BY CAITLIN HICKEY — “It is a moment of truth and my people are waiting to hear the answer of the world.” With these words, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority echoed the sentiments of many people who have been following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict throughout the decades. In his speech on September 23, 2011 before the General Assembly of the United Nations, Abbas officially announced his intention to seek full Palestinian statehood through the Security Council (full transcript available at: http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/PS_en.pdf). The appeal to the international community through the Security Council marks a new approach to the Palestinian’s quest for statehood and begs the question, what will happen next?
The first steps on the road to statehood involve technical UN procedures. Following his impassioned speech, Abbas delivered the official application letter to the Secretary General, who in turn passed it on to the Security Council for consideration and also to the General Assembly for information purposes. The Security Council is comprised of fifteen members, with five being permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and the other ten being non-permanent, elected members (currently Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, and South Africa).
The Security Council’s Standing Committee on Admission of New Members has taken the application under consideration and is expected to issue a report soon regarding the historic Palestinian bid. The Committee consists of representatives from each of the fifteen Security Council members and it must reach a consensus before the application can proceed before the Security Council for a vote. The Palestinian bid will likely end at this point if the Committee cannot reach a consensus. But if the Committee does reach a consensus, then the Security Council will vote on whether to recommend that the General Assembly admit a new member. Palestine would need to receive nine out of the fifteen votes in their favor, with none of the permanent members utilizing their veto power.
If Palestine does indeed attain the requisite nine votes, then its bid will proceed to the General Assembly for a vote. Palestine would then need a two-thirds majority (129 votes) to gain admission, and it is likely that Palestine would reach that number. On the other hand, if Palestine does not reach nine votes, or if one of the permanent members uses its veto power, then the Security Council could postpone consideration of the application. The Security Council would be required to submit a report to the General Assembly, which could in turn refer the application back to the Security Council for reconsideration. However, all would not be lost for the Palestinians under this scenario. Instead of gaining full statehood, the General Assembly could still vote to upgrade Palestine from its current status as a non-voting observer entity to permanent observer state. This upgrade would be identical to the status currently enjoyed by the Vatican. Although it may seem at first glance that this outcome would be a loss for the Palestinians, the upgrade in status would likely give the Palestinians standing in legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), which seems to view Israel’s settlements on Palestinian territory as a violation of the laws of war.
Having outlined the procedural steps, it is now necessary to analyze what will likely happen. Whilst many have applauded the Palestinian’s efforts, the fact remains that the United States has made it clear that it will continue to protect Israel in the UN and will therefore block the Palestinian’s bid for statehood. As a permanent member of the Security Council, it would not matter whether Palestine attains nine votes in its favor because the United States could simply veto the measure. Nevertheless, this is an option that the United States would like to avoid because it is concerned about potential backlash across the Middle East, which is quite obviously in favor of Palestinian statehood.
As a result, it is no surprise that both the United States and Palestine are currently making the diplomatic rounds to the members of the Security Council in an effort to elicit votes in their favor. For its part, the United States would like to convince the other members that the only way to statehood should be through direct negotiations with Israel and not through a unilateral move within the UN. Conversely, Palestine is trying to convince the Security Council members that negotiations have failed due to Israel’s refusal to halt construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory and so statehood through the UN is the only viable option.
It currently appears that Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, Russia, and South Africa will support Palestine’s bid, with France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States likely voting against the measure or abstaining from the vote. That leaves Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Nigeria, and Portugal as the crucial swing states.
How these swing states will vote is a guessing game. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Gabon, and Nigeria have all recognized Palestine bilaterally, but they have not declared how they intend to vote. Portugal has been engulfed in an economic crisis and has not given much thought to the Palestinian bid, yet it is a telling sign that the other European Union members on the Security Council are either voting no or abstaining. Regarding Colombia, it should be noted that Colombia is on the receiving end of substantial financial aid from Washington. Moreover, following Abbas’ recent visit to Colombia, President Juan Manuel Santos stated that Colombia will only recognize Palestinian statehood if it is established through negotiations with Israel. It would thus seem that Colombia will either vote no or abstain.
Whilst the Security Council vote remains uncertain, it is quite clear that the controversy over Palestine will continue on long after the vote takes place. Even if Palestine does attain statehood through the UN, this victory would mainly be symbolic. Any formal recognition of sovereignty and all its attendant circumstances would have to come from negotiations with Israel. Moreover, the US Congress has implied that it intends to suspend hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority if Palestine succeeds in its bid. As a result, the only certainty in this mess is that there is still no foreseeable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
