Articles
February 1993, Page 23
United Nations Diary
In 1992 General Assembly, Again The U.S. and Israel Against the World
By Ian Williams
The prophets of ancient Israel would be profoundly disappointed with their would-be successors in the Israeli diplomatic corps. They began the U.N. General Assembly in September with confident prophecies that Israel would soon become a welcome member of the West European Group, and that there would be a significant reduction in the number of "anti-Israel" resolutions. Neither prediction came true.
Instead, the end of the year saw the Security Council's unanimous passage of Resolution 799, condemning Israel's new government for rounding up and dumping more than 400 Palestinian Muslims across Israel's border with Lebanon. Early attempts to make the resolution "evenhanded'' by condemning the killing by Muslim radicals of a kidnapped Israeli border policeman soon foundered for lack of support. Instead, the resolution once again reaffirmed the opinion of the entire world community that East Jerusalem is part of the occupied territories and reaffirmed Lebanon's sovereignty over its own southern territories.
The situation was not helped by Israel "doing a Sarajevo" in the Gaza Strip and putting the whole population under extended curfew. UNRWA, the U.N. relief agency for Palestinian refugees, complained that the area was suffering from food shortages and that the Israeli authorities were refusing to allow curfew permits for UNRWA staff to help distribute supplies. UNRWA also protested to both Lebanon and Israel about their refusal to allow its teams to take aid to the stranded deportees—who include 16 UNRWA employees, mostly teachers.
The episode should reinforce the lesson of cause and effect for Israel, that anti-Israel resolutions are not based upon unreasoning prejudice, but are provoked by conduct contrary to international law. Unfortunately, the deportations indicate that the lesson has not been accepted even by the Labor government.
However, while the U.S. representative voted for Security Council Resolution 799, his country maintained its usual partiality on the General Assembly resolutions. George and Douglas Ball, in their recent book The Passionate Attachment, quote a section from the Federalist Papers in which the founding fathers enjoin that the U.S. government should pay particular attention to the judgment of other nations. That advice should inspire Americans to pay closer attention to proceedings of the General Assembly. There the American representative often finds himself ingloriously isolated as the only delegate voting with Israel against resolutions supported by the rest of the world, including all of the democratic allies who have fought alongside the United States in war after war.
Thus, in December, the "usual" series of contested resolutions condemning various Israeli practices were passed overwhelmingly, despite a letter from 13 U.S. senators who took it upon themselves to inform the European Community ambassadors that, "At this delicate stage United Nations resolutions that criticize Israel only harm the Mideast peace process. Israel should be commended for its commitment to the peace talks rather than openly condemned in resolutions at the General Assembly." The senators, all of whom have enjoyed conspicuous support in their election campaigns from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, were roundly ignored.
On one U.N. resolution condemning 22 specific practices by the Israeli occupiers, Israel mustered a giddy gaggle of four supporters—the U.S., the Marshall Islands, Romania and Uruguay. In general, however, the votes on the General Assembly resolutions were the rest of the world to one (Israel) or two (Israel and the U.S.), with a handful of abstentions (Russia plus Micronesia).
American behavior was not totally shameful. The U.S. sponsored the annual enabling resolution for UNRWA (which provides care and feeding for Palestinian refugees). The enabling resolution invokes Resolution 194, which in turn calls for the return of the refugees to their homes. No one opposed the enabling resolution, and only Israel abstained. On the other hand, all of the Europeans changed their abstentions to votes in support of the U.N.'s information program on Palestine. The U.S. and Israel, unsurprisingly, voted against that program, aimed particularly at Europe and North America.
Perhaps the only serious gain for Israel during the 1992 General Assembly session was the spectacle of Russia, desperate for U.S. support in its time of economic and political uncertainty at home, abstaining on most of the resolutions. The official excuse was that Russia is nominally the co-sponsor of the peace talks. Delegates could not help remarking, however, that Russia's votes might also be motivated by the common international feeling that cultivating Israel and AIPAC leads to a more fruitful harvest from the U.S. Treasury. Surely, however, the spectacle of Great Russia joining the Federated States of Micronesia in voting the AIPAC ticket must provide inflammatory grist for the political mills of Boris Yeltsin's nationalist opponents back home. On the bright side, the collapse of Moscow's power meant that its former satellites felt no need to share its ignominy on this issue.
Instructive Debate
Debate on the resolutions was instructive. Israel's Labor-appointed ambassador to the U.N., Gad Yaacobi, called for bilateral meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad and also with Jordan's King Hussein, whom Yaacobi wished good health and speedy recovery from his medical problems. The new Israeli representative proposed formation of a forum of Middle East ambassadors to the U.N. to discuss coordinated action by U.N. agencies. Among his optimistic proposals were a Middle East development bank and a Middle East common market. More practically, he suggested joint projects in managing water resources and in combating pollution to help preserve the fragile ecology of the region.
However, one listened in vain for his announcement that Israel would cease its unilateral control of the water and land resources of Gaza, the West Bank, Golan and south Lebanon. When a thief starts discussing joint use of the loot, one cannot help suspecting a crime against logic as well as property.
Unfortunately, such rhetoric has charms to soothe a savage breast. Sweden, for example, tried to balance lifting the Arab boycott, not with ending the occupation, but with alleviation of the conditions of the Palestinians. Adnan Abu Odeh of Jordan was quick to call attention to the double standard. Were the Palestinians, he asked, "to be deprived of their right to self-determination because Israel, and not some other state, was the occupier?" He suggested that "Israeli deeds should be compatible with such positive words as had been heard during the current assembly session from Israeli representatives."
Abu Odeh reminded delegates that Arab acceptance of 242 was a big step toward peace, involving as it does acceptance of the existence of Israel. A Palestinian himself, he did not have to remind Arabs that this implied the bitter acceptance of the loss of the bulk of historic Palestine.
A Rumor Confirmed
One rumored concession by the Rabin government was confirmed. The U.N. was finally accepted as a participant in the multilateral peace talks. U.N. secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali appointed former Indian Ambassador to the U.N. Chinmaya Gharekhan as his representative. However, Boutros-Ghali has not allowed euphoria over that to dull his insistence that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories and that, because of Israel's continual flouting of it, "the credibility of the convention is at stake, as well as the very things for which the United Nations stands."
It is not only on Palestine that the credibility of international law is being tested.
The General Assembly showed a collective sense of reality by insisting that if the disastrous situation in Bosnia persists, then the beleaguered Bosnians should be exempted from the arms embargo. The U.S. supported the resolution, which was seen by many as in contradiction to the views of the Security Council—a body on which Washington is not without influence. It is all down to timing, was the assurance.
The belated sense of activism was also expressed in the case of Macedonia. Still unrecognized because of the opposition of Greece, the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" successfully invited U. N. monitors to watch its borders with Yugoslavia. This was the kind of preventive action that Bosnia had requested, untold thousands of dead and wounded ago, but had then been told would be against U.N. practice.
The problem is that effective U.N. action depends on the consensus of the countries on the Security Council, which is why the situation in the ruins of Yugoslavia, Somalia or the Middle East tends to make one think that the phrase "far-sighted statesman" is an oxymoron, a complete contradiction in terms. Too many U.N. missions so far have been ad hoc responses to immediate events showing few signs of long-term planning. For example, there is nothing being done in Somalia now that could not have been done a year ago—with more effect and fewer forces. Indeed, earlier this year Boutros-Ghali was roundly berated in the British press when he condemned the lack of action over the issue.
There are some grounds for hoping that the situation will change this year. President Clinton will have a direct line from the White House to the U.N. when his newly appointed ambassador, Madeleine Albright, takes over what he has elevated to a cabinet-level position. The appointment is more, neutral than if it had been Stephen Solarz, who reportedly lobbied for the position, or even possibly another contender, Jesse Jackson, who has recently shown a career-induced anxiety to "reach out" to pro-Israeli interests. One can but hope that Madeleine Albright will be a two-way channel, inducing Bill Clinton to direct "particular attention to the judgment of other nations," particularly on the Middle East. If he does, that judgment may surprise him. If it does, the United States might, at last, provide some happy surprises of its own to the world's "other nations."
