt by the United Nations to enforce it,” he declared.

Oxfam’s UN Representative and Head of New York Office Brenda Mofya said: “We welcome the Security Council’s adoption of a ceasefire resolution so Palestinians in Gaza can have much-needed respite from the relentless and devastating Israeli violence and critical aid can reach them”.

However, this resolution, while a step in the right direction, falls short of the permanent ceasefire which is truly required and comes too late for the over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza that have been killed, and thousands more unaccounted for, while the Security Council wrung its hands over semantics, she argued.

“For nearly six months, the rest of the international community has repeatedly called for a permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the provision of unrestricted aid into Gaza. It is long overdue for UN Security Council Member States to finally heed these calls with the moral leadership that is rightfully expected of them and to stop the killing and suffering in Gaza.

“Now this resolution has passed, it is imperative for Member States to fulfil their obligations to ensure that it is implemented so that Palestinians never endure violence such as this again. This includes immediately halting the transfer of weapons, parts, and ammunition to Israel and Palestinian armed groups,” she said.

“A mere two-week pause is not enough. This initial cessation in violence must lead to a permanent ceasefire that lasts and a sustainable peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike, so people in Gaza can mourn their loved ones and begin the long road of recovery and reconstruction,” declared Mofya.

Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch said Israel needs to immediately respond to the UN Security Council resolution by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza’s population, and halting unlawful attacks.

Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage. The US and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel, said Charbonneau.

In a statement issued on March 25, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US abstention on the Security Council resolution comes on the heels of the Russian and Chinese veto “of our comprehensive draft resolution in the Council, reaffirms the U.S. position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza”.

“While we do not agree with all provisions included in this text, adjustments made by the resolution’s sponsors over recent days are consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with text on the release of the hostages”, he said.

This resolution further explicitly recognizes the painstaking, non-stop negotiations being conducted by the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the United States to achieve such a release in the context of a ceasefire, which would also create space to surge more lifesaving humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians, and to build something more enduring.

“Because the final text does not have key language we view as essential, notably a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it. This failure to condemn Hamas is particularly difficult to understand coming days after the world once again witnessed the horrific acts terrorist groups commit,” Blinken said.

“We reiterate the need to accelerate and sustain the provision of humanitarian assistance through all available routes – land, sea, and air. We continue to discuss with partners a pathway to the establishment of a Palestinian state with real security guarantees for Israel to establish long-term peace and security,” he declared.

Nihal Awad, National Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the Biden administration’s long overdue decision to permit the passage of a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire “will only be impactful if our government takes concrete steps to support it.”

The far-right Netanyahu government is already flouting the resolution and promising to continue its genocide in Gaza. The Biden administration should respond by ending the transfer of any new weapons to the Israeli government and taking steps to pursue a just, lasting peace, he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Roshmi Goswami and P. Saravanamuttu
THIMPHU, Bhutan, Mar 26 2024 – South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), a regional network of human rights defenders, has called on the Government of Bhutan to release the political prisoners it has detained for decades.

SAHR made the call on the occasion of the 16th World Social Forum (WSF) held in Nepal recently, where a session was organised on ‘Bhutan’s Prisoners of Conscience’.

The session drew attention to the expulsion of Bhutanese citizens of Nepali origin, also known as Lhotshampas, which started in the late 1980’s into the early 1990’s. While the situation of the Lhotshampa refugees was relatively well known, the reality of political prisoners, many of whom have spent more than 30 years in Chamjang Jail, has only recently been reported. Further, there are also significant numbers of disappeared citizens of Bhutan about whom not much is known.

While at present Bhutan puts up a front of a country high on the Gross National Happiness index, it hides the sufferings of the Lhotshampas who were strategically expelled, made stateless, and also detained as prisoners categorised as ‘non-nationals’ or ‘anti-nationals’.

These Prisoners of Conscience are held in prison for their expressions of political beliefs or identity assertion, while others have been framed. Different international human rights organisations have recognised 50-100 people still held as political prisoners in Bhutan, without trials or cases being brought, with 37 kept in Chamgang Jail.

Bhutan as a country moved towards democracy from absolute monarchy in 2008 with the promulgation of the Constitution. However, in many respects the country has remained autocratic, and successive kings have held ultimate power even as the state security establishment cracked down on Lhotshampa activists who demanded democracy and an end to discriminatory policies, including that of Driglam Namza, which called for cultural purity tied to the ‘Drukpa’ community.

Some of the incarcerated Lhotshampa were arrested in the early 1990s and have been detained for nearly 43 years. Different human rights organisations at various times have made efforts for the release of the political prisoners, without success.

The ultimate power for release of the political prisoners lies at present with King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and SAHR believes that he should personally be held accountable for the continued incarcerations.

SAHR believes that Bhutan’s progression towards a democratic state, where the citizenry is truly ‘happy’ and content, requires the release of the prisoners of conscience. SAHR further calls on the international community, including Nepal as the host country of refugees and India as a country that has not done its bit on the refugee issue being the land neighbour of Bhutan and with deep links to the Bhutanese state, to work to persuade Bhutan to take back the refugees who have refused to take the option of third-country settlement. These Lhotshampa refugees languish in the camps of Southeast Nepal, maintaining a principled stand on their ‘right of return’.

SAHR is also concerned that the remaining several thousand refugees in southeast Nepal are now without support of international organisations such as UNHCR and WFP. Similarly, the Government of Nepal has disbanded the refugee camps, and it has also become difficult for the refugees to move about and lead normal lives.

SAHR demands that the Government of Nepal as well as international organisations re-engage with Bhutanese refugees and provide support and security to the refugees still in Nepal.

SAHR notes that the lives of the refugees have been made more complicated by the scam involving top-level Nepali politicians and officials involved in providing Nepali citizens with fake certificates as Bhutanese refugees to make fraudulent income with the promise to get them settled in third countries.

The exposure of this scam has, through no fault of their own, made the refugees in Nepal more vulnerable to neglect and delays on the hands of the host country’s officialdom.

Further, SAHR demands the following of and on behalf of Bhutan’s prisoners of conscience as well as refugees:

• While the majority of the Lhotshampa refugees have been provided a third country resettlement, this does not undermine their entitlement to right of return to Bhutan, which they consider as their homeland.
• The Government of Nepal should provide for the needs of the refugees who are currently restricted to live in camps, including the issuance of travel documentation, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates and refugee ID card renewals which facilitate their rights and entitlements within Nepal.
• The Lhotshampa refugees in Nepal have the right to decent living and quality of life, for which they should have the right to work.
• The scam in Nepal regarding the creation of fake refugees of Nepali citizens should be impartially investigated and the perpetrators duly brought to justice, while the refugees themselves should not be made subject to further discrimination as a result of the racket.

Dr. Roshmi Goswami is Co-Chairperson, South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR); Dr. P. Saravanamuttu is Bureau Member, SAHR

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Marty Logan
KATHMANDU, Mar 26 2024 – Before COVID-19 hit, in January 2020, 388 million children worldwide were being fed every day at school. Soon after lockdowns began, that number plummeted to 18 million, but just two years later, in 2022, it had recovered, and more — school feeding had reached 420 million children.

Labelled the world’s largest social security net by the United Nations World Food Programme, school meals have become essential tools for governments rich and poor globally. Not only does school feeding allow once-hungry students to focus on learning, in many cases the schemes also help to improve nutrition and eating habits, ensure regular attendance, and through buying ingredients locally or in-country, help to boost local and national economies.

Today’s guest, Donald Bundy, is Director of the Global Research Consortium for School Health and Nutrition. He told me that he is not surprised at the swift recovery of school meals after COVID-19 — he says it was politically expedient for many governments to bring them back quickly. What he didn’t predict was that the recovery would surpass pre-pandemic numbers, even as governments north and south struggled to overcome barriers such as broken supply chains, growing inequality, and persistent inflation.

Bundy points out that school feeding is not an initiative of aid agencies or donor governments. In fact, 98% of the programmes are financed by national governments as investments in their people and future workforce.

We also discuss how countries in the global south, such as Brazil, India and Rwanda, are breaking ground for innovative school feeding while outlier northern countries, such as Canada and Norway, are starting to discuss whether it’s time to adopt national programmes. Bundy also explains how fallout from the pandemic pushed lawmakers in the United States to adopt school meals schemes which led to universal initiatives that feed all students in some of the country’s largest cities, like Houston, New York and Washington, DC.

Resources

• Global Research Consortium for School Health and Nutrition
• School Meals Coalition
• School Feeding Is Now the World’s Largest Social Safety Net – IPS News article