U.S. Veto Not the Final Word
Published in Al Quds
(Palestine) on 21 February 2011
by Nassif Moalim (link to original)
(Palestine) on 21 February 2011
by Nassif Moalim (link to original)
Translated from
by Katherine Osgood.
Edited by Alexander Anderson.
The United States recently exercised its veto in the U.N. Security Council to derail a draft resolution demanding a halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem.
U.S. Ambassador Suzanne Rice justified the American position by stating that the resolution “could encourage parties to stay out of negotiations.”
At the same time, however, she signaled that the continued spread of settlements would erode confidence between Israelis and Palestinians and threaten the peace process. Is the U.S. veto, then, the end of the road?
The answer, of course, is a resounding “no.” Rather, it is the beginning of an international and Palestinian diplomatic struggle, undertaken by the leadership, parties, institutions and individuals in search of an escape from this impasse.
The U.S. is no longer the principal player on the international stage, and that stage is no longer unipolar, as it has been for the past two decades. On the contrary, the world is now multipolar.
The evidence is that the U.S. was the only Security Council member to oppose the draft resolution, which was supported by all the other members, including long-standing U.S. allies.
Whether it is an alternative, or the only option available to the Palestinian people, a diplomatic showdown will benefit from changes in the international system and the use of international law. And being based on international legitimacy, it will be able to make use of U.N. Resolution 377 “United for Peace.”
Except for a diplomatic battle, there is no alternative that would restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to freedom and stability. We must fulfill the decisions of the Executive Committee of the PLO and the decision of the Fatah Central Committee, who proceeded with the draft resolution despite U.S. pressure to withdraw it.
The decision of the Palestinian leadership ignored the wishes of the U.S. administration. It ignored U.S. threats and submitted the draft resolution, only to have it vetoed.
That it went ahead was in itself a positive step, but we must not stop now. We must not simply say to the people that “we faced down U.S. threats and did not withdraw the draft resolution, like we did with Goldstone. It was the U.S. veto that thwarted passage of the resolution, because we are powerless.”
I believe such talk is useless and irresponsible. It is an entreaty to the U.S. and equivalent to an apology for not withdrawing the draft resolution in the first place.
The real measure of credibility concerning the direction and decisions of the Palestinian leadership is in the progress being made to send the Palestinian and Arab draft resolution condemning and halting the settlements to the U.N. General Assembly.
The General Assembly could issue a resolution of condemnation, as there is no room for a veto, and the U.S. has only one vote. It is our legitimate right to use U.N. Resolution 377, a resolution which bridges the veto gap in the Security Council and allows any draft resolution to be moved from the Security Council to the General Assembly, whose jurisdiction is to protect the peace and security of member nations, in accordance with the U.N. Charter.
According to legal practice established by U.N. Resolution 377, which was issued in November 1950, the General Assembly can adopt any draft resolution which has been prevented from being adopted because of a veto by one of the five permanent members on the Security Council.
The member countries then debate the proposed draft and vote, and the five permanent members of the Security Council, like the other members of the General Assembly, have just one vote regardless of their seniority or power.
We can be absolutely certain, not on the basis of interpretations or judgments, but by right, that the General Assembly’s jurisdiction is in accordance with Resolution 377, and derives its legal basis from it.
The Resolution was issued in 1950 during the Korean War to solve the problematic weakness of the Security Council, namely its inability to adopt a resolution to preserve the peace and security of countries because of the veto that one of the five permanent members of the Security Council may use.
Resolution 377 gives the General Assembly the unequivocal right to adopt a resolution in such cases. It states that the General Assembly “resolves that if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise their primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within 24 hours of the request therefor."
There have been a number of examples of the implementation of this resolution on the international level, the most important being Egypt during the Suez crisis in 1956 “where the obstacle of Britain and France’s veto in the Security Council was overcome by taking the case before the General Assembly, which issued its own resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of armies which happened within the week.”
This is a prime opportunity for the Palestinian people and leadership, especially given the fact that Arab governments these days will rally behind the Palestinian position because of their people’s protest movements.
If we present a draft resolution to the General Assembly, at least 137 countries will vote in favor, the resolution will be passed, and our people will have won a diplomatic battle against America and Israel.
We urgently need a moral victory like the great people of Egypt. A victory would secure a number of important objectives; most importantly it would raise the morale of the Palestinian people. But it would also stop the media fanfare, and the foreign and Arab intervention in Palestinian internal affairs, diminish the gap between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and contribute to the reconciliation process.
It is an opportunity that we must seize. U.S. opposition to an international condemnation of Israeli settlements must be challenged by the Palestinian people.
U.S. Ambassador Suzanne Rice justified the American position by stating that the resolution “could encourage parties to stay out of negotiations.”
At the same time, however, she signaled that the continued spread of settlements would erode confidence between Israelis and Palestinians and threaten the peace process. Is the U.S. veto, then, the end of the road?
The answer, of course, is a resounding “no.” Rather, it is the beginning of an international and Palestinian diplomatic struggle, undertaken by the leadership, parties, institutions and individuals in search of an escape from this impasse.
The U.S. is no longer the principal player on the international stage, and that stage is no longer unipolar, as it has been for the past two decades. On the contrary, the world is now multipolar.
The evidence is that the U.S. was the only Security Council member to oppose the draft resolution, which was supported by all the other members, including long-standing U.S. allies.
Whether it is an alternative, or the only option available to the Palestinian people, a diplomatic showdown will benefit from changes in the international system and the use of international law. And being based on international legitimacy, it will be able to make use of U.N. Resolution 377 “United for Peace.”
Except for a diplomatic battle, there is no alternative that would restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to freedom and stability. We must fulfill the decisions of the Executive Committee of the PLO and the decision of the Fatah Central Committee, who proceeded with the draft resolution despite U.S. pressure to withdraw it.
The decision of the Palestinian leadership ignored the wishes of the U.S. administration. It ignored U.S. threats and submitted the draft resolution, only to have it vetoed.
That it went ahead was in itself a positive step, but we must not stop now. We must not simply say to the people that “we faced down U.S. threats and did not withdraw the draft resolution, like we did with Goldstone. It was the U.S. veto that thwarted passage of the resolution, because we are powerless.”
I believe such talk is useless and irresponsible. It is an entreaty to the U.S. and equivalent to an apology for not withdrawing the draft resolution in the first place.
The real measure of credibility concerning the direction and decisions of the Palestinian leadership is in the progress being made to send the Palestinian and Arab draft resolution condemning and halting the settlements to the U.N. General Assembly.
The General Assembly could issue a resolution of condemnation, as there is no room for a veto, and the U.S. has only one vote. It is our legitimate right to use U.N. Resolution 377, a resolution which bridges the veto gap in the Security Council and allows any draft resolution to be moved from the Security Council to the General Assembly, whose jurisdiction is to protect the peace and security of member nations, in accordance with the U.N. Charter.
According to legal practice established by U.N. Resolution 377, which was issued in November 1950, the General Assembly can adopt any draft resolution which has been prevented from being adopted because of a veto by one of the five permanent members on the Security Council.
The member countries then debate the proposed draft and vote, and the five permanent members of the Security Council, like the other members of the General Assembly, have just one vote regardless of their seniority or power.
We can be absolutely certain, not on the basis of interpretations or judgments, but by right, that the General Assembly’s jurisdiction is in accordance with Resolution 377, and derives its legal basis from it.
The Resolution was issued in 1950 during the Korean War to solve the problematic weakness of the Security Council, namely its inability to adopt a resolution to preserve the peace and security of countries because of the veto that one of the five permanent members of the Security Council may use.
Resolution 377 gives the General Assembly the unequivocal right to adopt a resolution in such cases. It states that the General Assembly “resolves that if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise their primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within 24 hours of the request therefor."
There have been a number of examples of the implementation of this resolution on the international level, the most important being Egypt during the Suez crisis in 1956 “where the obstacle of Britain and France’s veto in the Security Council was overcome by taking the case before the General Assembly, which issued its own resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of armies which happened within the week.”
This is a prime opportunity for the Palestinian people and leadership, especially given the fact that Arab governments these days will rally behind the Palestinian position because of their people’s protest movements.
If we present a draft resolution to the General Assembly, at least 137 countries will vote in favor, the resolution will be passed, and our people will have won a diplomatic battle against America and Israel.
We urgently need a moral victory like the great people of Egypt. A victory would secure a number of important objectives; most importantly it would raise the morale of the Palestinian people. But it would also stop the media fanfare, and the foreign and Arab intervention in Palestinian internal affairs, diminish the gap between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and contribute to the reconciliation process.
It is an opportunity that we must seize. U.S. opposition to an international condemnation of Israeli settlements must be challenged by the Palestinian people.