UN General Assembly Called Into Emergency Session on December 12 After U.S. Vetoes Security Council Gaza Ceasefire Resolution

This weekend Egypt and Mauritania invoked United Nations General Assembly resolution 377A in an attempt to override the United States’ December 8 veto on a proposal put forth by the Untied Arab Emirates for an immediate ceasefire of the war in Gaza and simultaneous release of all prisoners and hostages from both sides of the conflict. Every member of the Security Council supported the ceasefire except the U.S. and UK, both subservient to Israel. 

Resolution 377A is one of the oldest guiding elements of the rules and regulations which govern how the United Nations is supposed to operate. It describes a means for the United Nations General Assembly to take action when the UN Security Council remains deadlocked on an issue the UN members as a whole believe cannot remain in that state.

377A was proposed during the post-World-War-II era in which the Soviet Union had continued to veto a range of UN Security Council proposals which hoped to bring a similar pause in hostilities during the Korean War. The Soviet Union was one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council then, just as it is now in its current incarnation as the Russian Federation. Permanent members always have veto power. 

Then as now the remaining four permanent members of the UN Security Council were France, the United Kingdom, China, and the United States.

It was also true then, just as it is now, that a single permanent member of the UN Security Council has the power to block any proposed UN Security Council resolution. In 1950 as the Korean War raged on, the Soviet Union was the permanent member of the council which chose to block any resolution involving what to do about this new war which posed a fundamental threat to peace in a world just recovering from what was the most brutal global war in history.

To prevent such a deadlock in the future, UN General Assembly Article 377A was proposed and then debated for a full fourteen days. It was finally adopted on November 3, 1950. It passed then by a vote of 52 to 5, with two abstentions.

The full test of resolution 377A, also referred to as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, is as follows:

Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto, ...

Conscious that failure of the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities on behalf of all the Member States ... does not relieve Member States of their obligations or the United Nations of its responsibility under the Charter to maintain international peace and security,

Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security, ...

Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This is the resolution the nations of Egypt and Mauritania have come together to invoke as a way of getting past the ongoing insanity of allowing Israel’s U.S.-backed slaughter of now an estimated over 17,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 7, with thousands more missing and trapped under the rubble of bombed buildings. 

As of this writing, there has been no word as to how the UN General Assembly emergency session to be held on December 12 to discuss Article 377A will be managed.

It is also doubtful that, even if a new version of the U.A.E. ceasefire and prisoner release brought before the Security Council on December 8 is passed by this emergency session, either Israel or the United States will respect the authority of the UN in ordering it to happen. The General Assembly has already recently passed a ceasefire resolution, and numerous others over the past few decades, which have all been ignored by fascist Israel. 

What happens after that is up for grabs. Assuming the ceasefire is approved, and the architects of the Palestinian genocide in Gaza ignore the UN orders to comply, the UN General Assembly does have the authority to enforce its resolution by force. It will almost certain not do that.

But if it does not, what could happen by passing this will be the lighting of a fuse which could lead to the final collapse of the United Nations as an entity capable of carrying out the mission it was originally intended to fill. Passing the resolution could also light a different fuse, as nations outside of Israel who have been fed up with continued inaction to stop the war take matters into their own hands.

The best bet for ending the genocide may be to seek the assistance of other international bodies such as BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Council (SOC). They could admit Palestine as a member, pass their own security resolutions and then impose a safe zone in South Gaza. However, BRICS is more of a trade organization and its charter does not yet include security. SOC is a Eurasian political, economic, international security and defense organization established by China and Russia in 2001.

The main obstacle for both BRICS and SOC intervening is that Russia and China are benefiting from the genocide, because it is weakening the U.S. and Israel. They won't intercede until it in their interests to do so. 

Arab and Muslim nations are aiding and abetting the genocide with their inaction because their corrupt rulers value their wealth and luxury more than the lives of Palestinians. Most all of them have not even taken the simple step of boycotting Israel or imposing an oil embargo on Israel and its supporters. Ending Muslim support for the genocide doesn't mean starting WW III but it might mean a small economic hit for some nations, such as Turkey, which does more than $6 billion a year in trade with Israel.