News

Israel-Gaza war: why did Pacific nations side with US on UN ceasefire vote while some allies sought ‘daylight’?

[ad_1]

Two contrasting patterns of voting emerged among the United States’ Asia-Pacific partners over a United Nations resolution on the Israel-Gaza war – reflecting what analysts have interpreted as the desire of some US allies to put an “increasing amount of daylight” between themselves and Washington, even as a handful of Pacific nations backed its pro-Israel stance.
The nonbinding resolution, which was drafted by 22 Arab countries and calls for an immediate humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on Friday by a vote of 120 to 14 with 45 abstentions.
Among the countries that voted against a ceasefire were Israel and the US, joined by Fiji, Tonga, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
US President Joe Biden (centre) poses for a photo with Pacific island leaders at the US- Pacific Island Country Summit in September last year. Photo: Reuters

Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, in particular, have a history of aligning with the US at the UN, and some have suggested that this is due to their “Compacts of Free Association” with Washington, but more importantly, because also of the American aid they receive. The US has committed a total of US$7.1 billion to the three nations over the next 20 years, Reuters reported in May. Palau abstained from the October 27 vote.

Frank Bainimarama, Fiji’s former prime minister who lost power in December after 16 years in charge, criticised his country’s decision to vote against the resolution, telling New Zealand media it “did not reflect the view of most Fijians” and flew in the face of the nation’s traditional commitments to building and maintaining peace.
Other Pacific states, including New Zealand and Solomon Islands, gave the resolution their backing, which “suggests a limit to American influence on the Middle East security situation in that part of the world”, said Marc Lanteigne, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of Tromso in Norway.

To Israel and the West, Hamas are terrorists. But for Malaysia?

There is, he said, an “increasing amount of daylight between Washington and its Asia-Pacific partners over how best to stop this conflict”.

A number of US allies in the region, including Australia, India, Japan, and the Philippines, were also among the countries that abstained – citing the resolution’s failure to condemn Hamas for its October 7 attack that led to the deaths of more than 1,400 people in Israel.

In the weeks since, more than 8,300 people have been killed in Gaza – including over 3,400 children – and tens of thousands have been injured, according to the latest UN figures and data from Gaza’s health ministry.

The escalating death toll and destruction has heightened international support for a humanitarian truce to get desperately needed food, water, medicine and fuel to the more than 2 million people still in Gaza – with Friday’s nonbinding resolution serving as an unmistakable barometer of global opinion.

The American government’s stance on a ceasefire has hurt US credibility and moral standing

Marc Lanteigne, international-relations professor
Yet Washington, under Joe Biden, has continued to throw its weight fully behind Israel, with Lanteigne noting that the US served as the “lone veto” against a UN Security Council resolution a fortnight ago that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” in the fighting.
“Despite the international outcry, the Biden government has been wary in the face of calls for a humanitarian ceasefire,” he said, adding that there were parallels to be drawn between the current conflict in the Middle East and the war Ukraine, which “also saw differences between the US and some Asia-Pacific states over responses”.

Lanteigne said the divisions reflect concerns about whether “American foreign policy reflects the current global security situation”, even with Washington’s frequent calls for a “rules-based international order” to be upheld.

“The American government’s stance on a ceasefire has hurt US credibility and moral standing, not only in the Asia-Pacific but also in Europe and other parts of the world,” he said, further noting the growing calls for clarity on how Washington is seeking an end to the fighting between Israel and Hamas, given concerns that the conflict will escalate and spread to other parts of the Middle East.

Smoke rises from an Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip on Monday. Photo: AFP

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said on Sunday that it was “ultimately” up to Israel how the war would play out, in spite of the fact that the Israeli government has intensified its operations in Gaza without a clear military objective – apart from the eradication of Hamas.

Ian Hall, an international-relations professor at Australia’s Griffith University, said many Asian states had long been reluctant to vote in favour of UN resolutions directly criticising human-rights issues, out of concern that they might come in for similar criticism in future.

“Values-based foreign policies often appeal to electorates in democratic states, but they are hard to implement,” Hall said, adding that international relations inevitably involve some trade-offs between values and interests, especially national-security interests.

Chong Ja Ian, a political scientist at the National University of Singapore, said he would not read too much into the votes of the US’ regional partners on the Israel-Gaza war resolution as it had long been an issue on which states adopted different positions, in part due to domestic political considerations.

“Given the unique relationship between the US and Israel, [Washington’s] position has been relatively distinct for some time,” Chong said, adding that if there was a challenge to US value-based diplomacy, it was when it appeared to “find excuses for Israel’s excesses”.

‘Toxic’ narratives over Israel-Gaza war open deep divisions in the West

Washington has called for restraint and proportionality in Israel’s retaliatory actions while pressing for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza and backing a two-state solution – one in which Israel would coexist with an independent Palestinian state – even as it supports Israel’s right to self-defence.

“This is a difficult position to hold to be sure, but it remains to be seen if US policy toward the [Israel-Gaza] conflict spills over into other areas,” Chong said.

Efforts towards finding a two-state solution have been on the back burner for almost a decade, ever since the last US-led effort at peace talks collapsed in 2014 amid disagreements on Israeli settlements, the release of Palestinian prisoners and other issues.

[ad_2]

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button