On Palestine,
UN Spouts
Numbers, US
Starts with
Syria, Arab
League Redux
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 15, more
here
--
When Jens
Anders
Toyberg-Frandzen,
the UN
Assistant
Secretary-General
ad interim for
Political
Affairs,
briefed the
Security
Council on
January 15, he
cited these
numbers:
“overall
for 2014
Israeli forces
killing 54
Palestinians
and injured
some 5,800 in
the West Bank
- the largest
number of
injuries
recorded in a
since year
since 2005 and
the largest
number of
fatalities
since 2007...
Palestinian
attacks
resulted in
some 15
Israeli
fatalities and
some 270
Israeli
injuries in
the West Bank
and Israel,
the largest
number of
injuries in a
single year
since 2006 and
the largest
number of
fatalities
since 2008.”
We'll leave it
for readers to
see which
spike in
casualties
followed
which. US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
began her
speech in the
debate called
"The situation
in the Middle
East,
including the
Palestinian
question" with
Syria.
Later on
January 15,
the Syrian
Coalition announced
that its new
president
Khaled Khoja
met US Daniel
Rubenstein and
US Central
Command about
arm and equip.
Everyone has
their own priorities,
it seems.
Meanwhile the
Arab League
has said it
will be
putting
forward a new
Palestine
resolution in
the Security
Council, now
with the
Council's more
Palestine
friendly line
up. Watch this
site.
Back
on January 2,
Palestinian
Observer to
the UN Riyad
Mansour
delivered to
the UN
Secretariat
documents of
accession to
the
International
Criminal
Court. Inner
City Press story
here.
On
January 6, UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, as
ICC
depository,
said in a
letter which
Inner City
Press
published that
evening that
the ICC's Rome
"Statute will
enter into
force as to
the State of
Palestine on
April 1,
2015." Photo
here.
On January 7,
Ban's office
sought to
clarify his
letter in
response to
back-channel
questions. On
January 8,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric,
video to
follow, to
state if Ban's
office was
asked to issue
this
clarification
by Israel or
the US (this
wasn't
answered).
Now, minutes
later on
January 8, the
US State
Department has
issued this:
"QUESTION
TAKEN AT THE
JANUARY 7,
2015 DAILY
PRESS BRIEFING
Palestinian
Efforts to
Accede to the
Rome Statute
of the
International
Criminal Court
Question: Does
the U.S. have
a position
regarding
Palestinian
efforts to
accede to the
Rome Statute
of the
International
Criminal
Court?
Answer: As we
have said
previously, we
have made
clear our
opposition to
Palestinian
action in
seeking to
join the Rome
Statute of the
International
Criminal
Court.
This step is
counter-productive,
will damage
the atmosphere
with the very
people with
whom
Palestinians
ultimately
need to make
peace, and
will do
nothing to
further the
aspirations of
the
Palestinian
people for a
sovereign and
independent
state.
The view of
the United
States is that
the
Palestinians
have not yet
established a
state.
Neither the
steps that the
Palestinians
have taken,
nor the
actions the UN
Secretariat
has taken in
performing the
Secretary-General’s
functions as
depositary for
the Rome
Statute,
warrant the
conclusion
that the
Palestinians
have
established a
“state,” or
have the legal
competences
necessary to
fulfill the
requirements
of the Rome
Statute.
The United
States does
not believe
that the
Palestinians
are eligible
to become a
party to the
Rome Statute
or any of the
other treaties
at issue, or
that the
United States
is in treaty
relations with
the
Palestinians
under any of
the treaties
that they are
seeking to
join.
As the UN
spokesperson
said last
April, and as
the United
Nations
specifically
confirmed
yesterday, the
treatment of
such documents
by the
depositary is
“an
administrative
function
performed by
the
Secretariat as
part of the
Secretary-General’s
responsibility
as
depositary,”
and it is for
states to
resolve “any
legal issues
raised by
instruments
circulated by
the
Secretary-General.”
Ultimately,
the parties
can only
realize their
aspirations,
including the
desire of
Palestinians
for statehood,
through direct
negotiations
with each
other.
The United
States will
continue to
work to
advance the
interest we
share in
bringing about
a lasting
peace between
the Israelis
and
Palestinians."
On
January 5,
Mansour wrote
to UN Security
Council
President
Christian
Barros of
Chile to
complain of
Israel's
decision to
withheld
Palestinian
tax revenue,
calling it
piracy.
Mansour
said “Israel,
the Occupying
power, has
resumed the
theft of
Palestinian
tax revenues
in direct
retaliation
for the
legitimate,
steps taken by
the
Palestinian
leadership,”
including
filing to join
the
International
Criminal
Court.
Mansour
said “we
reiterate such
such an action
constitutes an
act of piracy”
and asked the
UN Security
Council
members to
“uphold their
responsibilities
toward
addressing
this illegal
situation in
all its
manifestations.”
Inner City
Press on
January 5
asked Barros
about a new
Palestine
resolution; he
said he hadn't
been informed
of one,
formally or
informally,
but that he'd
read media
reports there
might be a
move "next
week."
(At
the January 5
US State
Department
briefing,
spokesperson
Jen Psaki when
asked about
the tax
withholding
said the US
discourages
any actions --
like this one
-- which would
raise
tensions. She
also said that
the US
"obviously"
does not want
Palestine to
proceed at the
ICC.)
Meanwhile
in Ramallah
Mahmoud Abbas
met with
Secretary
General Madani
of the
Organization
for Islamic
Cooperation,
which on
January 5
issued this
read-out:
"Madani
stated that
the OIC is
endeavouring
action by its
contact group
of foreign
ministers.
This includes
visits to the
capitals of
influential
countries to
convey the
message and
demands of the
OIC vis-à-vis
the
Palestinian
cause and
Al-Quds. He
further
pointed out
that the
mission of
this team has
become more
urgent in
light of the
recent vote of
the UN
Security
Council on the
draft
resolution to
end the
Israeli
occupation of
Palestinian
territories."
So do these
"influential
countries"
which have
been visited
include the
five new
members of the
Security
Council -- New
Zealand,
Spain,
Venezuela,
Angola and
Malaysia -- as
well as, for
example,
Nigeria? Abbas
has indicated
that
preparations
are underway
for another
vote in the
Security
Council, now
with these
five new
members.
Abbas on
December 31
signed the
Rome State to
join the
International
Criminal
Court. Inner
City Press had
asked
Palestine's
Permanent
Observer Riyad
Mansour about
just this move
back on
December 11,
here.
On January 2
just after the
UN accepted
Palestine's
papers to join
the ICC, Inner
City Press
asked Mansour
if the
decision has
been made to
ask for action
on Israel at
the ICC, and
about the
CRomnibus
appropriations
bill provision
to cut US
funding to the
Palestinian
Authority if
it does so. Video here and embedded below.
Mansour said
Palestine has
already asked
the ICC
Registrar for
retroactivity
to cover the
last Gaza war
in 2014, and
that he would
met with a
representative
of the ICC
Registrar, who
happened to be
in New York,
in an hour's
time.
On the
threatened
funding cut,
which Senator
Chuck Schumer
issued a press
release about,
Mansour said
it was strange
to punish the
Palestinians
for seeking
justice.
Inner City
Press also
asked Mansour
if Nigeria's
absention on
the Palestine
resolution
surprised him.
He said to
focus on the
larger power,
and that
Nigeria's
Explanation of
Vote sounded
like they had
voted Yes.
So
what
happened?
On the
afternoon of
December 31,
the US State
Department's
Jeff Rathke,
Director of
Office of
Press
Relations, put
out this
statement:
"We are deeply
troubled by
today’s
Palestinian
action
regarding the
ICC. It is an
escalatory
step that will
not achieve
any of the
outcomes most
Palestinians
have long
hoped to see
for their
people.
Actions like
this are not
the answer.
Hard as it is,
all sides need
to find a way
to work
constructively
and
cooperatively
together to
lower
tensions,
reject
violence, and
find a path
forward.
"Today’s
action is
entirely
counter-productive
and does
nothing to
further the
aspirations of
the
Palestinian
people for a
sovereign and
independent
state. It
badly damages
the atmosphere
with the very
people with
whom they
ultimately
need to make
peace.
"As we’ve said
before, the
United States
continues to
strongly
oppose actions
– by both
parties – that
undermine
trust and
create doubts
about their
commitment to
a negotiated
peace. Our
position has
not
changed.
Such actions
only push the
parties
further
apart.
"Every month
that goes by
without
constructive
engagement
between the
parties only
increases
polarization
and allows
more space for
destabilizing
actions.
Our efforts
should focus
on creating an
environment
for meaningful
talks.
"While we are
under no
illusions
regarding the
difficult road
of
negotiations,
direct
negotiations
are ultimately
the only
realistic path
for achieving
the
aspirations of
both peoples.
All of us
would like to
see the day
when that
effort can
resume, and
can lead to
the peace that
we all know is
the only real,
sustainable
answer to the
underlying
causes of this
conflict."
The document
is supposed to
be filed or
deposited with
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, who
is listed as
on "annual
leave." (Ban's
spokespeople
have no press
briefing
scheduled for
today.)
The ICC, of
course, is no
panacea.
Sudan's Omar
al Bashir, for
example, was
been indicted
by the ICC for
genocide, but
still UN
officials like
Herve Ladsous
meet with him
without
providing
explanations.
Still, Abbas
said he would
do something,
and now he
has.
The
Palestinian
resolution
which failed
on December 30
needed nine
"Yes" votes to
trigger the
expected US
veto. It got
only eight
"Yes" votes,
as Nigeria
abstained
along with the
United
Kingdom,
Lithuania,
South Korea
and Rwanda.
Afterward,
Palestine's
Mansour said,
"Why have the
efforts of the
Arab Group,
with the full
support of the
NAM and the
OIC and all
other friends
worldwide, to
legislate this
consensus
through the
Council as a
contribution
towards
bringing an
end to this
conflict
through
peaceful,
political,
diplomatic and
non-violent
means
repeatedly
blocked?"
The
NAM is the
Non-Aligned
Movement and
as Inner City
Press noted
contemporaneous
with the vote,
both Rwanda
and Nigeria
are members of
NAM (list
here) --
but both of
them
abstained.
Rwanda's
abstention was
assumed,
including in
the Arab Group
meeting held
earlier on
December 30.
The abstention
of Nigeria,
which meant
that the
United States'
"No" vote
would not be
considered a
veto, was
something
else.
To the
surprise of
some, Nigeria
and its
President
Goodluck
Jonathan were
not listed
among the
calls of US
Secretary of
State John
Kerry. The
State
Department's
spokesperson
Jeff Rathke on
December 30 said
"In
the last 24 to
48 hours the
Secretary has
made a number
of calls to
counterparts.
Let me give
you a list of
them. He
has spoken
with President
Kagame of
Rwanda; he has
spoken on a
few occasions
with Jordanian
Foreign
Minister
Judeh; he has
spoken with
the Saudi
foreign
minister, the
Egyptian
foreign
minister, with
Russian
Foreign
Minister
Lavrov, with
the UK foreign
secretary,
with the EU
high
representative,
Chilean
Foreign
Minister
Munoz,
Lithuanian
Foreign
Minister
Linkevicius.
The – he has
spoken, as I
mentioned
yesterday,
with PA
President
Abbas.
He has spoken
with the
Luxembourg
foreign
minister, with
German Foreign
Minister
Steinmeier,
and with
French Foreign
Minister
Fabius. So by
my count,
that’s 13
different
individuals.
Some of them
he’s spoken
with more than
once, so more
than 13 calls
over the last
day or two."
Despite this,
it's said
that Kerry
called
Goodluck
Jonathan, and
that a State
Department
spokesperson -
Rathke? - said
it. Where?
We continue to
wait.
It's
reported that
while Kerry
doesn't list a
call to
Nigeria,
Israeli Prime
Minister
Netanyau did
-- for
Goodluck, some
say.
Inner
City Press
after the vote
asked Jordan's
Ambassador
Dina Kawar if
the Arab Group
intended to
put this or
another
Palestine
resolution in
front of the
new line up of
Security
Council
members
entering in
two days, with
Angola
replacing
Rwanda and
Malaysia
replacing
South Korea
(and New
Zealand
replacing
Australia,
which voted
no). She said
the Arab Group
would keep
working, but
did not say
when another
resolution
will be put
forward.
So what comes
next? Below,
we cover the
issue of the
International
Criminal
Court.
A source from
inside the
Arab Group
meeting tells
Inner City
Press that
question - the
benefit or not
of "making"
the US veto -
was a major
topic in the
meeting, but
the decision
was made by
the Arab Group
to support the
Palestinians'
strategy and
request for a
vote, with the
above
expectation,
at this time.
On
December 30 at
around 1 pm,
Mansour said,
“We are happy
that the Arab
Group on the
basis of
previous
ministerial
meetings has
considered in
a positive and
responsible
way the
request of the
Palestinian
leadership to
put the draft
resolution to
a vote,
possibly this
afternoon, if
not tomorrow
morning, this
is related to
the readiness
of the
Secretariat of
the Security
Council.”
Referring it
seems not only
to the US but
also to the
UK,
Palestine's
Mansour said
on Tuesday,
“If one party
decides for
whatever
reason that
they do not
want to go
along with
this massive
support to
find a
solution to
this conflict,
to try to save
the two-state
solution by
asking for an
end of the
Occupation
that started
in 1967, so
that the State
of Palestine
could enjoy
its
independence,
if a party is
not going to
go along with
this mood, in
Europe and in
all corners of
the globe...
it is not for
lack of giving
time as Arabs,
we have been
deliberating
for almost
three and a
half months.”
At 11:30 am on
December 30,
another
meeting about
the amended
draft began in
UN Conference
Room 9. UN
Television
hastily set
up a
microphone and
stakeout
(without
formally
informing the
press corps,
which the Free UN Coalition for Access is
inquiring
into).
Down in the
UN's first
basement
diplomats from
Jordan paced
around; the
meeting
upstairs in
the Security
Council about
Sudan
throwing out
two more high
UN officials
was
essentially
forgotten.
Before
the Sudan
expulsions
meeting on
December 30 of
the Security
Council, for
now their last
of the year,
UK Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant told the
press of the
Palestine
amended draft,
“the new text
has been
circulated but
no
negotiations
have been
scheduled and
no vote has
yet been
scheduled, so
we wait to see
if there will
be a vote this
year, or next
year or not at
all.”
On the
contents of
the
resolution,
Lyall Grant
said “there
are
difficulties
with the text,
particularly
the language
on time scales
and the
language of
refugees. We
would have
some
difficulties
with the text.
We don't know
when the vote
will be held.”
Palestine
met with the
Arab Group at
the UN about
the pending
draft Security
Council
resolution on
December
29.
Afterward,
Inner City
Press asked
Palestine's
Observer Riyad
Mansour and
Jordan's
Permanent
Representative
Dina Kawar
about US
opposition. Video here.
The text of
the amended
draft is
below; six
changes
include:
New
in PP 3 “and
to
independence
in their State
of Palestine,
with East
Jerusalem as
its capital,”
New
PP6 “Recalling
also its
relevant
resolutions
regarding the
status of
Jerusalem,
including
resolution 478
(1980) of 20
August 1980,
and bearing in
mind that the
annexation of
East Jerusalem
is not
recognized by
the
international
community,”
New
PP8:
“Recalling the
advisory
opinion of the
International
Court of
Justice of 9
July 2004 on
the legal
consequences
of the
construction
of a wall in
the Occupied
Palestinian
Territory,”
New
phrasing in
OP2: “a just
resolution of
the status of
Jerusalem as
the capital of
the two States
which fulfils
the legitimate
aspirations of
both parties
and protects
freedom of
worship;”
adding
the 2 words
“and
prisoners;”
New
10bis.
"Reiterates
its demand in
this regard
for the
complete
cessation of
all Israeli
settlement
activities in
the
Palestinian
territory
occupied since
1967,
including East
Jerusalem."
Less than an
hour before
the Arab Group
meeting ended,
at the US
State
Department
briefing in
Washington,
the
Department's
spokesperson
said the US
opposes the
draft, and
others oppose
the draft as
well, in part
because it
“fails to
account for
Israel's
legitimate
security
needs.”
Update
from US
transcript:
MR.
JEFF
RATHKE:
"We’ve seen
reports
regarding
Palestinian
and Jordanian
plans to bring
their text to
a vote at the
Security
Council.
There are
discussions
still taking
place in New
York and we
are – and with
the Secretary,
who has spoken
with some of
his
counterparts,
and we are
therefore
engaging with
all the
relevant
stakeholders.
As we’ve said
before, this
draft
resolution is
not something
that we would
support and
other
countries
share the same
concerns that
we have."
Inner City
Press asked,
and Mansour
replied,
“There was a
telephone
conversation
between
President
Mahmoud Abbas
and Secretary
of State John
Kerry
yesterday and
I'm sure they
discussed all
the issues.”
Dina Kawar
said the
amendments
concern “the
issue of
Jerusalem, and
others concern
prisoners,
water,
settlements.”
She said, “the
Arab Group
supports, they
have now the
copy of the
new
amendments, we
are going to
submit today
to the
Secretariat.”
On timing she
said, “If I
tell you this
week and it
happens next
week you're
going to come
back and ask"
why.
Dina Kawar
and Riyad
Mansour on Dec
28, 2104, (c)
M.R. Lee
Mansour
said on the
timing of a
vote,
“realistically
it could be
tomorrow or
the day
after.”
Watch
this site.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2014 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|