21 - 27 March 2002
Issue No.578
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 21 - 27 March 2002 Issue No.578 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
'Something to build on'
The UN Security Council has adopted a historic resolution -- put forward by none other than Washington -- in which it referred for the first time to a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. Thomas Gorguissian reports from Washington
UN Security Council Resolution 1397, introduced by the United States and passed last week by a vote of 14 to 0 with Syria abstaining, was unprecedented. The resolution affirmed, for the first time in UN history, "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders."
As many observers of the Arab-Israeli conflict pointed out, it was the first time that a Security Council resolution had explicitly referred to a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. It was also the first time the United States had sponsored a resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute since 1985. The US, especially in the last decade, has consistently resisted (and often opposed) any UN involvement in the conflict, insisting that the disputed issues have to be discussed only through the peace process and at the negotiating table, not in the international forum of the UN.
Palestinian UN representative Nasser Al-Kidwa called the resolution "important" and added that the fact it was presented by the United States was "indeed significant."
"This is something we believe will help the situation on the ground," Al-Kidwa said. "This is something on which we can build in the future."
Yet there was still much left for the Palestinians to fight for, Al-Kidwa said. "Obviously it did not contain everything we wanted,' but, as he put it, "it is a significant step for the parties and can pave the way to more important and comprehensive steps in the future."
The Israeli reaction came as a surprise to many. Israel's UN ambassador, Yehuda Lancry, called the resolution "balanced" and expressed hope that it could help restart negotiations. Israel has long opposed any role for the UN Security Council in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. To hear Israel's description of a "balanced" resolution, therefore, added doubt and suspicion about the resolution's importance and effectiveness.
The resolution, besides affirming a vision for a Palestinian state, demanded "immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including terror, provocation, incitement and destruction," and urged Israel and the Palestinians to take steps towards the resumption of peace talks.
"Our intention in doing this was to give an impetus to peace efforts and to decry the violence and terror," John D Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote. The US had made "a real effort to try to reach consensus," a European diplomat said, describing the atmosphere in which the resolution was adopted.
According to press reports, when the Security Council went into closed session on Tuesday, 12 March, and Syria offered a draft resolution -- which was, reportedly, mainly critical of Israel -- Ambassador Negroponte immediately got in touch with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who, in turn, called the National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice. After consultations, the US decided that rather than just vetoing the Syrian resolution, it would counter it with a "moderate text" -- even incorporating some phrases from the Syrian draft.
Intensive consultations took place behind the scenes, and some contact with Arab countries was involved. In the end, Ambassador Negroponte circulated a revised resolution, which this time incorporated a phrase from the speech Secretary Powell made last November about his "vision" of Israel and the Palestinians living side by side. President Bush made a similar reference to a Palestinian state last fall in his speech to the UN General Assembly. The discussion which took place in the Security Council was, according to a European diplomat, "so refreshing." Instead of the usual dead-end discussion it was, in his words, "a completely new dance" and everybody was "pleasantly surprised."
Syrian UN Ambassador Mikhail Wahbe later explained that his government had abstained from the voting because the Group of Arab States felt the resolution was "weak," and it failed to deal with "the root causes of the problem, mainly the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories," putting both Israel and its victims on the same footing. Ambassador Wahbe also noted that Syria had abstained, rather than voting against the resolution, because it "did not want to break the unity of the Council."
The following day at a press conference, US President George W Bush was asked about the timing of this resolution and American support for it. "This time, we felt like we were able to make the message a clear message that we agreed with. If it was a message that tried to isolate or condemn our friend [Israel] I'd have vetoed it," he said.
"In this case, it was a universal message that could lead to a more peaceful -- a peaceful world. And so we supported it. As a matter of fact, we helped engineer it; we were a part of the process. And, as to the timing, I don't know the timing. All I know is the things start showing up on my desk," he continued.
The next day, retired general Anthony Zinni, the US special envoy, was heading to the region.
The same day the Security Council adopted the resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the council that the situation in the region was "the worst in ten years," with Israeli- Palestinian tensions at "boiling point." He urged the two sides to "lead your peoples away from disaster."
Annan also told the Security Council that the Israeli government was eroding its standing in the world through an escalating military campaign. To the surprise of the world, and to the indignation of Israelis, Annan said: "You must end the illegal occupation... You must stop the bombing of civilian areas, the assassinations, the unnecessary use of lethal force, the demolitions and the daily humiliation of ordinary Palestinians."
Washington did not criticise Annan's tough words to Israel. On the contrary, Ambassador Negroponte said that "in general terms" the secretary-general's statement was "a fair characterisation of what is prevailing in the Middle East."
But while this was happening in New York, Israel was intensifying its massive military attacks, changing and demolishing realities on the ground, in the same place where it increasingly seems that the vision one day has to become reality.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page