US moves to scuttle Arab plan for international peace conference
The US is trying to block attempts by Arab countries to turn the UN Security Council into a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the upcoming General Assembly opening next week. To read click here.
12 Comments:
The Bush administration has a very strange stance when it comes to the UN. Sometimes they support it and other times they completely denounce it. A UN official even criticized the US for abusing the UN for their own gains. Take for example Iraq. The US was pushing for a UN resolution supporting a US invasion. When the US didn't get it, it went in with Britain (and Poland) and completely bypassed the UN, while on TV you heard calls for the US to pull out of the UN. So in Iraq they undercut the UN and now with Iran the US is pushing the UN to take action. One could imagine that if the UN doesn't make progress then the US will again do something on its own while pundits slam the UN for its uselessness.
US ambassador to the UN Bolton is another example of the Bush administration's stance towards the UN. Bolton was sent there by Bush with the mission of reform. When Bolton came to UD last year and spoke he said that the UN moves too slow and needs reforming. It's ridiculous to say that the UN moves too slow. It's an international body, of course it's going to move slowly, each country has to consider something and then they all debate it. If you want speed in the UN why not just make it a dictatorship that justifies everything you do.
So, to relate this to the article, this is another example of the US trying to undercut the UN. The Arabs want to give the Security Council more weight in the conflict while the US wants to keep them out. I assume that this US position is because it feels that it would benefit itself and Israel better if the Security Council was left out.
"It goes without saying that it's hard to have a partner for peace if you don't accept the right of the other partner to exist," Rice said. "It goes without saying that it's hard to have a process for peace if you do not renounce violence."
Although I strongly agree with the above statement, I don't believe that the US's main concern in this situation has to do with the Palestinian national unity government living up to the "three conditions" mentioned in the article. The US is using this as its main argument against the Security Council getting involved, but that's not what's really driving the US to impede UN involvement.
Rather, the US simply wants to keep this as a "two-state" peace process, and would continue to oppose possible UN involvement regardless of whether or not the PA accepts the three primary conditions. Since Israel is by far the more powerful of the two parties in this conflict, it is in their interest (and as a result, in US interest) to keep peace talks as a bilateral process. Any involvement of outside players (such as the UN Security Council) could potentially tip the scales away from Israel. And that's a risk that the US does not want to take.
While reading this article it dawned on me that I didn’t have a comprehensive definition of the phrase, “right to exist.” So I went to Wikipedia (I know, this is not 100% accurate, but it was the first search engine that came to mind) and typed in “right to exist.” A very basic definition provided what we all know already; it is the question of whether the Jewish people, acting through the modern government of Israel, have a right to maintain a homeland for Jews in the Land of Israel.
A link at the bottom of this site sent me to an article written by David Meir-Levi claims that the “right to exist” in fact does not exist. There is no board of committees that determines who “exists” and who doesn’t. He instead explains that countries exist because they have the power to defend their governments and defeat their aggressors.
This idea makes sense to me. If you can defend your land, or defeat those occupying territory, you now have control. This is certainly not an advanced observation, but instead a simple lesson we all learned on elementary school playgrounds.
Therefore, assuming this structure, Israel is stronger than Palestine and therefore should exist wherever it chooses. Although that makes sense, it rubs me the wrong way for numerous reasons. My gut turns every time I try to convince myself Israel has done the right thing.
The Israeli state was created as a result of the persecution of Jews. As refugees of Europe, they had no where else to go; settling in Israel was their only choice. While there is no one massive persecution towards the Palestinians committed by the Israeli’s, I would certainly argue Israel presents elements and characteristics similar to persecution of Jews under the Nazis. All Palestinians must carry identification cards, land and homes have been confiscated to build Israeli settlements, and check points are located all over the region, prohibiting free travel of Palestinians.
Israel is funded and “backed-up” by the United States. If the United States does not allow Arab nations a voice in UN decision making and does not allow Palestinian representation via other nations, then the playing field is clearly unfair. Condelezza Rice said the US wants recognition of Israel. It is of no interest for the Palestinians to “recognize” Israel. Without support from nations who stand independent of (or in opposition to) the United States Palestinians will gain nothing.
My third discomfort took me a while to really understand. For the longest time I didn’t understand why Palestinians refused to move. I always thought, “if it meant keeping the peace, then I would just move.” It was not until last night when discussing this issue with a friend she convinced me that Palestinians did have a logical and legitimate reason for fighting for their destroyed land. “Imagine the Washington Monument,” she said. “Now imagine the French have come to take it over, to make it their embassy and to have it represent French-Americans.” While there are French- Americans here in the US, the Washington Monument does not symbolize that. It represents the creation of the US, the founding fathers, George Washington, our capital city, etc. The Washington monument for American citizens, while not a religious symbol, certainly evokes similar feelings as Jerusalem does for Palestinians. Leaving their actual house is not the issue, but rather what that house means. In the movie we watched in class on Thursday, a woman said the Israeli’s bulldozed her home, which belonged to her family for 500 years. The actual house was an object, but the land was sacred.
While I know I strayed from whatever topic I originally wanted to talk about, the basic idea is that both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered, ,yet I do not believe one has more or less or a right to exist. I have no solutions regarding the conflict; however I do understand the Palestinian’s resistance to recognizing Israel, and agreeing to peace without their needs being met.
I think the Arab League initiative to have the UN Security Council serve as the primary mediator in the conflict is extremely justified. However, the United States will most likely succeed in shooting the proposal down because it is the most powerful country in the world and its power often usurps that of the United Nations and other International Organizations, especially when dealing with Israel, its ever-sturdy Western ally in the Middle East.
I believe that without strong international involvement from the UN, pro- Israeli, pro- Western resolutions based on US self- interest will invariabley be made to resolve the conflict. I was reading a New York Times article published the same day (9.14.06) as the one for this blog that illustrates the strong presence of the UN in Palestinian territory. The article, entitled, "Cut Off, Gazan Economy Nears Collapse," talks about the economic dependence of Palestinians in Gaza on aid from the UN, due to chaotic rulers after the Israeli withdrawl from the region. The region is devastated with poverty and disorder. The article puts the UN in the light as the sole and necessary source of help to the Palestinians.
Perhaps there is a small ray of hope for the Arab countries to see their desire for UN involvement to be carried out, instead of the United States sucessfully slashing the proposal to pieces.
Though I understand that’s nearly impossible to strip this conflict and its major players of their titles and respective histories both concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict and the UN, if one were to try to look at it from a completely objective and primitive political view the roles of the U.S., Israel, and Palestine, in relation to this article, can be minimized to a powerful group (Israelis), backed by the most powerful group (Americans) versus a much weaker and disadvantaged group (Palestinians). Granted this is a great mitigation to the entire conflict, but it does demonstrate the basic underlay of it all. The U.S. and Israel, though incredibly stronger than the Palestinians, are allies. As a result, Israeli interest becomes U.S. interest and vice versa. That being said, does it seem as a shock that the U.S., the strongest ally of Israel, would take a course of action that did anything but promote the best situation for the Israelis?
The Encarta Dictionary defines an ally as “a member of alliance: …a state that is joined in an association with another or others for mutual help and support of the achievement of a common purpose”. The “common purpose” may be vague or appear misguided at times but whatever it may be, both nations share a commitment to work towards it. As a true ally, the U.S. appears to have a duty to do what is in both its and its allies’ best interest. Unfortunately for the Palestinians and other Arab nations, because the United States is such an incredible world force, change is incredibly difficult. As seen in this article, even a world organization as large as the UN suffers from the strength and commitment of this alliance.
Regardless as to whether it seems to be fair, the situation, to use a common cliché, “is what it is”. As it stands now, the U.S. is powerful enough to control much of the progress of Arab nations and the “Arab League Initiative”. At this juncture, and at this place in history and the Arab-Israeli conflict it seems that any sort of peace is going to be achieved disproportionately by way the of U.S. and Israel. Israel has an overwhelmingly stronger presence in the region of contention and the backing of the world’s strongest world presence. As said in another response, bi-lateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are more desirable for the Israelis and as a result the U.S. and Israel are taking action to pursue that. Whether or not people agree with or want to trust the collective stance and its interests, Rice’s “three conditions of the international community”, or the way in which the U.S. deals with the UN, it’s a harsh reality.
More bargaining chips currently rest in the hands of the U.S. and Israel, so the Palestinians appear to have few other options than to either acquiesce or continue the current struggle. Until something happens to shift the power of the respective sides it doesn’t appear that much is likely to change, and for peace negotiations to come to fruition, the Palestinians will have to concede.
Like Dr. Khan has previously stated, the United States is an actor on the international stage whose first goal is to maintain the Status Quo. A move by the Arab League to involve the United Nations Security Council in the Middle Eastern Peace Process does not reflect a disdain for the United Nations, but a desire to maintain the Status Quo.
The United States supports the United Nations when the international organization attempts to maintain the Status Quo or if it has traditionally been involved in the subject. The United States rejects the United Nations whenever the U.N. attempts to alter the global political landscape possibly resulting in negative consequences for the United States or if the U.N. is entering politcal territory typically policed by the U.S., like the Middle Eastern Peace Process.
With the above idea in mind, the behavior of the United States toward the United Nations is not strange, but quite predictable. The United States is NOT interested in upstaging or circumventing the United Nations. It is interested in maintaining its own power, and therefore the Status Quo. Will the United States upstage and circumvent the United Nations in order to maintain the Status Quo? Of course.
The political elite of the United States government has taken a pragmatic approach to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Support the dominate force in the region, thereby continuing the status quo on the regional and global level. (Personal Note: I excluded any mention of the Christian Zionist because I do not know how much influence they have on U.S. government policy.)
It seems plain to see to everyone so far that has posted for this article that the US is trying to undermine the UN in this case to maintain its hegemonic status, and to make sure that it has the greatest influence over the outcome of these peace talks. However, I fear that if the UN is bypassed yet again by US then the resolutions that come from these talks will be looked down upon by the international community, maybe even to the point that these solutions will be voided if trouble arises in the future. Surely without the participation of the UN a solution will be reached much faster, but at the same time one must consider the validity that the UN brings to the table. The UN means finality and in a situation as volatile as the Arab/Israeli Conflict I think it is hasty to leave them out of the loop. Moreover, by making a move to specifically exclude the UN from the peace process, I feel it will reflect poorly on the US, and that any conclusions reached without UN participation can be seen as forced under duress by the US, giving Palestinians even more of reason to let these talks stagnate. In general I feel that though its important to bring about peace in this situation soon, it is equally as important to create a peace that will last with the backing of the entire world instead of just the world's pimp.
After reading the article and the responses of others I agree with most of what is being said. Like Secretary Rice says it goes without saying that you have to recognize someone's right to exist, to have a dialogue with them. Yet this idea of recognizing Israel suprises me, I thought with the exception of Arab extremists the world community had put to this debate to rest. To me this just underlines that after 50 some years of negotiating we are still nowhere.
I don't really know what to think about the U.S. relationship with the UN. It seems as though the US views the UN as inept, corrupt, and in dire need of reform. Yet at the same time it appears as though the Bush administration is finally realizing that even if the UN is all those things it still serves the purpose of justifying a cause and making it easier to take the moral high ground. I believe this is most evident today with the Bush administration seeking to use diplomacy to disarm Iran as opposed to an invasion which we saw with Iraq. Whether or not the US actually wants to negotiate is debateable but it seems like the US is at least trying to be more sincere than it was with Iraq.
The fact that Arabs want to use the security council as a vehicle for peace makes perfect sense. Over the years they have learned that individually they will most likely loose out to the wishes of the US, but if they are united then they have more power of persuasion. This is a concept they have learned well most notably with OPEC. Therefore the US doesn't want this to happen because they will loose their comparitable adavantage as being the only outside nation that is actually at the peace talks.
In the article there is only one solid point made my Rice that seems to justify and problem with these current talks, and that is "It goes without saying that it's hard to have a partner for peace if you don't accept the right of the other partner to exist." and "It goes without saying that it's hard to have a process for peace if you do not renounce violence."This is a valid arguement that without atleast a recognition of your opponent your truely fighting against yourself in a resolution.
The United States involvement in dissolving the UN involvement in these resolution talks is primarily for "power" reasons. The U.S. obviously feels that with UN involvement Israel might end up on the short end of the stick either having a smaller territory or one of the same size. However, the U.S. doesn't feel that would be a fair deal or atleast "what is appropriate" in the eyes of the bush administration. Israel being the stronger of the military powers and the larger of any in the middle-east. The US must support them to remain a major power, so they are able to use Israel as a mediator and puppet for issues in this "oil-rich" region of the world.
If the UN were to resolve this in what would be seen as an equal deal for all parties involved (Israel and Palestine), this could mean the lessening of power of Israel.
It seems the U.S. opinion of the UN since 9/11 is that they do not tend to take action soon enough for the "gung-ho" military ideas of the Bush Administration. Bush only seems to turn to the UN as a favor to them to ask permission but will still continue any agenda he had previously planned despite a UN ruling. This causes major tension on a global scale because it seems that the U.S. government thinks it's a "big brother" to the world, and regardless of the input of the "little brother" (UN). The U.S. will continue on it's predertmined path.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/766353.html
I'm aware that I'm not really commenting on this article, but I couldn't figure out where I just place a general post. I came across this article on Haaretz and I felt that it perfectly identifies the barrier to peace we discussed in class in which internal strife gets in the way of any progress. Everyone seems to talk about this great unity government coming about, when such a thing hasn't even been concluded upon and there are major factions within both Fatah and Hamas that are against such partnership. The only thing preventing the economy of Gaza from getting back on its feet is Hamas refusal to recognize Israel or any peace agreements, something Abbas has been able to do. One would imagine that people would rather have food on their table and clothes on their back. It boggles my mind to think that the Palestinian economy could prosper from such a simple statement of hope for peace.
This article could have been written many times over the past few decades. While the situation in the Middle East and the specific details of the Arab-Israeli conflict change over time, the U.S. unwillingness to allow for the United Nations to conduct any official dialogue in regards to the latter has not. Just as the U.S. has stood side by side with Israel, more times alone than not, in protecting the Jewish state from U.N. resolutions and condemnations, this time it is no different. The U.S. and Israel are both keenly aware of the potential ramifications of allowing the U.N. rather the U.S. to broker a peace deal between the Arabs and the Israelis. For one, any potential settlement would not be nearly as favorable towards Israel (and therefore the U.S.) than one negotiated by the U.S. Also, the U.S. would not receive that which it has been seeking desperately since Israel’s founding, credit for finally ending the seemingly endless cycle of violence that has surrounded this situation for decades and the appearance of being an even broker in the Middle East. Furthermore, the U.S. does not have nearly enough faith in the U.N. to be able to handle such an immense task, in addition to the fact that both the U.S. and Israel regard the U.N. as an anti-Semitic organization. Unfortunately these beliefs will only further delay any type of settlement or cessation of violence between the parties involved, thereby causing more suffering and hurting the strategic interests of the U.S.
This makes sense in a variety of ways, I believe the most important being the constant rebuttall in if it shold utilize the UN or not. A major point how ther US still decided to invade Iraq without UN backing. The U.S. simply went elsewhere for support(the U.K.). It is tiring to say but the U.S. has that influence in the world where it can do as it pleases. In the eyes of U.S. policy makers that if the UN does get involved than there would be support(like the EU)in the middle east that does not support U.S. interests. Lastly, the involvement of the UN creates an ideal where the lasting peace effort would be founded by the UN rather than the hard work of the U.S. Which has tried for decades to create a favorable middle east. The ramifications of this can lead to failure of domestic policy due to the lack of trust the american public has in it's government. The lack of U.S. superiority in the middle east can also lead to further complications.
Post a Comment
<< Home