After
Palestine
Signs Up for
ICC, US
"Deeply
Troubled,"
Echoes at UN
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 31, more
here
--
The day after
the UN
Security
Council
rejected
Palestine's
draft resolution,
Mahmoud 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 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.”
Here's
the text of
the amended
draft:
Jordan:
draft
resolution
Reaffirming
its previous
resolutions,
in particular
resolutions
242 (1967);
338 (1973),
1397 (2002),
1515 (2003),
1544 (2004),
1850 (2008),
1860 (2009)
and the Madrid
Principles,
Reiterating
its vision of
a region where
two democratic
states, Israel
and Palestine,
live side by
side in peace
within secure
and recognized
borders,
Reaffirming
the right of
the
Palestinian
people to
self-determination
and to
independence
in their State
of Palestine,
with East
Jerusalem as
its capital,
Recalling
General
Assembly
resolution 181
(II) of 29
November 1947,
Reaffirming
the principle
of the
inadmissibility
of the
acquisition of
territory by
force and
recalling its
resolutions
446 (1979),
452 (1979) and
465 (1980),
determining,
inter alia,
that the
policies and
practices of
Israel in
establishing
settlements in
the
territories
occupied since
1967,
including East
Jerusalem,
have no legal
validity and
constitute a
serious
obstruction to
achieving a
comprehensive,
just and
lasting peace
in the Middle
East,
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,
Affirming the
imperative of
resolving the
problem of the
Palestine
refugees on
the basis of
international
law and
relevant
resolutions,
including
resolution 194
(III), as
stipulated in
the Arab Peace
Initiative,
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,
Underlining
that the Gaza
Strip
constitutes an
integral part
of the
Palestinian
territory
occupied in
1967, and
calling for a
sustainable
solution to
the situation
in the Gaza
Strip,
including the
sustained and
regular
opening of its
border
crossings for
normal flow of
persons and
goods, in
accordance
with
international
humanitarian
law,
Welcoming the
important
progress in
Palestinian
state-building
efforts
recognised by
the World Bank
and the IMF in
2012, and
reiterating
its call to
all States and
international
organizations
to contribute
to the
Palestinian
institution
building
programme in
preparation
for
independence,
Reaffirming
that a just,
lasting and
peaceful
settlement of
the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict can
only be
achieved by
peaceful
means, based
on an enduring
commitment to
mutual
recognition,
freedom from
violence,
incitement and
terror, and
the two-State
solution,
building on
previous
agreements and
obligations
and stressing
that the only
viable
solution to
the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is an
agreement that
ends the
occupation
that began in
1967, resolves
all permanent
status issues
as previously
defined by the
parties, and
fulfils the
legitimate
aspirations of
both parties,
Condemning all
violence and
hostilities
directed
against
civilians and
all acts of
terrorism, and
reminding all
States of
their
obligations
under
resolution
1373 (2001),
Recalling the
obligation to
ensure the
safety and
well-being of
civilians and
ensure their
protection in
situations of
armed
conflict,
Reaffirming
the right of
all States in
the region to
live in peace
within secure
and
internationally
recognized
borders,
Noting with
appreciation
the efforts of
the United
States in
2013/14 to
facilitate and
advance
negotiations
between the
parties aimed
at achieving a
final peace
settlement,
Aware of its
responsibilities
to help secure
a long-term
solution to
the conflict,
1. Affirms the
urgent need to
attain, no
later than 12
months after
the adoption
of this
resolution, a
just, lasting
and
comprehensive
peaceful
solution that
brings an end
to the Israeli
occupation
since 1967 and
fulfils the
vision of two
independent,
democratic and
prosperous
states, Israel
and a
sovereign,
contiguous and
viable State
of Palestine,
living side by
side in peace
and security
within
mutually and
internationally
recognized
borders;
2. Decides
that the
negotiated
solution will
be based on
the following
parameters:
– borders
based on 4
June 1967
lines with
mutually
agreed,
limited,
equivalent
land swaps;
– security
arrangements,
including
through a
third-party
presence, that
guarantee and
respect the
sovereignty of
a State of
Palestine,
including
through a full
and phased
withdrawal of
the Israeli
occupying
forces, which
will end the
occupation
that began in
1967 over an
agreed
transition
period in a
reasonable
timeframe, not
to exceed the
end of 2017,
and that
ensure the
security of
both Israel
and Palestine
through
effective
border
security and
by preventing
the resurgence
of terrorism
and
effectively
addressing
security
threats,
including
emerging and
vital threats
in the region;
– a just and
agreed
solution to
the Palestine
refugee
question on
the basis of
Arab Peace
Initiative,
international
law and
relevant
United Nations
resolutions,
including
resolution 194
(III);
– 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;
– the just
settlement of
all other
outstanding
issues,
including
water and
prisoners;
3. Recognizes
that the final
status
agreement
shall put an
end to the
occupation and
an end to all
claims and
lead to
immediate
mutual
recognition;
4. Affirms
that the
definition of
a plan and
schedule for
implementing
the security
arrangements
shall be
placed at the
centre of the
negotiations
within the
framework
established by
this
resolution;
5. Looks
forward to
welcoming
Palestine as a
full Member
State of the
United Nations
within the
timeframe
defined in the
present
resolution;
6. Urges both
parties to
engage
seriously in
the work of
building trust
and to act
together in
the pursuit of
peace by
negotiating in
good faith and
refraining
from all acts
of incitement
and
provocative
acts or
statements,
and also calls
upon all
States and
international
organizations
to support the
parties in
confidence-building
measures and
to contribute
to an
atmosphere
conducive to
negotiations;
7. Calls upon
all parties to
abide by their
obligations
under
international
humanitarian
law, including
the Geneva
Convention
relative to
the Protection
of Civilian
Persons in
Time of War of
12 August
1949;
8. Encourages
concurrent
efforts to
achieve a
comprehensive
peace in the
region, which
would unlock
the full
potential of
neighbourly
relations in
the Middle
East and
reaffirms in
this regard
the importance
of the full
implementation
of the Arab
Peace
Initiative;
9. Calls for a
renewed
negotiation
framework that
ensures the
close
involvement,
alongside the
parties, of
major
stakeholders
to help the
parties reach
an agreement
within the
established
timeframe and
implement all
aspects of the
final status,
including
through the
provision of
political
support as
well as
tangible
support for
post-conflict
and
peace-building
arrangements,
and welcomes
the
proposition to
hold an
international
conference
that would
launch the
negotiations;
10. Calls upon
both parties
to abstain
from any
unilateral and
illegal
actions, as
well as all
provocations
and
incitement,
that could
escalate
tensions and
undermine the
viability and
attainability
of a two-State
solution on
the basis of
the parameters
defined in
this
resolution;
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;
11. Calls for
immediate
efforts to
redress the
unsustainable
situation in
the Gaza
Strip,
including
through the
provision of
expanded
humanitarian
assistance to
the
Palestinian
civilian
population via
the United
Nations Relief
and Works
Agency for
Palestine
Refugees in
the Near East
and other
United Nations
agencies and
through
serious
efforts to
address the
underlying
issues of the
crisis,
including
consolidation
of the
ceasefire
between the
parties;
12. Requests
the
Secretary-General
to report on
the
implementation
of this
resolution
every three
months;
13. Decides to
remain seized
of the matter.
Back
on December 11
amid reports
that if the
Palestine
resolution
fails this
month in the
UN Security
Council,
Palestine will
immediately
join the
International
Criminal
Court, Inner
City Press
asked Mansour
about it. Video here.
Specifically,
Inner City
Press asked
Mansour about
the relation
between the
resolution(s)
and Palestine
joining the
ICC
Mansour said
the two are
not
conditional,
and that
Palestine
wants to join
the ICC, as is
being urged at
the current
session of the
ICC Assembly
of State
Parties at
which
Palestine is
now a
non-member
state. Video
here.
Meanwhile the
US Continuing
Resolution /
Omnibus on
Capital Hill
had this to
say:
"None
of the funds
appropriated
under the
heading
‘‘Economic
Support Fund’’
in this Act
may be made
available for
assistance for
the
Palestinian
Authority, if
after the date
of enactment
of this Act—
"(I)
the
Palestinians
obtain the
same standing
as member
states or full
membership as
a state in the
United Nations
or any
specialized
agency thereof
outside an
agreement
negotiated
between Israel
and the
Palestinians;
or
"(II)
the
Palestinians
initiate an
International
Criminal Court
judicially
authorized
investigation,
or actively
support such
an
investigation,
that subjects
Israeli
nationals to
an
investigation
for alleged
crimes against
Palestinians."
As Inner City
Press exclusively
reported,
based on
Security
Council
communications,
Chad was
pressured to
not schedule
any meetings
after December
19. It pushed
back, and
scheduled one
for December
22. Now this.
Already, the
delay has been
long. It was
cold, for
example, at
the UNRWA
event held
just outside
the UN on
December 2,
photographed
by the Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
here.
In one month's
time,
Venezuela and
Spain join the
Security
Council, along
with Angola,
Malaysia and
New Zealand.
Wouldn't the
draft get more
"yes" votes in
January 2015
than in
December 2014?
Rather than
analyze this,
Reuters for
example again
vaguely
reports that
"some
diplomats have
described the
Palestinian-drafted
text as
'unbalanced.'"
For whom? Now
Reuters adds,
"some Western
Council
diplomats." So
helpful.
Back
on October 21
as the
Palestine
debate of the
UN Security
Council went
on in the
Council
chamber,
Inner City
Press
conferred with
a range of
Council
sources about
the pending
draft
resolution to
set a time
frame to end
Israel's
occupation.
Negotiations
were
held on the
draft last
week but only
at the
“expert”
level, not of
Permanent
Representatives
of the
Council's 15
members.
Supporters of
the current
draft,
according to
Inner City
Press'
sources,
include China
and Russia,
Argentina and
Chile, Chad
and it was
assumed
Nigeria,
although
sources say
Nigeria in
consultations
said they
didn't yet
have
instructions.
France
was described
as more
excited by the
draft than
either the US
or the UK, as
not have a
problem with a
time frame to
end the
Occupation but
wanting
unstated
changes to the
draft. France
did not put
forth
amendments, a
source told
Inner City
Press,
guessing that
France didn't
want to
“embarrass”
the US
Administration
before the
November
mid-term
elections.
The UK
was described
as less
enthusiastic,
but as somehow
“softened” by
the recent
vote in
Parliament
favoring
recognizing
Palestine as a
state.
Talk
turned to the
new members of
the Security
Council coming
in on January
1, with
Malaysia
instead of
South Korea
seen as a
shift in favor
of Palestine
as a state.
(This
reporter's Security
Council
elections
coverage is
collected here.)
Angola and
Venezuela are
seen as
supportive and
“even Spain,”
as one source
put it to
Inner City
Press. But
what about New
Zealand? We'll
have more on
this. Watch
this site.
, 
