US Joins Security Council Condemnation of Israel

By Ian Williams

Scarcely noted in the media, on May 24 the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed its 64th resolution condemning Israel. The condemnation this time was for Israel's deportation of four Palestinians. Far from vetoing the resolution, US Ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering actually enhanced the non-aligned nations' draft with a phrase stating that action taken by Israel was "to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

The US had half-heartedly suggested substituting for a resolution a statement by the president of the Security Council condemning the act, which was the compromise solution adopted on the previous occasion. When other council members rejected the idea of another statement, however, the US soon fell in line with the rest.

Indeed, an Arab diplomat described the text of the draft presidential statement suggested by the US as "very good. " For this reason, he said, it was "not very difficult to persuade the Americans to support the resolution."

As one would expect, the Israeli ambassador to the UN said the Council's resolution "will contribute nothing to the peace process. " Perhaps more cogently, in informal closed sessions preceding the resolution, the Soviet ambassador is reported to have contrasted the vigor with which other Security Council resolutions were pursued, with the relative indulgence toward Israel. The American vote suggests that, after his recent extensive personal exposure to Israeli intransigence, the point is being well taken by US Secretary of State James Baker.

Libya's UN Ambassador Seeks to Open Door

As the host country of the United Nations, the United States has to allow on the Hudson what it won't abide on the Potomac. The Headquarters Agreement allows states with which Washington has broken off relations to maintain a toe in the door in New York.

Ambassador Ali Treiki of Libya has been peeping around that door for several years. A career diplomat, he has been at the UN at various times since 1977 and returned in 1986, replacing the over-enthusiastic amateurs who briefly staffed his government's "People's Bureaus" across the world.

Since his arrival, however, the Libyan representative to the UN has not been able to leave New York City without US permission. This, he complains, is seldom granted, "even for medical treatment." He is not allowed, for example, to attend congressional functions when he is invited. Nor, without appearing to compare the two venues, are his children allowed to go to Disneyland.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs went to speak with Ambassador Treiki on the day that Libyan Foreign Minister Ibrahim Beshari made the most explicit call yet for a resumption of diplomatic relations between the US and his country. The venue was the Libyan Mission, where 24 floors of prime Manhattan real estate echo hollowly to the steps of the 13 diplomats at the mission because the US will not allow Libya to rent the floors it does not use to commercial customers.

"Because of the restrictions on our assets, we have fallen into arrears on our UN payments, " Ambassador Treiki explains.

He seems slightly bemused at the fact that even the elevation of Iraq's Saddam Hussain to first place in White House demonology has not thawed frozen US relations with the government of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi. Indeed, President Bush renewed the relevant embargo regulations this year. Meanwhile Syria, whose regime sometimes makes Qaddafi seem relatively harmless, is welcomed as a coalition ally in good standing.

"In the absence of direct contact, of dialogue, we have been the scapegoat," Treiki charges. "We were the US's second largest trade partner in the region, but since 1986 we've had no cooperation on trade. We used to spend $300 million a year here for 4,000 students, but now they go to Britain or Canada."

"We have no direct disputes with the US, no border problems, and friendly relations with all of our neighbors." Asked if that included Chad, the Libyan ambassador backtracked slightly, "We are both referring that dispute to the International Court of Justice, " he said.

"It's quite usual for countries to have different points of view—we have even voted with the US on occasion, " Treiki continued.

"We agreed with them on Afghanistan, and most recently, we condemned the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. We supported sanctions, agreed with them and upheld them. We tried hard to persuade the Iraqis to withdraw. The night before the air war, Qaddafi asked President Saddam Hussain directly to withdraw, but without success"

On the trade embargo, Treiki says, "We have asked the oil companies to come back. We have shown a lot of restraint. We have not nationalized them, even though the US seized our assets."

On the question of terrorism, the Libyan ambassador is unequivocal: "We stopped supporting the IRA a long time since. But it depends on the definition of terrorism. We have supported the struggles of people in South Africa and Palestine. But we are against hijacking, kidnapping and killing civilians. We helped release the French and Belgian hostages. If any Palestinians go beyond that, we will condemn it and withdraw support. Abu Nidal has been expelled from Libya, and is not allowed to come back, and Abul Abbas is not allowed to come to Libya either."

In addition, Treiki points out, even when US planes were attacking in 1986, the thousands of Americans still working in Libya's oil industry were not harmed.

Although Libya formerly held a rejectionist position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Qaddafi position now is that any decisions on the two-state solution are "for the Palestinians to decide. " As for recognition of what Libya still terms the "Zionist entity, " however, it is too early. "The Arab summit gave a lot by accepting 242, " Treiki explains. "But the Israelis gave nothing. They keep building settlements [in the occupied territories]."

Recently, the Libyan mission at the UN has appointed an American, Lisa Minucci, to help fine-tune its public relations. But Washington's requirements for penitence from retired sinners may be too rigorous even for a terrorist-free Tripoli. Syria was prepared to pay the price by joining Desert Storm; Libya wasn't. It may be some time before the Treiki kids make it to Disney World's Magic Mountain.

Woe to the Defeated

Political leaders in the US and Britain have been pledging that sanctions against Iraq would not be lifted while Saddam Hussain remains in power. However, this was not what the Security Council said, either in Resolution 661 calling for sanctions, or in Resolution 687, which laid down the post-war settlement. So while the politicians have their day on the hustings, their diplomats must be much more circumspect. "We've never said that in the UN, " said a US spokesman, when asked by the Washington Report.

Instead, the US and Britain have vigorously resisted all attempts by Security Council members like Cuba and Yemen to soften any of the provisions of the sanctions. The US and UK together are pursuing the issues of the arms control sections, the demarcation of Iraq's border with Kuwait, and the paying of reparations. "They can import food, " said a US spokesperson. He added: "If it takes 20 weeks instead of 10 weeks to satisfy the points raised in 687, then that's the Iraqis' fault, not ours."

The Iraqis look at it differently. "Since April 3, we have been allowed to import food and medicine. But how can we pay, since we cannot export our oil and our assets are frozen?" an Iraqi diplomat asked.

Although it is unlikely to be to Baghdad's satisfaction, there is now movement on one aspect of the problem. At the end of May, a report by UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar called for 30 percent of Iraq's oil revenues to be dedicated to the compensation fund. His rule-of-thumb calculations assume that this is approximately what Iraq would otherwise have spent on military equipment.

Iraq has requested a five-year moratorium to allow it to rebuild, but few expect the West to agree to any extension at all. Baghdad may well have a point in international law in condemning the Security Council's bypassing of the International Court of Justice in determining reparations. However, the operative principle in this case is one of the oldest in international relations—vae victis—woe to the defeated.

More cogently for the modern world, Iraq's UN Ambassador Amir Al-Anbari invoked the laws of economics, accusing the West of trying to break OPEC. Iraq, he said, would have to produce so much oil to meet the bills that it would flood the market and reduce prices, causing, he implied, bad vibes all the way from Dallas to Dhahran.

All De Cuellar's assumptions are based on an OPEC quota of 2.85 million barrels a day at a price of around $20 per barrel. It would be ironic if the Security Council tried to impose OPEC quotas on Iraq, since Iraq's unanswered accusation that Kuwait was overproducing was one of the causes of the original conflict.

Meanwhile, another historical irony lurks close by. Resolution 598, which ended the first Gulf war, was not followed up with the same assiduity as those which ended the second. However, after four years, the secretary-general has implemented paragraph 7 of 598 by sending former UN Under Secretary-General Abdulrahim Farah to Iran to "study the question of reconstruction" after the damage inflicted by the conflict between Iran and Iraq. The paragraph called for visits to both countries, but any such team in Iraq would presumably have difficulty in deciding which war caused what damage.

Even more pregnant with possibilities is paragraph 6 of the same resolution, also so far unimplemented. This calls for an impartial body to apportion blame for starting the war. Since few doubt that Iraq attacked Iran, there is the likelihood that such a body would result in massive reparation claims by Tehran. However, resolution 692 only provides for claims in the second Gulf war to be compensated by the 30 percent oil levy.

Iran could argue that, after four years, its claims on Iraq are more pressing than Kuwait's—not least since the emirate was one of the Arab states which provided the war chest for Iraq. International lawyers may well be busy over the next few years!

Ian Williams is a British journalist based at the United Nations.