The United States has circulated to other members of the United Nations Security Council a draft resolution on the immediate and, implicitly, long-term future of Gaza with the purpose of implementing the decisions and recommendations of the emergency summit that met in Sharm el-Sheikh on bringing about a ceasefire in the Israeli war on Gaza and containing some of the elements of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan on ending it.

It is tempting to permit myself some satisfaction because I had said, in an article published in an Indian newspaper on January 26, 2024, the following: “In this writer’s view, the United Nations will have to be an indispensable part of any solution, Israel’s allergy to the international organisation notwithstanding.”

Both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, who have been severe critics of the United Nations, have felt compelled to seek the mandate for their proposal from it. They have implicitly realised that the rest of the international community will simply not agree to anything without United Nations authorisation – can there be a better vindication of the indispensability of the United Nations?

The American draft is a ‘mother of all resolutions’. Though the number of paragraphs is small, each one is equivalent to four or five paragraphs in length. It is clearly a peace enforcement resolution as opposed to a peacekeeping one. Hence, it falls squarely under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, specifically under Article 42 thereof. This also means that all United Nations members would be obliged under the Charter to respect and implement its demands. The King of Jordan has been reported as having stated that no country would be prepared to be a part of peace enforcement since its forces might encounter armed confrontation with the parties to the conflict.

Most of the provisions of the draft are contentious. For example, it seeks to welcome the establishment of the Board of Peace (BoP) with an extremely broad, almost open-ended mandate, without specifying how it will be established, how many members it will have, who will select them, and so on. It would authorise the BoP as well as its members to exercise unlimited power to enforce the implementation of the comprehensive plan.

In addition, the implementation will be selective, with nary a reference to the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The draft resolution would authorise the BoP to establish a temporary ‘International Stabilisation Force’ (ISF) that would be deployed in the Gaza Strip under the ‘unified command’ acceptable to the BoP. (It hardly needs mentioning that BoP essentially is a reference to President Trump.)

The ISF forces will be contributed by participating states in consultation with Egypt and Israel. It will have the authority to use ‘all necessary measures’, in other words to use force, to carry out its mandate. It will help stabilise the security environment along the borders, including the ‘demilitarisation’ of the Gaza Strip and the destruction and prevention of the rebuilding of military forces, terror and offensive infrastructure as well as the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed forces.

In terms of the American draft, the mandate of the BoP and the ISF will last until December 31, 2027. The standard validity of any force set up by the Security Council is one year so that member states have the opportunity to monitor its functioning.

All in all, the draft is going to be subjected to prolonged negotiations among the Security Council members, particularly the five permanent members. The welcoming of "the truly historic" Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity might not be welcome to some of the P-5. Any enforcement resolution can only be under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and this has to be mentioned in the resolution, although the concerned Article need not be specified.

Which countries will want to contribute forces with the kind of mandate envisaged in the draft? What will be the size of the ISF whose command will essentially rest with the United States? The troop contributors will have to be approved by Egypt and Israel. The latter has already announced that Turkey’s participation will not be acceptable to it. If the King of Jordan maintains his position of non-participation in a peace enforcement operation, the contribution of Arab and Muslim countries cannot be assumed. However, Trump, with all the authority that he claims and wields, and the ever-available threats of sanctions, can be expected to cajole and compel some countries to come forward with their offers to be a part of the ISF.

Pakistan would surely be asked to contribute to the ISF. Given the strong anti-Israel sentiment among the people of Pakistan, would its government be willing to comply with Trump’s wish? Can it afford not to?

India might be approached to contribute to the ISF. Given the government’s keenness to play a role internationally, it might be tempted to agree but would do well to respect the warning of the King of Jordan. Since Hamas is not going to voluntarily give up its weapons, force will have to be used by the ISF. Would India be willing to be involved in it? India has never participated in any peacekeeping operation unless the command of the force remained with the United Nations.

The proceedings at the United Nations in the next few weeks will be interesting to follow.

Chinmaya Gharekhan is a former diplomat and was India's Permanent Representative at the United Nations.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.