Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 1999, pages 53, 81

United Nations Report

General Assembly Resolutions Call for Land-for-Peace Settlement, Palestinian Refugee Right of Return

By Ian Williams

As Netanyahu dilutes Wye, which in turn watered down Oslo, which implied abandonment of some major principles of international law, it seems the Palestinians are faced with a homeopathic peace settlement, in which the original components are so diluted as to be undetectable. So it was a faint sign of good news that just before President Clinton visited Palestine, the U.N. reminded the world what those principles are.

The General Assembly passed its annual series of resolutions, which took Israel to task for almost every aspect of its policy in the territories. The resolutions were passed overwhelmingly, with even faithful Micronesia, totally dependent on the U.S.Congress for its budget, more often than not deserting Israel and the U.S. That could be a further sign of what Palestinian envoy Nasser Al-Kidwa and others already had noted, that the U.S. Mission was much less thoroughly committed than usual to arm-twisting and browbeating on behalf of Israel.

There are several reasons for that, including the personality factor. Firstly, Ambassador-designate Richard C. Holbrooke is still in career limbo, between the weakness of the White House and the hardness of Jesse Helms, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman.

Acting ambassador to the U.N. Peter Burleigh is a professional State Department diplomat. So even though he formally stated the U.S. position, that the two parties should negotiate without the rest of the world getting involved, he was not driven to superhuman efforts on behalf of Likud. That is unlike his predecessor, Bill Richardson, whose vice-presidential ambitions dictated some grandstanding toward the Israel lobby.

On the other hand, the administration itself, despite being the most pro-Israeli in American history, is also showing signs of exasperation with Netanyahu’s prevarication. It will be some time before Secretary of State Madeleine Albright emulates her predecessor Jim Baker and holds up the department’s phone number for the use of anyone in the Israeli cabinet who sincerely wants peace. Even so, the White House is clearly unhappy.

The final factor is Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold, whose abrasive statements are, as Nasser Al-Kidwa says, more suited to Likud fund-raisers in Brooklyn than for serious United Nations deliberations. Taking the hard-line Likud slogan of “peace for peace,” Gold told the General Assembly that the expression “land-for-peace” did not appear anywhere in Resolutions 242 (1967) or 338 (1973). “It did not appear anywhere in the Madrid invitation, and was not used by President Bush at the Madrid Conference. The clear thrust of Madrid and past agreements was that boundaries had to be negotiated and should reflect the quality of security and political arrangements.”

“You can say things like that in Brooklyn, but not at the U.N.!”

Gold described the occupied territories as “disputed” territories, and threatened annexation if the Palestinians were to go ahead with the declaration of their state next year. He concluded that if Israel were called on to agree to specific boundaries as opposed to negotiations for “secure” borders, that would set a precedent for the entire world.

Small wonder that Al-Kidwa comments, “He is the representative of a party rather than a state. You don’t come to the U.N. and argue against land for peace. You can say things like that in Brooklyn, but not at the U.N.!”

Gold provoked several Arab ambassadors, like Egypt’s Nabil El Araby, into sharp factual corrections, while Al-Kidwa declared that “every principle of international law and justice has been violated by Israel, including those governing the protection of civilians in the time of war, maintenance of human rights and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

Not one resolution of the Security Council and General Assembly on the Middle East and the question of Palestine has been respected or implemented by Israel, Al-Kidwa pointed out. “Nevertheless, the international community has not taken the necessary measures provided for by international law, the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.”

This record explains the success of this year’s resolutions, which called for land-for-peace to be the basis of the peace settlement; reaffirmed the original 1948 resolution calling for the right of return for refugees; called on countries not to move their embassies to Jerusalem, and for the setting up of a Palestinian “Al Quds University” there. This year’s resolution supporting the Bethlehem 2000 events also does much to raise the profile of the Palestinian state.

In addition, the Assembly also asked the secretary-general to modernize the records of the conciliation commission that contain all the Palestinian property claims from 1948. The demands for restitution of property confiscated by the Nazis during World War II may have some resonance in the final status talks.

Other resolutions passed by the Assembly reaffirmed that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace as well as to economic and social development. The Assembly also called upon Israel to continue taking measures, including the confiscation of arms, to prevent illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Other resolutions supported the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and sovereignty over natural resources, and also tried to correct a tendency among U.N. bureaucrats to avoid using the term Palestinian occupied territories when referring to the region.

Iraq Sanctions

As we go to press, Iraq’s relations with the U.N., and more particularly the U.S. and UK, are in their usual undetermined critical state. The latest crisis in November was averted at the last moment by an Iraqi climb-down. After so much brinkmanship, Baghdad’s climb-down had to be rearticulated and glossed by Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Nizar Hamdoon.

Baghdad now has recalled him, which is perhaps only the latest manifestation of Saddam Hussain’s propensity to shoot himself in the foot. Hamdoon is highly respected professionally, even by Iraq’s many opponents. Defending the indefensible on a daily basis for six years, and for more years before that as Iraq’s ambassador in Washington, is a tough job. But if someone has to do it, Baghdad is better off having it done by a representative with a proven rapport with colleagues and the press.

The Iraq conflict has now become so encumbered with details that it may be worth re-examining the basic facts. After being defeated and thrown out of Kuwait, a humbled Saddam Hussain signaled acceptance of the Security Council resolution which called for maintaining the economic embargo until the country had been stripped of all weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi government had accepted the border as delineated by Iraq and Kuwait, accounted for or returned all Kuwaiti prisoners and property, and paid compensation.

No one at the time of the resolution seven years ago imagined that sanctions would still be in place as we approach the end of the century. Their effects on ordinary Iraqis have been devastating, which is why the Council agreed and extended the “oil-for-food deal,” which allows Iraqi oil to be sold.

The proceeds go in part to compensation for claims from the Gulf war, and the rest to food and medical provisions, both in government-controlled areas and in the Kurdish insurgent-controlled north. In November the Council agreed to raise permitted sales of petroleum to $5.2 billion every six months and to permit Iraq to import oil equipment so that it could bring its production up to the level of the increased quota.

Among factors delaying the end of sanctions is U.S. insistence that it will use its veto against any lifting of sanctions while Saddam Hussain is in power, despite the reservations of the rest of the Council over this.

The U.S. position makes it look as if the special commission, UNSCOM, could carry on forever looking under every sand dune trying to do the impossible by verifying that every weapon has been destroyed. On the other hand, the Iraqi regime has repeatedly been caught red-handed trying to hide and maintain its capability for weapons of mass destruction.

The current position is that if Ambassador Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, certifies that the Iraqis are cooperating with inspections, the Security Council will perform a “Comprehensive Review,” which will be a “road map” indicating what the Iraqis have to do to have sanctions lifted. This would put the U.S. in a corner since American refusal to show “light at the end of the tunnel” is often cited by others as a barrier to Iraqi cooperation.

As insurance, the U.S. and UK have revived the question of the Kuwaiti prisoners which would probably cause the Iraqis some embarrassment, since the Ba’athists have a way with prisoners, even their own, which does not meet the highest standards.

As we go to press, the question of whether the comprehensive review is held in January as originally envisaged may have become moot when the Iraqis turned back inspectors at a Ba’athist Party office. On top of a failure to hand over the documents demanded by UNSCOM, it does not look as if Butler will be giving a clean certificate of health. In the meantime, the average Iraqi life span, according to UNDP, has dropped by seven years, mostly accounted for by the deaths of children.

Western Sahara

Also up in the air was a settlement in Western Sahara. Resuming his trip to the Maghreb after it was interrupted by one of the Iraq crises, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secured the agreement of Polisario and the Algerians to a compromise by which the 60,000 members of some disputed tribal groups could register claims as individuals to vote in the referendum on independence.

Morocco’s King Hassan wants them to be accepted en bloc, and presumes that they will all vote for the territory to unite with Morocco, since that is where they actually live. Most diplomats assume that this question will drag on until the king has a formula that guarantees the vote he wants, unless special envoy Jim Baker can tough him out of that position.

Libya Sanctions

Further along the Mediterranean, Annan was having equal difficulties with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Responding to signals that the handover of the two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing was a done deal, the U.N. secretary-general flew to Tripoli Dec. 5 to meet Qaddafi. However Qaddafi did not budge to meet him in the capital and, after a day of confusion and prevarication, the secretary-general was driven off into the desert at night to meet the Libyan leader in his tent.

The trip was not easy, nor was the news good. Qaddafi again raised objections to the idea that, if convicted after a trial in The Hague, the accused would serve their sentences in Scottish prisons. Far from handing them over, Qaddafi deferred the decision to the Libyan General People’s Congress. No one was sure whether this was to absolve himself from criticism with hard-liners for handing them over, or to pass the buck to the Congress for his own decision not to. To continue postponing a decision could be costly. As Annan returned to New York, the Libyans submitted a report giving the costs to Libya of sanctions to date as $23 billion.