Global Policy Forum

By Michael Littlejohns

Experience demonstrates that within a few weeks or months of a new US ambassador's coming on board here, he or she is instructed to exercise the power of veto in the Security Council. Usually if not invariably, to torpedo a resolution related to the Arab-Israel conflict that Washington perceives to be unbalanced.

Vetoes are becoming increasingly rare in the post-cold war era, and when they do occur, the Middle East conflict is often a cause. Fact is, most always these vetoed resolutions have failed the test of even-handedness. They tended to be crafted by the Palestinian observer mission and its sympathizers and to have paid scant to the security concerns of the Israelis.

Neither side in this conflict is blameless, but it does no good to point the finger at one party and treat the other as the poor innocent victim, and the only one.

True to form, John D. Negroponte, America's permanent representative, was in the Council chamber early Saturday to do his post-midnight duty in the latest case of declaring blame and innocence. His negative vote put paid to a resolution intended to bolster the legitimacy of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority by endorsing its "essential role" in a peace process that in recent days appears to have become increasingly moribund if it's not already dead.

Twelve of the 15 member states went along with the proposal, including Russia, France and China. The UK and Norway abstained. (Oslo is where the latest peace formula originated in a bid promoted by the Norwegian government.)

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative said to be a nephew of Arafat's, pushed for the Council session although he and the PLO's supporters knew what the outcome surely would be and, if they were honest, must have recognized that the entire exercise was more hindrance than help for the faltering peace. With Palestinian militants of the Hamas persuasion bombing Israeli civilians going about their business in shopping malls and restaurants and on city buses, and caring not that among the likely victims would be little children, Kidwa spoke of the consequences of Israel's policies and a risk that the region could explode in war.

To most people, it looks like a war right now and the US has been trying desperately to cool matters down, including trying to calm Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bellicose nature. Most dispassionate onlookers would probably agree that there's extreme provocation on both sides. Should Arafat and Sharon do more to restrain their followers? Yes. Can they? In Arafat's case, it seems not.

Arresting murderous militants at the front door and letting them out through the back is not a sign that the PLO chief is serious about curbing jihad and getting back to peace talks. Be it not forgotten that it was the enfeebled Arafat who threw away the most promising peace prospect in years, in the final days of Bill Clinton's presidency, paving the way for Sharon's ascendancy.

Back to the Security Council. In his explanation of vote, Ambassador Negroponte alluded to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Nov. 19 speech at Louisville laying out "a vision of a region where Israelis and Arabs live together in peace, security and dignity, where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."

That vision, the US delegate said, remains valid today and Washington "is committed to doing all it can to make this vision a reality." No one, he went on, is working harder than the US to end the terror, violence and suffering both sides have experienced for far too long.

Could the resolution before the Council help? No. "Its purpose," said Negroponte, "is to isolate politically one of the parties to the conflict through an attempt to throw the weight of the Council behind the othe party" and it never mentioned recent acts of terrorism against Israelis or those responsible for these acts.

The fact is, he said, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists "simply do not want to see a negotiated peace."

Arafat should take a strategic stand against terrorism and the Palestinian Authority must arrest those responsible for planning and executing terrorist attacks while destroying the structures that perpetuated terrorism.

"Israel, for its part, must focus very carefully on the repercussions of any actions it takes" and neither side should lose sight of the need to resume progress toward a lasting end to the violence and a resumption of dialogue."

Among the members voting for the resolution was one with its own experience of the ravages and damage that can be done by terrorists: Ireland.

Experience demonstrates that within a few weeks or months of a new US ambassador's coming on board here, he or she is instructed to exercise the power of veto in the Security Council. Usually if not invariably, to torpedo a resolution related to the Arab-Israel conflict that Washington perceives to be unbalanced.

Vetoes are becoming increasingly rare in the post-cold war era, and when they do occur, the Middle East conflict is often a cause. Fact is, most always these vetoed resolutions have failed the test of even-handedness. They tended to be crafted by the Palestinian observer mission and its sympathizers and to have paid scant to the security concerns of the Israelis.

Neither side in this conflict is blameless, but it does no good to point the finger at one party and treat the other as the poor innocent victim, and the only one.

True to form, John D. Negroponte, America's permanent representative, was in the Council chamber early Saturday to do his post-midnight duty in the latest case of declaring blame and innocence. His negative vote put paid to a resolution intended to bolster the legitimacy of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority by endorsing its "essential role" in a peace process that in recent days appears to have become increasingly moribund if it's not already dead.

Twelve of the 15 member states went along with the proposal, including Russia, France and China. The UK and Norway abstained. (Oslo is where the latest peace formula originated in a bid promoted by the Norwegian government.)

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative said to be a nephew of Arafat's, pushed for the Council session although he and the PLO's supporters knew what the outcome surely would be and, if they were honest, must have recognized that the entire exercise was more hindrance than help for the faltering peace. With Palestinian militants of the Hamas persuasion bombing Israeli civilians going about their business in shopping malls and restaurants and on city buses, and caring not that among the likely victims would be little children, Kidwa spoke of the consequences of Israel's policies and a risk that the region could explode in war.

To most people, it looks like a war right now and the US has been trying desperately to cool matters down, including trying to calm Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bellicose nature. Most dispassionate onlookers would probably agree that there's extreme provocation on both sides. Should Arafat and Sharon do more to restrain their followers? Yes. Can they? In Arafat's case, it seems not.

Arresting murderous militants at the front door and letting them out through the back is not a sign that the PLO chief is serious about curbing jihad and getting back to peace talks. Be it not forgotten that it was the enfeebled Arafat who threw away the most promising peace prospect in years, in the final days of Bill Clinton's presidency, paving the way for Sharon's ascendancy.

Back to the Security Council. In his explanation of vote, Ambassador Negroponte alluded to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Nov. 19 speech at Louisville laying out "a vision of a region where Israelis and Arabs live together in peace, security and dignity, where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."

That vision, the US delegate said, remains valid today and Washington "is committed to doing all it can to make this vision a reality." No one, he went on, is working harder than the US to end the terror, violence and suffering both sides have experienced for far too long.

Could the resolution before the Council help? No. "Its purpose," said Negroponte, "is to isolate politically one of the parties to the conflict through an attempt to throw the weight of the Council behind the othe party" and it never mentioned recent acts of terrorism against Israelis or those responsible for these acts.

The fact is, he said, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists "simply do not want to see a negotiated peace."

Arafat should take a strategic stand against terrorism and the Palestinian Authority must arrest those responsible for planning and executing terrorist attacks while destroying the structures that perpetuated terrorism.

"Israel, for its part, must focus very carefully on the repercussions of any actions it takes" and neither side should lose sight of the need to resume progress toward a lasting end to the violence and a resumption of dialogue."

Among the members voting for the resolution was one with its own experience of the ravages and damage that can be done by terrorists: Ireland.