Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

US Veto Could Derail Palestine as New U.N. Member State

The United States, in the face of global opposition, looks likely to veto a possible UN resolution recognizing Palestine as an independent country.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

If the General Assembly is called upon to recognise Palestine as a new sovereign nation state, the resolution is expected to garner the required two-thirds majority among the 192 members in the world body, come September.

But a single veto in the 15-member Security Council – most likely by the United States – will derail Palestine's membership in the United Nations, even if the Palestinians are able to muster the required nine votes in the Council.

The administration of President Barack Obama has not only hinted about a possible veto but is also lobbying European countries, urging them not to vote for the resolution when it comes up before the General Assembly in September.

Medea Benjamin, a political activist and co-founder of the women's anti-war group Code Pink, told IPS, "Given that the position of the Obama administration is that there should be a sovereign Palestinian state, it makes no sense to try to block a resolution on statehood, if it comes up at the United Nations this fall."

She said it will show the absurd reality that U.S. policy not only runs counter to the sentiment of the majority of the world, but also runs counter to its own policy.

"We saw this same phenomena when the U.S. vetoed the U.N. resolution condemning Israel for the continued building of settlements – a veto that ran counter to the stated U.S. policy calling on Israel to stop building settlements," she pointed out.

The Obama administration should not lobby the Europeans to vote against this resolution, she said. On the contrary, the U.S. should support it, said Benjamin, a leader of an international peace movement and co-founder of the San Francisco-based Global Exchange which advocates fair trade.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last month, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, said: "We will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations."

As of now, France and Britain, two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, have hinted they will vote for the resolution.

China and Russia, the other two permanent members, are also expected to exercise a positive vote.

Mouin Rabbani, contributing editor to the Washington-based Middle East Report, told IPS while there is as yet no clear indication that European states have thrown their support behind the Palestinian initiative to seek U.N. recognition for Palestinian statehood in September, a serious discussion about this has started, and there have been growing signs that key EU states, such as France, might endorse it.

"This would constitute a body blow to continued U.S. hegemony of conflict management, and Washington appears determined to thwart, if not the Palestinian initiative, then at least the support for it of influential allies, particularly Europe," he said.

Obama's recent comments on the Middle East were therefore addressed not so much to the parties themselves as to Europe, noted Rabbani.

Obama's statement that the United States now endorses the 1967 boundaries as a basis for a negotiated resolution of the conflict – albeit with a slew of qualifications that make this an essentially meaningless statement – is intended to persuade Europe that Washington retains the qualifications to remain the sole proprietor of this dossier, he said.

"Will it work? Obama did no more than issue a statement that he thereafter almost instantaneously emptied of substance," he said.

More importantly, argued Rabbani, "Obama did not provide any details about either how – or even if – Washington intends to realise this objective, nor on how the U.S. intends to address reality on the ground in the absence of concrete American movement towards this objective.

"So the Europeans – hardly morons and self-interested actors to their very marrow – are unlikely to be impressed," he added.

Samir Sanbar, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general who headed the Department of Public Information, told IPS that most likely a resolution will get a majority in the General Assembly regardless of U.S. or European vote.

The real question will be the extent of that majority, he added.

For example, a two-thirds majority would make the difference, and if handled strategically by the Palestinian representatives, could outweigh a possible veto by the United States, Britain or France.

"Of course, a crucial key is the position of the Security Council that recommends new members to the General Assembly. Timing the submission and approach in presentation are crucial," said Sanbar, who has served under five different U.N. secretaries-general during his longstanding career at the world body.

Rabbani told IPS that Obama's failure – or rather refusal – to compel Israel to comply with a measure as benign as a partial and temporary suspension of further settlement expansion in order to ensure the continuation of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and thus the breakdown of diplomacy, appears to have had a big impact on Europe, not least Washington's closest allies like London and Berlin.

"Europeans increasingly feel they are spending billions of Euros not to solve this festering sore on their doorstep, but rather to sustain the conflict by financing an occupation that Washington doesn't have the will to terminate," he said.

The failure of the Fayyad Plan, proposed by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for the creation of a de facto Palestinian state within two years, particularly in the context of the Arab Spring, was for many the last straw.

That Abbas, the Palestinian leader for whom negotiations has been an article of faith, now appears to be exploring alternatives such as Palestinian reconciliation and U.N. recognition on account of Obama's steadfast refusal to help him sell yet more negotiations as a credible path was seen in Europe as a further wake-up call, said Rabbani.

European states are not going to launch a Middle East initiative independent of Washington. At the end of the day, resolving the Arab- Israeli conflict is for them not worth the conflict with Washington this would entail, given more important interests they would not want to jeopardise, he declared.

Sanbar said that some who are nervous may even be "seeking links with Israel" as a way of gaining clearer U.S. support. "And how credible is the Palestinian Authority with its own people?"

A crucial element is their unified presentation through an updated inclusive free national framework, said Sanbar.

Rabbani said that slowly but surely, the region is transcending the priorities and constraints imposed upon it by U.S. policy, and this is no less true of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mere talk of seeking U.N. recognition – whatever one may think of it – demonstrates quite clearly that even dependent clients like the PLO are moving on, and no longer basing their every little move on whether or not it pleases the occupant of the White House, he said.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share