As
US Lauds Saudi
Vote in GA,
Abstentions by
IBSA Plus 3
Blocked SC
Action?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 18 --
When the Obama
administration
came forward
to
accuse Iran of
being involved
in a plot to
assassinate
Saudi Arabia's
Ambassador in
Washington, US
Ambassador
Susan Rice
came to the
Security
Council and
briefed each
member
separately.
This
led some to
expect
Security
Council
action. But on
Friday it was
at the General
Assembly where
a US and Saudi
sponsored
resolution was
put to the
vote.
While
106
countries
voted in
favor, 40
abstained,
including
Security
Council
members India,
Brazil and
South Africa,
as well as
Nigeria and
veto-wielding
Russia and
China.
Considering
these
votes of major
nations, the
vote was not
as
"overwhelming"
as the
resolution's
proponents
made out. It
seems to
explain why
they
went to the
General
Assembly and
not the
Security
Council.
US
Ambassador
Susan Rice,
after the
vote, called
it a clear
message. Inner
City
Press asked
her what she
made of the
abstentions of
South Africa,
India and the
largest
majority
Muslim country
in the world,
Indonesia,
where Obama is
right now, and
why the issue
was brought to
the General
Assembly and
not the
Council.
Rice
said that the
General
Assembly was
an "appropriate
first
stop"
in that every
country has a
vote. One
wonders if the
US would take
a General
Assembly vote
in favor of
Palestinian UN
membership as
a clear
message. The
full
transcript is
below.
Obama, King
Abdullah and Adel
al-Jubeir,
plot not shown
Notably,
on Friday
morning
another
resolution was
voted in,
involving
Saudi Arabia
funding for
three years a
UN
Couter-Terrorism
Center. To
some it
seemed like
pay-to-play
and
distasteful --
some diplomats
even
grumbled about
the
nationality of
most of the
9/11/01
hijackers.
In
the region,
countries like
Kuwait and
Bahrain spoke
in favor of
the
resolution.
In the Latin
American and
Caribbean
states group
GRULAC,
countries
like Uruguay
and Chile
abstained,
while St.
Lucia and
Costa Rica
voted yes.
Even so, Costa
Rica's
Permanent
Representative
explained
the other
side's
position to
Inner City
Press: there
is an open
case.
As India's
Permanent
Representative
Hardeep Singh
Puri put it,
"we have
abstained
today on the
resolution, as
its substance
deals with a
specific case
in which we
are not in the
possession of
full facts and
the matter is
sub-judice."
We'll have
more on this:
watch this
site.
From
the
transcript:
Inner
City
Press: You
said that it's
a very clear
message, but
what do you
make of the
abstentions of
Security
Council
members like
South
Africa,
India... Is
there a reason
you didn't
bring it to
the
Council? And
those are
pretty big
countries.
What do you
think it
says that they
thought
there's not
due process or
that it should
go
through the
courts?
Ambassador
Rice:
Well, I think
first of all,
many of those
countries
explained
their vote,
and they all
affirmed their
condemnation
of terrorism
in
all forms. We
thought-and, I
think, most
importantly,
the government
of Saudi
Arabia
thought-that
the General
Assembly was
the
appropriate
first stop for
an effort to
condemn this
attack because
it affects
all of us as
diplomats. And
the General
Assembly is
the only forum
where every
state in the
world is
represented
and has the
opportunity
to express
their concern
and
condemnation
of acts that
target
diplomats. So
we think that
was
appropriate
and right. It
doesn't
preclude the
possibility
that at some
stage down the
road that it
may
be appropriate
for the
Council, but
this clearly
was the right
first
step and we
were very
pleased to
support it.
, 
