Last Friday, the UN General Assembly, in a special emergency session, adopted a resolution by an overwhelming majority, by a vote of 143 to 9, with 25 abstentions, in which it recommended the Security Council (SC) to accept Palestine as a full member state of the UN.
This came on the heel of the earlier voting in the Security Council on 18 April where the US vetoed the resolution for Palestinian membership on the ground that it was ‘premature,’ and that the matter at hand should be settled bilaterally between the parties through negotiations. We know when the latter takes up the GA resolution for consideration, the US will almost certainly veto it again.
The monstrous abuse of veto by the US raises a number of questions, four of which we propose to discuss here.
First, why did the Charter invest the SC with the right to admit new members to the UN? Secondly, can the General Assembly (GA) admit new members whom the SC has not recommended? Thirdly, why is the Palestine Authority so keen to become a member of the Organization. Lastly, why did the US exercise veto on the question of Palestinian membership, even while it professes to supposedly favor a two-state solution?
We begin by spelling out the criteria of admission of new states. According to Article 4 of the Charter, they are as follows: a) the candidate should be peace-loving; b) should accept the Charter obligations; c) and should be able and willing to carry them out.
Strategically speaking, the adoption of the resolution on Palestine with a thumping majority by the GA, notwithstanding its much-vaunted moral value, is totally irrelevant to the situation on the ground.
The Charter also lays down that the GA shall admit a candidate by a two-thirds majority on the recommendation of the SC. The criterion c), in our view, implies that the candidate should be independent and sovereign because in the absence of this quality, it is not possible to carry out many of the Charter obligations.
However, the Organization at birth admitted Ukraine, Byelorussia, India and Philippines which were not independent at that time. We understand that except for condition b), it is hard to determine other conditions objectively because they are essentially political in character. Since the SC members make the determination, the practice shows that they do it keeping their own interests into consideration rather than that of the Organization.
As to the first question, we need to go back to the time of the drafting of the Charter. The Allied Powers who had won WWII, namely, the US, the Soviet Union, Britain and France decided to invest in themselves (and China), the veto right, which also covered the question of the admission of new members.
The purpose was to keep the Axis Powers, their non-belligerent supporters and Franco’s Spain out of the Organization. In the GA which was composed of all the member states, the principle of equality of vote for all, big and small, prevailed. It is noteworthy that the ‘peace-loving’ condition was specifically inserted in the membership criteria to keep their wartime opponents out of the Organization in which they succeeded for a number of years.
As to the second question, soon after the creation of the Organization, the former allies split into two antagonistic blocks, namely, Western and Communist, and a Cold War started between them. This time each block used the veto right to keep the other block’s candidates and proteges out of the Organization.
Resultantly, during the first decade, not many states were admitted into the Organization. Given that a number of candidate states were denied membership, smaller nations led by Argentina took up the plea that in terms of constitutionality the veto right was not applicable to the membership question and wanted the GA to exercise it. This led the Organization to seek an advisory opinion from the World Court on the question whether the GA on its own was competent to admit new members in the event of an impasse on the issue in the SC. The Court replied negatively and reaffirmed the permanent members’ veto right in the matter. It is noteworthy that though the GA resolution is exhortatory in nature, it carries some moral weight.
As to the third question, we begin with Palestine’s current status. Since 2012, it enjoys a ‘non-member observer state’ status. By virtue of this status, it has the right of access to the UN bodies such as the ICC and the right to participate in the GA work. Now it seeks to upgrade its current status to that of a member state in the hope that it will lead to the status of an independent, sovereign state. In the view of one observer, it can hope that its membership as a state with defined borders will guarantee international protection against the Israeli military, which could also force the Zionist state to vacate the areas within the 1967 borders.
In the current situation, Public Law 101-246 and Public Law 103-236 adopted by the Congress, which is controlled by Zionists or their sympathisers, forbid the American administration from funding the UN in case it admits Palestine into the United Nations.
Notwithstanding Palestine’s litany of wishes which may or may not come true, during the current special emergency session it was granted additional rights such as the right to fully participate in debates, propose agenda items and get its representatives elected to committees. Besides, it was accorded the right to sit in an alphabetical order on the GA floor. Presently, it sits at the back of the GA hall. It is important to note that it is not entitled to participate in voting, a privilege which only the SC can bestow on it.
Dealing with the fourth question, the conventional wisdom suggests that the US veto in the SC was due to the stranglehold of the Israel lobby on American policies. In the current situation, Public Law 101-246 and Public Law 103-236 adopted by the Congress, which is controlled by Zionists or their sympathisers, forbid the American administration from funding the UN in case it admits Palestine into the United Nations.
In our opinion, the reason for this attitude on the part of the US lies much deeper. The US approves of the Israeli policy of gobbling up the entirety of historical Palestine through the gradual nibbling of remaining Palestinian land. The statement by President Truman made at the time of the creation of Israel attests to it. Responding to the Zionist criticism against the US policy of partitioning of Palestine and not handing over the entire territory to Jews, he stated that they should for the moment contend with the what they were getting; and that they can grab the remaining part by piecemeal nibbling.
No wonder there are daily encroachments on the Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem where there are now more than 700,000 settlers. The US reaction against this monstrous land grab is no more than perfunctory, as, for example, it recently banned the entry of some specified settlers into the US for violence in the West Bank. The above analysis shows that the US claim to favor two-state solution is no more than lip service.
Strategically speaking, the adoption of the resolution on Palestine with a thumping majority by the GA, notwithstanding its much-vaunted moral value, is totally irrelevant to the situation on the ground. But who cares about morality in geopolitics.
A quote by Kaiser Wilhelm II aptly applies to the Palestine membership fatuous saga at the UN. Responding to President Woodrow Wilson who had, in his missive, lectured the German chancellor on morality, the latter famously quipped: ‘Morality is all right, but what about dividends.’