Binding, not binding

Sorry, not sorry

The U.S. has offered up and maintains a stance that the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza — a resolution that passed without American participation — is “non-binding” and won’t change efforts for negotiations that are ongoing and unfolding outside of the Council. 

This stance is the U.S.’s way of saying that the vote didn’t count, that the Council was really a Mock Council in that moment. This is why the U.S. felt it could simply abstain: it would have injected gravity into the proceedings had it utilized its veto.

Indeed, the U.S. is saying, in effect, that the UNSC only appears to be democratic, but if it goes against the wishes of the U.S. it has no force, because the U.S. is the foundation of its legitimacy. Little else can be concluded from the import of Matt Miller’s remarks in Wednesday’s press briefing.

“With respect to this first resolution, it is our interpretation of this resolution that it is non-binding.”

“As I said, it’s a non-binding resolution.”

“I think that, separate and apart from this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is an immediate ceasefire and a release of hostages. I don’t know — I can’t say that this resolution’s going to have any impact on those negotiations. But those negotiations are ongoing. . . .”

The vote was pro forma, the Council nothing other than kids pantomiming at real life. It’s adorable, but now the grown-ups at the negotiating table can return to their back and forth.

The U.S. wants to make it so that it is as if the vote didn’t happen.

What is the U.S. communicating? It is saying that the UN has no power outside of what the U.S. grants it. It is saying it is above the Council — it precedes and supersedes it. It is saying it has the power to negate international law on its mere say-so or suggestion, that democratic methods don’t matter in the face of power. It’s truly a very ugly admission. 

Clearly, the UN needs to respond full-throatedly. This misrepresentation of the vote as “non-binding” is a challenge not only to the UNSC’s own authority but to the very idea of an international system of law. The U.S. means to sweep all of that aside — 75 years worth of an international rules-based system — all merely to protect what many see as its client state.