At United Nations, Trump's Attack on Palestinians Rebuffed by 128 Nations
Published on
Friday, December 22, 2017
by
Common Dreams
At United Nations, Trump's Attack on Palestinians Rebuffed by 128 Nations
Yesterday's vote at the UN reflects the profound global antagonism that the
Trump administration has caused and indeed embraced
by
Phyllis Bennis
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley listens during a Security
Council meeting concerning the situation in the Middle East involving Israel
and Palestine, at United Nations headquarters, December 18, 2017 in New York
City. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The UN General Assembly sent a message from the world to the Trump
administration yesterday-and it wasn't pretty. Despite dire threats to
countries voting against the United States, a huge majority of countries
called Trump's bluff to condemn Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel. The vote was overwhelming against the U.S. position-128
countries voted to condemn, only 9 opposed, and 35 abstained.
The United States, with its uncritical support of Israeli violations, has
long been criticized at the UN. But Thursday's vote reflects the profound
global antagonism that the Trump administration has caused and indeed
embraced. And once again U.S. protection of Israel is the basis for
Washington being so thoroughly isolated at the UN.
Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital reflects the
centrality of Israel in his Middle East policy. It was driven by Trump's
eagerness to placate his right-wing Christian Zionist base and to please his
key donor, the Israel-can-do-no-wrong casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.
"The willingness of 128 countries to defy the Trump administration's threats
speaks to the potential for the United Nations to reclaim its role as a
central venue for challenging U.S. power-at least when most countries are
prepared to unite in that challenge."
The decision was taken despite its potential to undermine the regional
anti-Iran alliance being orchestrated by Jared Kushner and Saudi Crown
Prince Mohamed bin Salman. That dangerous effort would actually threaten an
even greater possibility of new war in the region-but the Trump
administration has openly backed the Saudi campaign.
The Jared-Mohamed bromance hoped to build a coalition against Iran including
publicly normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. That would
have required reassuring Arab leaders and especially people across the Arab
world that the Palestinians were somehow being taken care of, that Israel
was no longer a problem. That meant they needed a new "peace process" even
if it was based on completely unacceptable terms. Now, Trump's recognition
of Jerusalem as Israel's capital makes new negotiations far more difficult
for the Saudi leadership to claim. Even Saudi Arabia voted to condemn its
erstwhile U.S. partner.
While the language was far more insulting-including Trump's dismissive "we
don't care" statement regarding the impact of cutting aid to impoverished
countries-Trump's bullying response to the General Assembly condemnation is
consistent with earlier U.S. practices at the UN. Ambassador Nikki Haley's
warning that "we're taking names" of countries daring to vote against
Washington, and Trump's threat to cut aid to those countries, were both
taken straight out of earlier U.S. playbooks. Both Bush presidents, father
and son, used bribes, threats and punishments against any country that dared
defy U.S. interests at the UN.
George H.W. Bush, desperate to win Security Council support for war against
Iraq in 1990, bribed Ethiopia, Colombia and Zaire with new aid packages and
previously prohibited weapons. China's abstention (to prevent a veto) was
purchased for new long-term U.S. aid and post-Tienanmen Square diplomatic
rehabilitation. When Yemen voted against war, the U.S. ambassador announced
"that will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast"-and Washington cut
all aid to Yemen, then as now the poorest country in the Arab world.
In 2003, just a day before the United States launched war against Iraq, the
General Assembly was considering a vote against the looming war. To head it
off, Bush Junior threatened UN member states in almost the same words Nikki
Haley used this week. A faxed note sent to almost all governments in the
Assembly read, "the United States would regard a General Assembly resolution
on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States. Please know
that this question as well as your position on it is important to the U.S."
Fourteen years later Haley would ominously warn, "As you consider your vote,
I want you to know that the president and U.S. take this vote personally."
The willingness of 128 countries to defy the Trump administration's threats
speaks to the potential for the United Nations to reclaim its role as a
central venue for challenging U.S. power-at least when most countries are
prepared to unite in that challenge. Many of those 128 are poor, dependent
countries whose leaders must have been afraid of what many in the UN still
refer to as the "Yemen Precedent." But perhaps they also had in mind another
period of UN history-when the UN joined global social movements and civil
society, as well as numerous governments, in refusing to endorse a criminal
and immoral war. Washington threatened Security Council countries then as
they threaten the Assembly now-with loss of aid, with an end to trade deals,
and more. But the Council stood firm. And for eight months, in 2002 and
2003, the United Nations stood "against the scourge of war" as its Charter
demands. For eight months it stood instead for peace, for justice, for
international law. Maybe someday it will do so permanently-for peace, for
justice, and even Jerusalem.