|
UN Vote On Palestine: Where Will Nigeria Stand? By Abdulbasit Mukhtar
The sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly opened in New York on Tuesday 13 September 2011. This session is very significant because of the many far-reaching decisions expected to come out of its deliberations. Of the issues expected to be discussed, Palestine's bid for recognition as a state, promises to be the most interesting. Where will Nigeria stand when the issue comes to a vote?
Few countries, among them the United States, have already stated very clearly that they would veto any request the Palestinians make to that effect at the Security Council. Nigeria is currently a non-permanent member of the Security Council. For any resolution to pass at the Council all the five permanent members and any four among the non-permanent ones, making nine, must vote in favour. What this means is that even with a US veto against Palestinian statehood, Nigeria may still vote in favour as a matter of principle to show support for Palestinians' right to self-determination. Can we be bold enough to take an anti-US position on such a significant and sensitive matter?
The truth is that historically we have always stood for what we believe is right regardless of what the US thinks, especially on the issue of Palestine. When in 1975 the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was about to be established, Nigeria, contrary to the positions of the US and the UK, voted in favour of General Assembly Resolution 3376 by which the Committee was created. Nigeria is a member of that Committee and we have continued to lend it our support ever since. Our stand against apartheid in South Africa, which was clearly at variance with the position of some key western powers, was so strong and unambiguous that it earned us membership of the so-called Frontline States even though we are geographically far away from southern Africa. Nigeria's recognition of the Sahrawi Democratic Republic in Western Sahara is another case in point. It is in furtherance of this principle that we also recently recognized the Libyan National Transition Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
None of the instances cited above is meant to call for Nigeria to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But when we espouse a position on a matter in international affairs, as we have done repeatedly in this case, every action we take must seek to ensure that we get the desired outcome. In other words, such a position would constitute a foreign policy goal. Whether or not the goal we set for ourselves in the international arena is achieved in turn becomes a yardstick for measuring the success or failure of our foreign policy. In this particular case, Israel needs to be pressured into re-launching direct negotiations with the Palestinians. An upgrade of Palestine's status at the UN is likely to put moral pressure on the Israelis to resume negotiations. To that extent, a support for Palestine's bid will promote our own foreign policy objective on that question.
Along with the United States and numerous other members of the international community, Nigeria has called for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a formula whereby Israel and Palestine would live as independent and viable states side by side within secure and recognized borders. Part of the conditions needed to make this happen is that Israel should top constructing new settlements on illegally acquired Palestinian lands. However, every effort to get the two sides to negotiate a peace settlement based on this formula has been rebuffed by Israel. The latest attempt by the Obama administration to resume the peace process failed because Israel insisted on building more homes on Palestinian lands, thereby subverting the will of the international community.
Nigeria's position on this Israeli attitude which in fact predated the latest attempt to restart the talks was clearly conveyed to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, when he visited Nigeria in September 2009. The then Nigerian Foreign Minister, Ojo Maduekwe, told him in plain language that Israel must give up Palestinian lands if peace must reign in the region. According to Maduekwe, unless Israel heeded that advice, it would continue to lose international goodwill. Maduekwe added that as a friend of Israel, Nigeria had a duty to tell it the truth. Unfortunately Israel has remained intransigent.
More recently since Nigeria became a member of the UN Security Council in January 2010, we have used the platform to voice our views on why Israel should stop its disregard of international law by halting further construction of settlements on Palestinian lands. Nigeria's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Professor Joy Ogwu, during a Security Council debate on the Situation in the Middle East said:
"It is disheartening to note that in the weeks following the resumption of the talks difficulties have arisen, resulting in a stalemate. Indeed many had hoped that Israel would heed the appeals for the extension of the 10-month freeze on housing construction in the West Bank Jewish settlements as a positive confidence-building measure. Instead the Israeli Government's approval of 238 new homes in East Jerusalem announced last Friday will not only enflame passions on the Palestinian side. The decision could be interpreted as a move to kill the direct talks and thereby complicate the peace process. Coming at a time when the Palestinian Authority has accepted the compromise of a two-month extension the moratorium, the announcement would have profound impact on the United States-backed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."
The impact of that Israeli action was that the peace process did die. It is the frustration experienced by the Palestinians in the face of Israel’s intransigence and refusal to heed the advice of the international community that made them to settle for the United Nations option to seek recognition as a state. What the Palestinians are seeking is actually an upgrade from a non-member observer entity to a non-member observer state. The Israelis and their American allies very well know the implications of this Palestinian move. And Israel is feeling the pressure as it is continuously being isolated diplomatically by its allies in the Arab world and beyond. Turkey and Egypt are recent examples. Rather than pressure the Palestinians not to go to the UN, the US ought to urge Israel to do the right thing.
A US veto at the Security Council can only prevent Palestine from getting full membership at the UN. If that happens, the Palestinians would go to the General Assembly where they are almost certain to win. A veto will be further proof that the US has never and will never be a neutral arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the General Assembly each member state's vote carries equal weight. In fact, the eleventh hour efforts being made by the Obama administration is to prevent the vote from taking place. However, if the Palestinians insist on going to the UN and the bid for Palestinian statehood is put to a vote, Nigeria would be expected to repeat what it did in 1975 when it voted with the majority of the UN member states to establish the Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, of which it is a member. We cannot afford to be on the wrong side of history. |