Trump’s 20- point plan for Gaza: “Mother of all Resolutions”

The Security Council resolution 2803, adopted on November 17, 2025 by which the Security Council endorsed President Trump’s 20- point plan for Gaza by the creation of an international stabilization mechanism, which goes beyond the Charter provisions for keeping the peace is being called a second “Mother of all Resolutions”. Like its predecessor, Resolution 681(1991) on Iraq, it virtually rewrote the UN Charter without a cumbersome process for amendments prescribed in the Charter. Although the new mechanism is stated to be a pathway to Palestinian self- determination and statehood, if certain targets are met, entrusting the supreme control of Gaza to an external Board of Peace under the Chairmanship of the US President goes beyond the framework of the UN Charter for peace keeping, peacemaking and peace building. The resolution, which enjoys the support of thirteen members with China and Russia abstaining, virtually amends many provisions of the Charter. Several issues relating to the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland remain unresolved and peace has not been restored in Gaza. The root causes of the conflict such as Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories identified by the UN, racial segregation and genocide will be beyond the purview of the Board of Peace as the focus will be on security in the immediate future. As of now, the ceasefire is fragile even after the acceptance of the Plan by the Security Council.

While Resolution 2803 is innovative and security oriented, the peace process has to return to the principles of the Charter to establish durable peace in the world. Such amendments of the Charter by stealth may be a necessity, but it will only weaken the UN and the international system as a new world order emerges.

It appears that the architects of the UN wanted the Charter to be cast in stone and made any amendment difficult by prescribing a cumbersome procedure which involves unanimity of the permanent members and a two thirds majority of the General Assembly and ratification by the legislative processes of the member states. Consequently, the Charter has been amended only a few times primarily to increase the size of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. The Charter, therefore, still has several anomalies which have not been removed to allow sleeping dogs lie. Why go through the risky amendment rigmarole in cases where there is a general understanding on contentious issues, when the matter can be resolved by practice? The situation may befuddle new readers of the Charter, but they too will understand the reasons for lack of clarity in certain cases.

A major anomaly that surprises every new intelligent reader of the Charter is that the list of the permanent members in Article 23 still contains a country, which does not exist in the world, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and not the Russian Federation, the name which appears in the UN documents. With the possibility of every former Republic claiming to be a successor to the USSR, the Russian President informed the Secretary General that the Russian Federation would continue the membership of the UN, including its permanent seat on the Security Council, and would maintain full responsibility for the rights and obligations under the Charter. Quite obviously, it was the result of intense discussion among the permanent members and others. The other diplomats were aware that intense discussions were taking place, but it was a big surprise when, on a fine morning, the USSR flag was replaced by the Russian flag and the name was changed to Russian Federation. This was a pragmatic way to deal with a major issue, but it remains an anomaly in the Charter. Many “babes in the woods” diplomats may have raised questions, but the quiet settlement of this issue has remained unchallenged till now.

Another anomaly that exists is the name of China, which is called the Republic of China though the seat was transferred to the People’s Republic of China by a General Assembly resolution in 1971. In other words, it is not unusual for legal anomalies to be retained in the Charter to avoid the arduous process of amendment when there is a political consensus, forced or otherwise.

Even more politically sensitive is the existence of the word, “enemy states’ defined as any state which during the Second World War has been “an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter” in some Articles. These are major powers of today like Germany, Japan and Italy, which are major pillars of the United Nations. This essentially validates post war actions of the victors of the Second World War, but the reference has been allowed to become obsolete. An amendment in this case is possible and desirable, but it remains as a sleeping dog in the Charter for fear that any move to retain the words would open a Pandora’s Box.

In more recent times, ways have been found by the great powers, particularly the permanent members, to amend the Charter by stealth. By this method, the text of the Charter remains unchanged, but by a process of adopting resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the fundamental provisions of the Charter are altered. This happens to tackle a particular problem for which the Charter has no answer and the veto becomes an obstacle.

An important milestone was the Security Council resolution 681, adopted on April 3, 1991, which has come to be known as the “Mother of all resolutions”. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait turned international opinion against Iraq and the United Nations waged a war under the leadership of the United States, which demanded alterations of the concepts like sovereignty of nations, non-interference and right to self -defense. As a non-permanent member of the Security Council, India witnessed and even supported a doctrine, which contradicted many provisions of the Charter. Iraq had to unconditionally accept the destruction and removal of all weapons of Mass Destruction even after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council established a mechanism for future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance. Iraq’s oil was sold by a UN mechanism, which used the proceeds only for purchasing food and medicines for the people of Iraq. Such a regime was accepted by the Security Council without amending the Charter. India had held the view that disarmament was not a responsibility of the Security Council, but it had to resort to express a reservation on the related resolution. This set a precedent for the Security Council to act similarly in other situations without an amendment of the Charter.

The formal endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the international community in 2005 was another example of the UN creating a new framework to intervene in humanitarian situations when the country concerned is unable to protect its own people. The R2P doctrine is now an established commitment, but its implementation may lead to violations of the Charter.

A way to amend the UN Charter through the adoption of Security Council decisions may be desirable to remove the anomalies in the 80 years old document. Since the Security Council Resolutions are binding on all members of the UN, it may be considered legitimate. But the great powers will accept only those changes which make them more powerful and not dilute or eliminate the veto provisions, which have made the UN paralyzed over the years.