Non-Binding Resolutions

So the UN Security Council finally managed to pass a call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire. It would have been an immediate and permanent ceasefire, but the US insisted on changing that word because reasons. It passed with a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining. They did not veto this ceasefire demand, as they had previously on multiple occasions.

And then immediately afterwards, the whole State mechanism trotted out their latest insult to civilized society. Apparently, this Security Council resolution is "non-binding". Moreover - in an exchange with a reporter, Matt Miller stated quite clearly that not only did the US consider the UNSC resolution non-binding but also that the US had no expectations of Israel complying with it.

Anyways, this stupid claim is wrong. It's like Alina Habba levels of not understanding the law. Here is the UN Charter. And this is the text of Article 25:

Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

It's unambiguous. If you are a member of the UN, you have agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Therefore decisions made by the UNSC are binding on all member states. There's no exceptions or loopholes to this - if the UNSC passes a resolution, it is legally binding. All UN Member States have expressly agreed to it.

Well apparently, the US is relying on some weird bullshit argument that UNSC resolutions are only binding if Chapter VII is invoked. IOW, unless a UNSC resolution says anything about "Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression" - then it's not a real UNSC resolution. This is wrong. The International Court of Justice addressed this exact question back in 1971.

113. It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only [p 53] to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter.

IOW, current US understanding of international law is based on an obviously bullshit idea that has already been expressly rejected by the ICJ. The argument they are relying on has already been determined to be wrong. They are wrong on the facts of the case.

Now if it were only that - well it's been clear for quite some time that the US wants this genocide to continue. It's just amazing what they are willing to sacrifice to ensure that the damage to the people of Gaza is maximized. This "non-binding" bullshit is not merely factually incorrect - but it is also some amazing levels of the US damaging their own interests.

This attempt at trivializing UNSC resolutions directly undermines the UN and international law in general. These institutions have been incredibly friendly to US and Western interests. The UN is the body by which a lot of US foreign policy gets implemented around the world. Seriously, who thinks a weaker UN and a weaker UNSC benefits the USA? Apparently these fucking useless assholes at State. No wait - if those paste eating morons were useless, that would be a massive improvement. This is active harm, requiring substantial effort. Calling them useless is wrong - they are far worse than that.

Here's another point - over the years and multiple US vetoes at the Security Council, the concept of a "rules based system of order" had been strained. Countries outside of the clique were looking in and seeing hypocrisy and obvious double standards. And to be fair, it was not the US alone that was wielding its UNSC veto in inconsistent ways - but to be clear - it is mostly the US doing this. But what we have here is different. It's not the US vetoing a resolution - it is the US outright declaring that no UNSC resolutions have any force unless the US says they do. That they demand the power to veto UNSC resolutions without even having to exercise their veto. The "rules based" system apparently is Calvinball rules. So - what does this mean for US foreign policy? What does this mean for how the US engages with other nations, when the US says "international law is optional whenever we don't like what it says"?

And for what? What do they get from this? They could have just vetoed again - they seem to be more than happy to veto shit that is firmly supported by the rest of the world. Is it because these stupid morons think that this helps them. They think that they can now be seen as supporting an immediate ceasefire - the words being directed at them by the public, by other nations, by their own staffers, and by countless aid agencies around the world. Even though they did not even vote in favour of it. This of course is an incredibly stupid plan that will not work. The famine is still going to happen and Israel is not letting up at all on their military operations. Multiple members of the Israeli government have already come out condemning the resolution, implying that Biden is a Hamas flunkie, and clearly indicating that they have zero intention of complying. And the US is not only not doing anything about it - they are actively encouraging it by saying the resolution is "non-binding".

Maybe. Maybe that's it. They could be just stupid. But often in situations like this, you also have to consider "maybe they are evil". And maybe that's the plan here. The US knows that the War in Gaza is going to have to stop eventually - and they've said outright that it will be diplomatic pressure that will force the operations to cease. So what this whole "non-binding" charade is - it's an attempt to prolong the war. To obfuscate and confuse things - to invalidate international bodies to prevent them from being used as a mechanism to apply pressure. IOW, what Team Biden is after here - is for Israel to have more time to do as much damage as possible to the people of Gaza. I know that sounds crazy - but at some point, you have to acknowledge reality. And the reality is that Biden's actions - of not applying the influence he has to allow food and water deliveries but instead shipping more and more bombs and munitions - they have all pointed to his position being "MOAR WAR PLZ".