Palestine: Vote-counting on the Security Council

[shaayecanaan]

The Palestinian leadership has now made clear that they will seek full UN membership through the Security Council (rather than opting for something less by going directly to to the General Assembly). The ultimate outcome here is not in doubt: if necessary, the United States will use its veto. But it may not come to a veto. If the Palestinians cannot muster nine votes, the 15-member Council cannot act. It's very possible that their supporters will at that point choose not to introduce a formal resolution. From a political perspective, the distinction between a resolution that fails to gain nine votes and one vetoed by the United States is significant, and the United States undoubtedly will be pulling out the diplomatic stops to see that the Palestinians do not muster the magic nine votes.

(blah blah blah)

That leaves eight seven members who are likely to support, four five who are probably on the fence, two likely to oppose, and one certain to oppose. As one Security Council diplomat told me this afternoon, this is shaping up to be a very close call. There are several quite important considerations. First, Council members need not take a position; abstention is an option, and one that will work against the Palestinians and their supporters, who need affirmative votes to force a U.S. veto. Second, the European Union (which accounts for four votes) may be in a decisive position if it adopts a common position. Finally, it is well documented that foreign aid has been deployed in the past to sway Council votes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in the State Department were hurriedly checking on Gabon's aid package to see what leverage might exist.

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/16/palestine_vote_counting_on_the_security_council

[shaayecanaan]

1. another good article in the Guardian...

'Britain believes that if the Palestinians were really clever they would go for a fourth option – tabling the exact text that Barack Obama used in a speech in May. This is the key paragraph:

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Britain believes that this would be a smart move because every member of the security council would vote for this apart from one. Obama would order his diplomats in New York to veto his own words.'

*****************

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/sep/16/unitednations-palestinian-territories


I have to say that I agree with the Brits. The US are going to exercise their veto anyway, the Security Council exercise is really about putting pressure on the Americans. It would be pretty humiliating for them to veto a statement such as the above.

Do that in tandem with applying for status as a non-member state in the UNGA, and its a pretty good diplomatic week for the Palestinians all round.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I think the fourth option would be a fantastic way to go....

Obama ordering his diplomats to veto his own words would show once and for all that the US will make all the right noises, but when it comes time to put its words into action, that's a whole different story.

One question. If the Palestinians go for the SC vote for UN membership and it assuredly fails, will they then go to the GA where they're assured of the numbers to become a state?

[shaayecanaan]

5. yes, its a full spectrum approach

full membership application at the security council, application as a non-member state to the UNGA (the same status that South Korea had for many years).

[azurnoir]

2. actually the cat's out of the bag now and perception will be that US

and Israel used aid to 'influence' call it bribery or blackmail in order to quash the Palestinians right to self determination

[shaayecanaan]

3. Another interesting article

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-rejects-netanyahu-compromises-ahead-of-palestinian-statehood-bid-1.385226

"One U.S. proposal handed to Abbas has been to ask the UN Secretary General and the Security Council that Palestine be accepted as a full UN member, on condition that the membership is processed for a period of several months, at which time direct talks between Israel and the PA could resume along the guidelines stipulated in the Quartet statement."

and

"On the subject of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an older version of the Quartet proclamation offered "two states for two nations, with Israel as a Jewish state and the national home of the Jewish people."

Netanyahu agreed to compromise here as well, and allow the statement to speak of two states for two as well as of two national states, without mentioning a "Jewish state."

Furthermore, the premier also reportedly agreed to be more flexible on the length of future negotiations as well as on security assurances, a subject he has until now refused to address and which was not included in the Quartet's July statement.

American officials want the current version to limit negotiations to six months, while Netanyahu is prepared to agree to one year of peace talks."