Head Menu
Tuesday, 31 March. 2020
Top Menu
| Home | Programmes & Projects | Publications | Photo Gallery | Maps | Search |
Main Menu
 »—ŕ «Š¬š
MIFTAH - Main Menu
Biannual Newsletter - Sixth Edition
Sixth Edition
The Constitution
Introductory Bulletin
The Constitution - Introductory Bulletin
UN Resolution 1325
UN Resolution 1325
Date posted: September 12, 2011
By John V. Whitbeck

While many questions relating to the state of Palestineís imminent application for UN membership are being raised and vigorously debated, one relevant issue was not raised: How American interests would be harmed if Palestine were to be admitted as the 194th member of the United Nations, as it clearly would be in the absence of an American veto.

Perhaps the question is not being raised and debated because no potential adverse consequences - at least for the United States and its people - can be envisioned and cited to justify a veto.

While legal considerations have never weighed heavily on the American approach to Israel and Palestine, it is worth noting that since November 1988, when the state of Palestine was formally proclaimed,the Palestinian claim to sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) over the remaining 22 per cent of mandatory Palestine, which Israel conquered and occupied in 1967 (aside from expanded East Jerusalem, to which Israelís sovereignty claim is universally rejected), has been both literally and legally uncontested.

Jordan renounced its claim to sovereignty over the West Bank in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it. While Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem and an arc of surrounding territory (an annexation recognised by no state), it has for 44 years refrained from asserting sovereignty over any other portion of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, an act that would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of those who live there.

The four criteria codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States for a state to exist under international law - a permanent population, a defined territory, government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states - are clearly met by the state of Palestine. The Montevideo Convention, as a ratified treaty that has not been renounced, has the status of domestic law in the United States and both domestic and international laws require the US government to respect and observe its provisions.

More than 120 UN member states (including 15 of the 20 most populous countries, encompassing the vast majority of mankind) have already extended diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, and more are expected to do so as the Security Council vote on its membership draws nearer.

Since there can be no credible legal argument that the state of Palestine does not yet meet the conventional and customary international law criteria for sovereign statehood, any decision to oppose its UN membership application would necessarily be based on purely political considerations.

Since few people alive can remember the last time the United States disobeyed Israel, it is widely assumed that it will inevitably veto the state of Palestineís membership application. Indeed, many commentators assert that it has publicly pledged to do so. While the US government is desperately trying to prevent a Security Council vote on Palestinian membership, it is far from certain that it has pledged to impose its veto - or, even if it had, that it would actually do so.

When addressing a special Security Council session on the Middle East on July 26, the American representative stated with respect to Palestineís UN membership initiative: ďThe United States will not support unilateral campaigns at the United Nations in September or any other time.Ē

Setting aside the Israeli-initiated absurdity of characterising an appeal for support to the entire international community as a ďunilateralĒ action, what is important in this formulation is what it did not say. It did not say that the United States will oppose the Palestinian membership application and cast its veto to defeat it. If the United States had reached a firm decision to veto, this would have been the logical occasion to say so.

Furthermore, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, when asked in an interview published on September 7 in the Los Angeles Times whether the Americans had told the Palestinians that they will veto, replied: ďThe US told us that the UN is not an option they will support. I hope they will not veto. How will they explain a veto?Ē

Indeed, while any potential harm to American national interests as a result of Palestinian membership in the United Nationswould be difficult to imagine, the adverse consequences for the United States of blocking Palestineís membership are dazzlingly obvious. An American veto would constitute a shotgun blast in both of its feet, further isolating the United States from the rest of mankind and outraging the already agitated and unstable Arab and Muslim worlds (notably including Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey).

In considering whether to veto or abstain, US President Barack Obama might wish to reread an article by Prince Turki Al Faisal, the long-serving Saudi Arabian intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States, which was published on June 10 in The Washington Post and in which he warned: ďThere will be disastrous consequences for US-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes UN recognition of a Palestinian state. It would mark a nadir in the decades-long relationship as well as irrevocably damage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Americaís reputation among Arab nations. The ideological distance between the Muslim world and the West in general would widen - and opportunities for friendship and cooperation between the two could vanish.Ē

Unless the presidentís sole concern is his reelection prospects, it should not be ruled out that the US government just might, exceptionally, put American national interests ahead of the desires of the Israeli government and abstain when the time comes.

If the US government does decide to defy most of mankind by casting its veto, this would hurt the United States and Israel far more than it would hurt Palestine, definitively disqualifying the United States from maintaining its monopoly stranglehold on any ďpeace processĒ, which, since US objectives are indistinguishable from Israelís, could only be to Palestineís advantage. The September UN initiative is a win-win proposition for Palestine.

The question at the UN this month is not, as is still frequently misreported, whether Palestine will declare independence. It did so 23 years ago. The question is whether the United States of America will declare independence.

The writer is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team at negotiations with Israel. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Read More ...

By: Phoebe Greenwood
Date: 27/05/2013
By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
Date: 27/05/2013
By: Sam Bahour
Date: 27/05/2013

Source: The Jordan Times, 12 September. 2011
Send Article Printer Friendly
Copyright © 2013 MIFTAH