U.S., Israel Try to Sweep Mideast Resolutions Down the Memory Hole

By Ian Williams

The annual battle over the Middle Eastern resolutions began early at this year's U.N. General Assembly with a joint broadside from the Israeli and U.S. missions. The objective of their cannonade was to deny the legitimacy of almost every U.N. decision on the Arab-Israel question— except perhaps those partitioning Palestine and setting up Israel. And sadly, as the world has come to expect under the administration of President Bill Clinton, the U.S. offensive was, if anything, more far-reaching and "pro-Israeli" than the Israeli effort itself.

In a letter to her foreign colleagues, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright insisted that "contentious resolutions that accentuate political differences without promoting solutions should be consolidated [the various UNRWA resolutions], improved [the Golan resolution] or eliminated [the Israeli nuclear armament resolution and the self-determination resolution]."

She added, "We also believe that resolution language referring to [final status] issues should be dropped, since these issues are now under negotiation by the parties themselves. These include refugees, settlements, territorial sovereignty and the status of Jerusalem."

In effect, she is asking that international law and the decisions of the United Nations be set aside so that the Israelis, from a position of strength, can force the Palestinians into agreeing to give up their rights. It is as if the American negotiators with North Korea had agreed to set aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the grounds that it was irrelevant pending the final conclusion of the bilateral negotiations!

The Israelis themselves are understandably silent on the nuclear disarmament resolutions. If they admit they have nuclear weapons then it is against U.S. law for them to receive military aid. And if they don't have them, then they would of course have no objections to allowing International Atomic Energy Inspectors into the Dimona nuclear complex to check.

While not going as far as the Americans in calling for the "elimination" of resolutions on self-determination, the Israelis still have the chutzpah to call for the resolution on Israeli settlements to be dropped, pending the final status talks. So while the world is not allowed to talk about the illegal settlements pending negotiations, the Israelis suffer no such inhibitions on their actions. The week of the Assembly's opening saw Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin announce the building of thousands of new homes in settlements near the border.

Similarly, while the United Nations should not, according to Madeleine Albright and the Israelis, express its opinion on the status of Jerusalem, it is perfectly legitimate for Israeli ministers to ignore international law and prejudge the outcome of the talks by repeatedly claiming it as the eternal capital of Israel, and only of Israel.

A Palestinian Rebuttal

If the irony escapes the blinkered diplomacy of Madeleine Albright, Palestinian Ambassador Nasser Al Kidwa certainly did not miss it. He replied by expressing "shock" at Albright's suggestions and pointing out that negotiations on the status of Jerusalem, territorial sovereignty and refugees as yet hadn't even begun. To do as she suggested would, he said, "be tantamount to forsaking international law and international legitimacy and effectively allowing the illegal, de facto situation created by Israel to prevail when the time for negotiation arrives." Quite.

He added later that "it is high time for the U.S. to recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as a matter of principle through a U.N. resolution with a positive U.S. vote." Of course, since U.N. resolutions have been overwhelmingly in favor of the Palestinians, both the U.S. and Israel have tried to marginalize a U.N. role which would remind the world of the illegality of Israel's actions. So the Palestinian memorandum reaffirms that the "other side has to accept the principle of the permanent responsibility of the U.N. towards the Question of Palestine until it is effectively solved," and went on to remind them why: "This legal, political and moral responsibility began with the partition of mandated Palestine by the General Assembly."

Under the circumstances it is not surprising that President Clinton made only one passing reference to the Middle East in his speech to the General Assembly. The joint goal of Israel and the White House is to keep the U.N. and all its embarrassing resolutions as far away as possible from the negotiations.

Bosnia: A Palestine in the Making

However, Clinton did wind up his speech by referring to Bosnia—where, although he is unlikely to admit it, a whole new Palestinian situation is in the making for much the same reason, that the major powers are prepared to stand around and watch international law and conventions being broken. Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic tried to claim his reward for agreeing, very reluctantly, to signing away 49 percent of the country after the Contact Group (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S.) had held his feet to the fire. He had been told that if the Serbs did not sign they would be punished, and the arms embargo on the Bosnians would be lifted, and was doubtless heartened by the U.S. promise to do so unilaterally if the Security Council did not do so by Oct. 15.

However, Mr. Clinton is the only friend the Bosnian president has in the Contact Group, and so under administration pressure, Mr. Izetbegovic agreed to go along with the idea of postponing lifting the arms embargo. But only on condition that the U.N. implement all its resolution on Bosnia and that the border with Serbia and Montenegro would be monitored strictly. If any movement of weaponry were detected, then the suspended sanctions on Belgrade should be immediately restored and there should be no further easing of sanctions until Belgrade recognizes Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia within their internationally recognized borders.

Ignoring the background to his statement, and the conditions attached to it, British Foreign Minster Douglas Hurd welcomed the "decision of the Bosnian government to accept that now is not the moment to lift the arms embargo. Their decision allows UNPROFOR to continue its mission." Mr. Hurd failed to mention that it was the diplomatic pressure of Britain, France and Russia which led Clinton to wobble on his pledge and led him to put the screws on Izetbegovic.

"The Gaza Clean-Up Project"

If the U.N. can't clean up its act, at least one U.N. agency literally has tried to clean up Gaza. The United Nations Development Program proudly announced the beginning of one of the few projects to get on stream in the territories. Japan and Norway between them have contributed the money for "The Gaza Clean-Up Project." The Japanese have contributed to setting up a system of trash containers and collection to replace the nonexistent facilities that used to leave the streets littered with decaying garbage. Norway is paying to clean up the parks and public buildings, installing lighting and play equipment for children, painting walls, etc.

One can't help wishing for a Security Council clean-up project that would sweep away the trash around the conference room table and replace it with some integrity. Unfortunately it seems unlikely. Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, however, did make one invigorating suggestion. He suggests an enlarged council in which it would take two permanent members to veto resolutions. That would end Israel's proxy veto through the U.S. and Serbia's through Russia. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. But the world can hope.

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