U.N. Members Scrutinize Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Line

By Ian Williams

After puttering along almost unnoticed in the U.S. outside the pages of the Washington Report, the work of the Iraq-Kuwait boundary commission is now getting more intensive international scrutiny. Japan has been trying to persuade Britain and America that the recommendations of the commission should be the subject of a binding Security Council decision.

Resolution 687, the "Mother of All Resolutions," imposing the conditions of Iraq's defeat, called upon the secretary-general to "lend his assistance to make arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demarcate the boundary," which was to be based on the 1963 treaty between the two countries.

However, neither Kuwait nor Iraq is proving particularly amenable to assistance, and neither shows overmuch satisfaction with the boundary. In June, Iraq sent a long letter to the Security Council. Half of the letter depicts Kuwait as a figment of British imperialist plots. The other half urges that, if there is to be a new boundary, it should not give existing Iraqi oil wells and port facilities to Kuwait. The letter makes the point strongly. The British map which was supposed to help demarcate the boundary clearly showed as Iraqi territory much of the additional territory now granted by the commission to Kuwait.

Japan, at present a rotating member of the Security Council, has set its sights firmly on joining the Permanent Five within a few years. The boundary issue is one on which it can establish diplomatic credentials, while averting a disruption in its future energy supplies from the region. Although dubious about the overall usefulness of the Iraqi letter, the Japanese seem to think the Iraqis may have a case. "The boundary question should be settled by both sides," a Japanese spokesman told the Washington Report. "We are suggesting to the Americans and British that, as the resolution stands, Iraq has the right to challenge the boundary. So we think that the Security Council should hear the thoughts of Iraq, Kuwait, and the boundary commission, and then make a final, binding decision under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter."

Japan is not alone in its interest. The Israeli mission also is showing a great deal of interest in the commission's work. In the past, Israel has leaned toward unstable boundaries contributing to inter-Arab strife. On the other hand, is it possible that Israel now is being farsighted, and anticipating a future U.N. boundary commission demarcating the frontiers of Israel?

Palestinian Right of Return

That thought was rendered a little less far-fetched by the State Department's prompted memory that in 1948 the U.S. had voted for, and technically still supports, General Assembly Resolution 194, which, among other things, enshrines the Palestinian "right to return." Passed on Dec. 11, 1948, it resolved that the Palestinian refugees "be permitted to return to their homes at the earliest possible date," and that the Jerusalem area be accorded "special and separate treatment...under effective United Nations control."

Resolution 194 also gave the United States a special role in this process, making the U.S., France and Turkey the Conciliation Commission, to effect peace—and the U.N. decisions. Four decades later, the commission still exists, and the U.S. is still a member, although its latest annual report does point out diplomatically that "the circumstances that unfortunately have limited its possibilities of action have remained up to now essentially unchanged."

One of those circumstances was noted by President Harry Truman in a letter to David Ben-Gurion in 1949 in which he warned that if Israel continued to defy basic principles of 194, "the U.S. government will regretfully be forced to the conclusion that a revision of its attitude toward Israel has become unavoidable."

Indeed, one of the few effective functions left for the commission is as custodian of the lists of Palestinian refugee property claims, now buried in the archives of the U.N. Perhaps the U.S. should remember its obligations by offering loan guarantees to pay compensation? The State Department is firmly tightlipped about 194, refusing to say anything about it until after the Israeli election.

Speechless in Gaza

That delicacy seems to be contagious. At the beginning of June, Palestine Representative Nasser Al-Kidwa wrote asking for action on the Israeli siege of Gaza, where UNRWA reported that its school at Deir El Balah and its food distribution center there were both damaged during break-ins by Israeli settler gangs.

The Belgian president of the Security Council thwarted all action by other members, however, with his announcement that he would convey the concern of council members to the Israeli ambassador. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was more forthright, deploring the situation and reminding Israel to abide by its obligations under the Geneva Convention. However, since it is not amnesia, but megalomania which afflicts Likud, his effectiveness remains to be seen.

Libya Sanctions

While the fissiparous relics of Yugoslavia take the headlines, the question of Libyan sanctions is on the back burner; in fact the whole issue seems to have run into the sand. Any further sanctions would be difficult to achieve. As one Security Council member put it, "It's not just the Third World, but the Germans, Italians and the Japanese that are opposed to any intensification of sanctions—they all get their oil from Libya." Less optimistic diplomats wonder whether the impending presidential elections constituted any form of deadline.

Western Sahara

Another deadline passed, unmet, in Western Sahara. The secretary-general in his last report suggested that if there were no progress by May 31, the whole operation should be reconsidered. However, he obviously feels that some progress has been made and recommended that his special representative Yaqub-Khan be allowed more time. Despite 97 reported Moroccan breaches of the cease-fire and five by Polisario since the last report, there was comfort to be drawn from the fact that there had not been any casualties either among the two parties or in the peacekeeping force itself, with its American contingent of 30.

Pickering Passes to Perkins

The responsibilities for American involvement in the United Nations have now fallen on new shoulders. U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who was at the U.N. throughout the Gulf war, left in May. Unlike Pickering, who had been U.S. ambassador to both Jordan and Israel, his replacement, Ambassador Edward Perkins, does not have extensive Middle East exposure. However, Perkins, a career diplomat like Pickering, is accustomed to being out on a limb. Before becoming director general of the U.S. Foreign Service, Perkins was, during the Reagan administration, the first African-American ambassador to South Africa.

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