PALESTINE: U.N. Debate Shows Problems for U.S. ‘Broker’ Role

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 1997 (IPS) - Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat’s visit to the United States this week has shown both the progress and the limitations of the Palestinian nationhood movement in both Washington and the United Nations.

On the one hand, Arafat received encouragement from U.S. President Bill Clinton in his effort to block Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s plans to build settlements in east Jerusalem. The U.N. Security Council also started Wednesday a debate on the settlements, which continues Thursday and has provided Palestinian allies a soapbox to air their grievances.

“(Netanyahu) is pushing the peace process in a critical direction,” Arafat complained in a rare meeting with the Security Council Wednesday. He led a chorus of complaints against the settlements, most notably planned housing south of east Jerusalem which Arafat claims is intended “to separate Jerusalem from (Palestinian-ruled) Bethlehem.”

But at the same time as it has encouraged such discussion, the United States has stuck to its traditional position of keeping the United Nations out of the diplomatic picture on most Israeli- Palestinian issues, and specifically Jerusalem.

Even as the Council debate began, U.S. diplomats argued against a proposed draft resolution, authored by the European Union, that criticised the planned Israeli settlements and asked the Netanyahu government “to refrain from any action or measure which alters the facts on the ground.”

“We don’t believe that issues like this should be resolved in the Security Council,” said U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson, echoing Washington’s standard reason for vetoing any Security Council resolutions on key Israeli-Palestinian issues.

If the other 14 Council members persist in seeking a vote on the Jerusalem settlements, the United States could well veto again. “The United States is used to standing alone” on the question of Israel, one U.S. diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We may have to stand alone again.”

At the same time, the Clinton administration is equally eager to show its displeasure with Netanyahu’s hard-line stance on negotiations with the Palestinians — and has thus dropped hints that it sees the Palestinian complaints as legitimate.

Clinton, in a Monday meeting with Arafat, chided the rightist Israeli government’s decision to construct 6,500 new houses for Israeli settlers. Some 2,500 of which are to be built in Jabal Abu Ghunaym, an Arab-majority area south of the largely Arab East Jerusalem.

“I would prefer the decision not have been made, because I don’t think it builds confidence,” Clinton said. “I think it builds mistrust.”

Netanyahu countered that Clinton was “not saying anything new,” and maintained his confidence that Israel could proceed with the settlements without any problem. He also ordered the closure of several Palestinian offices in east Jerusalem, which has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The Israeli leader is right about one thing: There is a limit to the amount of support Washington can give to the Palestinians. Although U.S. officials have been keen to underscore just how upset U.S. diplomats are at Netanyahu’s reversal of the Israeli- Palestinian peace process begun in 1993 by the centre-left Labour Party, they are also wary of Israel paying too heavy a price at the United Nations.

Similarly, when Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinian worshipers at a Hebron mosque in 1994, the United States let a Council resolution condemning the act pass — but only after it had used its veto to delete language concerning Jerusalem.

According to the White House, the issue of Jerusalem’s status should not be addressed at the United Nations or any other venue because it is a sensitive topic reserved for “final status” talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. But Arafat argued here that the status of the city — which both parties claim as their capital — is already being changed as Netanyahu plans new settlements and closes Palestinian offices in the eastern part, called Al-Quds.

Ultimately, the problem for Clinton is a political one: how to convince the Palestinians that Washington is an “honest broker” which can address their strongest grievances, while maintaining its traditional strong alliance with Israel (which receives more than three billion dollars in U.S. aid yearly).

Richardson noted that the United States this week decided to set up a joint committee with the Palestinians to discuss economic and cultural issues.

Arafat also received another choice plum during his visit to Washington when the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Tuesday signed an agreement with his Palestine Liberation Organisation to provide risk insurance for businesses intending to invest in the Palestinian Authority. MIGA is hoping for a fund of some 50 million dollars which it can then use to provide coverage in case of nationalisations, war, or civil unrest.

Such gains, the United States hopes, should compensate for Washington’s traditional blocking of even mild action against Israel at the United Nations. But some diplomats here worry that the end result may be that Israeli settlements continue, and succeed at isolating and, as Arafat put it, “squeezing” the Palestinians’ small self-ruled zones.

“The government of Israel has to understand that it is not possible to return to the practises and behaviour of the occupier without creating dangerous repercussions,” Palestinian Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa warned during the Wednesday debate. “We believe that the Security Council has to intervene and take necessary action…to save the peace process.”

British Ambassador John Weston added that, if Israel is prepared to delay or rescind its settlement plans, the Council might hold off any response — but that if it fails to do so, the Council must act.

Peace talks, said French Ambassador Herve Ladsous, “do not accommodate unilateral decisions, which prejudge the issue of discussions and which modify the status quo.”

But Israeli Ambassador David Peleg denied that “building plans within Jerusalem” change the city’s status, and argued that Israel intends to provide housing units both for Jewish and Arab residents.