Reflexions about declaration or not to be member of UNO

The 7 August 2008 entry of Georgian armed forces into the separatist Republic of South Ossetia, followed by an overwhelming response of South Ossetia's Russian allies evoked to many the “Guns of August”. The image of the “Guns of August” is a reminder of August 1914 when a rather minor incident, the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire by Serb nationalists led, by action and reaction, to World War I, changing the face of Europe and in many ways of world politics. One always knows how a conflict starts; one never knows how it ends.

Fortunately, the fighting did not spread and “a new Cold War” which some had predicted did not start.  Talks began in Geneva among representatives of Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Russian Federation, the United Nations, the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union and the USA.  The talks did not modify the status quo — a situation which in OSCE terminology is ‘frozen‘ — that is, no settlement, the issues unresolved but no fighting.

The start of the Geneva talks, however, was a symbol of the willingness of all parties that armed violence should not continue or spread.  What is now certain after the recognition of their independence by Russia and a small number of other states is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not be reintegrated into the Georgian state any more than Kosovo will again become an autonomous region of Serbia.

A Step Forward

In an article “Coming in from the Cold: UN Membership Needed for the Phantom Republics” (1), I suggested that Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Kosovo be given UN membership as a necessary first step for security and a lessening of tensions.  I stressed that it was important “to find mutually acceptable forms of government in these conflicts which will require political creativity (breaking out of thinking in fixed patterns) and then new forms of federal-confederal types of government, greater popular participation in decision-making and new forms of protection of minorities.  Flexibility, compromise and cooperation are the hallmarks of success when it comes to resolving such conflicts concerning independence and autonomy. There is a need for a healing of past animosities and a growth of wider loyalties and cooperation.”

My proposal is for their simultaneous entry into membership into the UN as a necessary recognition of  “things as they are” — not necessarily the ideal or even “what might have been” but a recognition of reality.  Without such recognition, it is impossible to build a reasonable system to provide security and economic welfare.

There is one precedent for such a simultaneous entry of states into the UN — 1955 when the ‘logjam’ on membership was broken. During the first ‘hot round’ of the Cold War — the June 1950 to July 1953 Korean War — the Soviet Union and the USA blocked each others potential allies from UN membership.  At the end of the Korean War, there was a host of pending membership applications on which no progress had been made.  There seemed to be little possibility of moving things forward.

The 1955 membership issue was my start at looking closely at diplomatic negotiations around procedural issues at the UN. In a period when I should have spent my time chasing girls, I was a university student representative on the Executive Committee of what was then the United World Federalists in the USA. In 1955, the issue of a review conference on the UN Charter was to be placed automatically on the agenda of the General Assembly.  During the 1945 negotiations that led to the UN Charter, a review conference was to be placed on the agenda after 10 years.  This was a demand of some of the smaller States at San Francisco, in particular Australia.  It was expected in 1945 that such a review conference would be held and that was still the expectation in the period 1953-1954.  There was a good deal of reflection on how to improve and strengthen the Charter during such a Review Conference.  Universal membership was one of the demands of UN reformers, both some diplomats and activists such as those in the United World Federalists who had taken a lead on the Charter Review issue.

However, both the USA and the USSR opposed holding a Charter Review conference and brought most of their allies along with them.  The result was that when the Charter Review conference came upon the agenda, it was swept under the rug, and there has never been a review.  Nevertheless, the diplomats of the USA and the USSR felt that some of the ‘steam’ for a Review conference had to be lowered and this could be done by getting rid of “universal membership” as an issue.  Negotiations to break the logjam on pending applications started with the aim of making as close-to-possible balance between pro-USA, pro-USSR and neutral States entering the UN.  The negotiations were carried out in 1954 and in 1955, before the debate on Charter Review, the membership logjam broke and Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sri Lanka entered the UN. Japan should have been part of the group, but there was still the “enemy states” clause in the Charter which took more negotiations concerning Japan.  Japan only came in the next year, 1956.

The point I have repeatedly made is that membership does not solve difficulties; it just provides a framework where serious negotiations might be carried out.  The 1955 access to membership of Cambodia and Laos did not ‘solve’ the Indochina conflict. The French-led war in Vietnam had just finished and was to be followed a decade later by the US-led war.

2011— A Year of Opportunity?

2011 may be an occasion for breaking a new logjam with the simultaneous membership of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Kosovo.  However, time is short for difficult negotiations before the September start of the General Assembly — membership issues coming up usually in the first weeks.  Membership issues have again become a “hot issue” with the possible request of the Palestinian Authority to upgrade its status from observer to full membership in the organization.  There is a good deal of discussion in the halls of the UN both in New York and Geneva as well as in Foreign Ministries in the hope that there can be an agreed-upon program of action (or non-action) by September when the new General Assembly meets.

One approach favored by the USA, some of the Western European members of the European Union, Israel, and perhaps some others more privately is that the membership issue should go away.  It is felt that there are enough problems in the world, especially in the Middle East not to have a complicated procedural battle in September.  To reinforce their argument the US and the Western European governments have a strong card — they can cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority.  The Palestinian Authority depends largely on external financing; thus cutting off financing is an argument that carries weight — even if it is called ‘blackmail’ in other settings.

Whatever the outcome of the Palestinian request, new UN membership has been pushed high on government agendas of concern.  Thus, these next few weeks is the time for cooperation among the authorities of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Kosovo to raise their membership demands as a joint  approach even if the original situation was different in each case. A joint approach will make the membership possibilities harder to ignore.

Existence is not Enough: The Liechtenstein Option

One should not expect a warm welcome to such new membership requests.  Palestine has had “observer status” at the UN for many years and has built up support among Arab and Islamic States but its membership is still in doubt.  Kosovo has been recognized by a good number of States but is still strongly opposed by some governments which fear the violent division of countries.  However, the relatively peaceful creation of South Sudan may be a model of new state-creation accepted and facilitated by the UN.

Arguments for UN membership for Abkhazia and the others must go beyond simply saying “we exist and therefore others should recognize us” to a more positive “we can play a useful role in the world community”. The positive role is what I call the Liechtenstein Option. Liechtenstein served as the not very disguised model for the 1955 novel by Leonard Wibberly The Mouse that Roared where it was presented as the Duchy of Grand Fenwich situated between Switzerland and France rather than its real location between Switzerland and Austria.

For a long time all of Liechtenstein’s foreign affairs was administered by Switzerland. However, when the Swiss in a referendum refused to join the UN, Liechtenstein joined the UN on its own in 1990.  The decision-making elite decided that it would shed “the mouse that roared” image and started taking an active and creative role in UN affairs. Liechtenstein also played a leading role in the review conference on the statute of the International Criminal Court. Liechtenstein diplomats are respected well beyond the size of the country. It has a small but well-trained diplomatic corps, and no one smiles when the Liechtenstein position is set out.

Thus the Liechtenstein Option is one that requires Abkhazia to play an independent and creative role for the benefit of the world society.

(1) Rene Wadlow. “The Phantom Republics” http://www.towardfreedom.com

Rene Wadlow, Senior Vice-President and Representative to the UN, Geneva, Association of World Citizens. Formerly, he was Professor and Director of Research, Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.

Témoignage sur la Syrie qui souffre

Témoignage sur la Syrie qui souffre

Alors que la tendance « printemps arabe » bat son plein depuis les défilés de Tunisie, d’Egypte, et de Libye, pour ne citer que les plus médiatisés, la mode automne-hiver s’est invitée en Syrie. Peu de jours passent sans que l’on cherche à nous convertir à toutes sortes de larges rhétoriques conspirationnistes ou fatalistes dans le but de ringardiser un peuple qui porte le pacifisme bien serré et voudraient échanger un vieux costume de dictateur contre celui de la liberté.
Le couvre-chef en vogue, au sens propre comme au sens figuré, de petites mains sales tentent de faire porter à la révolution syrienne un turban islamiste, une kippa sioniste et aussi un chapeau de cow-boy impérialiste tant et si bien que ce pauvre peuple syrien ne sait plus où donner de la tête pendant que la bande à Bachar cherche d’abord à la lui arracher !
Des malfaisances de l’intérieur aux malveillances de l'extérieur, la propagande pro-Assad n’est pas à court de théories parfois complexes (« Vous ne pouvez pas comprendre !»), souvent basiques (« Vous le savez bien !») pour démobiliser, désillusionner et surtout désinformer le plus grand nombre et faire que, doucement mais sûrement, nous disions adieu au printemps pour nous emmitoufler dans le manteau de l’ignorance, de la passivité et du mépris en attendant que ça passe !
Reste qu’il faudra alors s’habituer à la couleur rouge sang le matin et noir deuil le soir parce que des milliers, des dizaines de milliers de femmes, d’hommes et d’enfants seront assassinés, jour après jour, mois après mois, encore et encore. Et cela risque de durer très longtemps tant il est troublant de voir que, malgré le déchaînement de violence qu’ils subissent, les Syriennes et les Syriens n’ont jamais été aussi heureux que depuis qu’ils sortent dans la rue crier «Liberté ! ». Pour ces quelques minutes de bonheur, ils seront des millions à bien vouloir mourir. Supporterons-nous d’assister, passivement, à ce massacre?
Et puis chaque fois qu'il y aura en Syrie un homme torturé, une femme violée avec une matraque électrique, des parents qui recevront leur enfant en morceaux dans un sac poubelle et qu'ici on se taira, il y aura un acquis de la civilisation qui pèse de son poids mort, une régression universelle qui s'opère, une gangrène qui s'installe, un foyer d'infection qui s'étend et que rien n'empêchera de s'inviter chez nous, chez vous si on ne l’arrête pas. C’est le principe de la mode !
Alors si le monde n’est pas composé que de cyniques, s’il y a encore des nostalgiques de la liberté des peuples, des utopistes de la paix dans le monde, des humanistes sans frontières, le peuple syrien a besoin de vous, de votre empathie active, de votre indignation audible, de votre solidarité visible.
Il ne peut, il ne doit exister aucune théorie, aucune posture, aucun doute qui puisse justifier de ne pas assister un peuple en danger.
Le 17 septembre 2011, une Marche du Jasmin aura lieu dans toutes les capitales et les grandes villes du monde. En Suisse, nous marcherons à Genève de la place des Nations à la place Neuve, de blanc vêtus. Pour arrêter de compter les morts en Syrie, nous comptons sur vous !
Shady Ammane, fondateur du Collectif Jasmin "Article Tribune de Genève du 14 septembre 2011"


http://www.tdg.ch/actu/monde/syrie-opposition-annonce-creation-conseil-national-2011-09-15

Soutien aux indignés du Monde entier

APPEL AUX CITOYENS INDIGNES DE GRECE ET D EUROPE

Un appel de citoyens grecs à l’initiative de Mikis Théodorakis

 « Nous saluons les dizaines de milliers, voire les centaines de milliers de nos concitoyens, jeunes pour la plupart, qui se sont rassemblés sur les places de toutes les grandes villes pour manifester leur indignation à l’occasion de la commémoration du mémorandum (accord cadre signe entre le gouvernement grec, l’UE, le FMI et la BCE, en Mai 2010 et renouvelé depuis régulièrement),  demandant le départ du gouvernement de la Honte et de tout le personnel politique qui a géré le bien public, détruisant, pillant et asservissant la Grèce. La place de tous ces individus n’est pas au Parlement, mais en prison.
Nous saluons les premières Assemblées générales qui se déroulent dans les centres de nos villes et la démocratie immédiate que s’efforce de découvrir le mouvement inédit de notre jeunesse. Nous saluons les travailleurs de la fonction publique qui ont entrepris manifestations, grèves et occupations pour défendre un Etat qui, plutôt que le démantèlement prévu par le FMI, a désespérément besoin d’une amélioration et d’une réforme radicales. Par leurs mobilisations, les travailleurs de l’Hellenic Postbank, de la Régie nationale d’électricité et de la Société publique de loterie et de paris sportifs défendent le patrimoine du peuple grec qu’entendent piller les banques étrangères, par le truchement de leur gouvernement fantoche à Athènes.
Le pacifisme exemplaire de ces manifestations a démontré que lorsque la police et les agents provocateurs ne reçoivent pas l’ordre d’intervenir, le sang ne coule pas. Nous appelons les policiers grecs à ne pas être les instruments des forces obscures qui tenteront certainement, à un moment donné, de réprimer dans le sang les jeunes et les travailleurs. Leur place, leur devoir et leur intérêt est d’être aux côtés du peuple grec, des protestations et des revendications pacifiques de celui-ci, aux côtés de la Grèce et non des forces obscures qui dictent leur politique au gouvernement actuel.
Un an après le vote du mémorandum, tout semble attester son échec. Après cette expérience, on ne peut plus s’autoriser la moindre illusion. La voie qu’a emprunté et continue de suivre le gouvernement, sous la tutelle des banques et des instances étrangères, de Goldman Sachs et de ses employés européens, mènent la Grèce à la catastrophe. Il est impératif que cela cesse immédiatement, il est impératif qu’ils partent immédiatement. Jour après jour, leurs pratiques révèlent leur dangerosité pour le pays. Il est étonnant que le procureur général ne soit pas encore intervenu contre le Ministre de l’Economie et des Finances, après les récentes déclarations tenues par ce dernier sur l’imminence de la faillite et l’absence de ressources budgétaires. Pourquoi n’est-il pas intervenu suite aux déclarations du président de la Fédération des patrons de l’industrie et de la commissaire européenne grecque Mari Damanaki sur une sortie de l’euro ? Pourquoi n’est-il pas intervenu contre le terrorisme de masse avec lequel un gouvernement en faillite, sous le diktat de la Troïka [UE - FMI - BCE], tente une nouvelle de fois d’extorquer le peuple grec ? Par leur catastrophisme, leurs allusions tragiques et tout ce qu’ils inventent et déblatèrent pour effrayer les Grecs, ils ont réussi à humilier le pays dans le monde entier et à le mener réellement au bord de la faillite. Si un chef d’entreprise s’exprimait de la même façon que le fait le Premier ministre et ses ministres lorsqu’ils parlent de la Grèce, il se retrouverait immédiatement derrière les barreaux pour malversation grave.
Nous nous adressons aussi aux peuples européens. Notre combat n’est pas seulement celui de la Grèce, il aspire à une Europe libre, indépendante et démocratique. Ne croyez pas vos gouvernements lorsqu’ils prétendent que votre argent sert à aider la Grèce. Ne croyez-pas les mensonges grossiers et absurdes de journaux compromis qui veulent vous convaincre que le problème est dû soi-disant à la paresse des Grecs alors que, d’après les données de l’Institut statistique européen, ceux-ci travaillent plus que tous les autres Européens !
Les travailleurs ne sont pas responsables de la crise ; le capitalisme financier et les politiciens à sa botte sont ceux qui l’ont provoquée et qui l’exploitent. Leurs programmes de « sauvetage de la Grèce » aident seulement les banques étrangères, celles précisément qui, par l’intermédiaire des politiciens et des gouvernements à leur solde, ont imposé le modèle politique qui a mené à la crise actuelle.
Il n’y a pas d’autre solution qu’une restructuration radicale de la dette, en Grèce, mais aussi dans toute l’Europe. Il est impensable que les banques et les détenteurs de capitaux responsables de la crise actuelle ne déboursent pas un centime pour réparer les dommages qu’ils ont causés. Il ne faut pas que les banquiers constituent la seule profession sécurisée de la planète !
Il n’y pas d’autre solution que de remplacer l’actuel modèle économique européen, conçu pour générer des dettes, et revenir à une politique de stimulation de la demande et du développement, à un protectionnisme doté d’un contrôle drastique de la Finance. Si les Etats ne s’imposent pas sur les marchés, ces derniers les engloutiront, en même temps que la démocratie et tous les acquis de la civilisation européenne. La démocratie est née à Athènes quand Solon a annulé les dettes des pauvres envers les riches. Il ne faut pas autoriser aujourd’hui les banques à détruire la démocratie européenne, à extorquer les sommes gigantesques qu’elles ont elle-même générées sous forme de dettes. Comment peut-on proposer un ancien collaborateur de la Goldman Sachs pour diriger la Banque centrale européenne ? De quelle sorte de gouvernements, de quelle sorte de politiciens disposons-nous en Europe ?
Nous ne vous demandons pas de soutenir notre combat par solidarité, ni parce que notre territoire a été le berceau de Platon et Aristote, Périclès et Protagoras, des concepts de démocratie, de liberté et d’Europe. Nous ne vous demandons pas un traitement de faveur parce que nous avons subi, en tant que pays, l’une des pires catastrophes européennes aux années 1940 et nous avons lutté de façon exemplaire pour que le fascisme ne s’installe pas sur le continent.
Nous vous demandons de le faire dans votre propre intérêt. Si vous autorisez aujourd’hui le sacrifice des sociétés grecque, irlandaise, portugaise et espagnole sur l’autel de la dette et des banques, ce sera bientôt votre tour. Vous ne prospérerez pas au milieu des ruines des sociétés européennes. Nous avons tardé de notre côté, mais nous nous sommes réveillés. Bâtissons ensemble une Europe nouvelle ; une Europe démocratique, prospère, pacifique, digne de son histoire, de ses luttes et de son esprit. Résistez au totalitarisme des marchés qui menace de démanteler l’Europe en la transformant en tiers-monde, qui monte les peuples européens les uns contre les autres, qui détruit notre continent en suscitant le retour du fascisme. »
Le Comite Consultative du Mouvement de Citoyens Indépendants. « L’ Etincelle », créé à l’initiative de Mikis Theodorakis
Athenes, 26 Mai 2011

SYRIA: REFORMS AND MEDIATION

SYRIA: REFORMS AND MEDIATION

By René Wadlow

Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.
Studs Terkel

The situation in Syria seems to have reached a critical turning point. There is a possibility that popular protests continue as they have since mid-March and that they continue to be met by military and police violence in violation of the spirit and letter of humanitarian international law. The Syrian army and militias have responded to unarmed nonviolent demonstrations with disproportionate force. Humanitarian international law has as its base the Martens Clause named after the legal advisor of the Russian Czar at the time of the Hague Peace Conferences. The clause is included in the Preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention. It is taken up again in Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. The Martens Clause states that “the means that can be used to injure an enemy are not unlimited” but must meet the test of ‘proportionality’ meaning that every resort to armed force be limited to what is necessary for meeting military objectives. The shooting of unarmed demonstrators does not meet the test of proportionality.

For several months, the Syrian people have been sending a clear message to President Bashar al-Assad: The time has come for him to step aside.

However, there seems to be a real possibility of negotiations between the government led by President Bashar al-Assad and members of different opposition groups. President Assad, after two months of silence during which time demonstrations spread and repression increased on June 20 has called for a “national dialog” that could usher in changes. However, there were few specifics as to what topics such a national dialog would cover.

Many opposition leaders consider the proposal as a bid for more time during which arrests continue and over 1,000 persons have been killed in response to non-violent demonstrations. Moreover, it is not clear that the leaders of the longstanding but divided leadership of opposition groups are in control of the demonstrators. As in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrian demonstrators are young, come from an increasingly educated middle class and are influenced by the spirit of the ‘Arab Spring’ rather than by the ideology of the historic opposition groups.

As a sign that the proposal for a national dialog was real, the government allowed a meeting on June 27 in Damascus of some opposition figures. Those who met stressed that they did not claim to speak for all the demonstrators, and not all open opposition figures attended. In addition there are opposition figures in exile, and those in hiding fearful of arrest. There are also, no doubt, those who are waiting to see which way the wind blows. President Assad has spoken of starting the national dialog on July 12, but it is not clear who will attend and how representative they will be.

The savagery of the Damascus regime in suppressing dissent knows no boundaries. President Assad will resort even to heavy military force to silence his own people.

Civil society participation — religious, education, labor, women, cultural and media — is crucial to build public support for a real national dialog and to broaden constituencies for peace. A national dialog is merely the beginning of a deep reordering of the political and economic structures and relationships among elements of the society. There is a need for continual adjustments to adapt to new developments. There also needs to be quick post-agreement benefits to give people a stake in the readjustment process and to reduce the capacity of spoilers.

In some conflict situations, external mediators from the United Nations, national governments or nongovernmental organizations have played a useful role. Currently, the situation seems to have reached a stalemate when neither the government nor the protesters can resolve the crisis on their own terms. There are few signs that the government is open to external mediators, but with refugees from Syria going to Turkey, there is a real danger that the conflict will take on trans-frontier dimensions. A real national dialog could set out a framework for reforms which have been promised in the past but which never came to birth. As a result, sentiments have hardened, and trust has been lost. As external but concerned parties, we should encourage a broadly-based national dialog as a first important step on the road to reform.

René Wadlow is Senior Vice President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.

Décès de Georges Krassovsky

Notre ami Georges Krassovsky est décédé le 4 juin dernier dans sa 96ème année. nous aurons l'occasion de lui conascrer un article plus important pour honnorer ses années de combat en faveur de l'humanité.

Homme d'une droiture exemplaire, d'un humanisme novateur et à l'esprit libre, il aura traversé l'existence laissant derrière lui d'innombrables traces tant dans les souvenirs que dans les organisations.

Arrivé des pays de l'Est au moment de la 2ème guerre mondiale, "apatride", il considérait comme un luxe d'avoir une nationalité.

Les plus anciens écologistes se souviennent de lui comme l'auteur de la marée verte qui a envahi l'Europe à la fin des années 70. "Que chacun arbore un carré de tissu vert afin de marquer son attachement à la qualité de l'environnement". Il en reste aujourd'hui que le vert a fait l'unanimité pour représenter le combat écologiste. Il restait en lien avec Jerry Bourgeois, animateur du CILAME.

Les pacifistes se souviennent de lui comme d'un cycliste infatigable, ralliant Paris à Moscou et plusieurs villes de l'URSS pour susciter des actes de paix... et pourtant, nous avait-il dit, "je n'aime pas le vélo", mais c'était un moyen de médiatiser son combat.

Ces dernières années, il avait voulu créer une marée blanche : des carrés de tissu blanc pour signifier "on ne tue plus" ! Il portait d'ailleurs en permanence un insigne blanc à la pochette de sa veste.

Il a proclamé haut et fort la nécessité de la citoyenneté mondiale dans différents articles publiés dans "le nouvel humanisme" ou dans "Esprit Libre", les deux publications qu'il éditait à ses frais.

En 1994, il était élu au Congrès des Peuples, collaborant de très près avec Renée Marchand. En 2003 Georges avait participé à la session du Congrès des Peuples, participant à la création de l'Assemblée Consultative auprès du Congrès des Peuples, afin de valoriser la parole des citoyens.

Fin 2009, il nous avait annoncé qu'il allait "tirer sa révérence".

Lien vers sa fiche personnelle 

http://www.recim.org/elu/Georges-fr.htm

Declaration of the People’s Congress - April 2011 number 21

Declaration of the People’s Congress - April 2011  number 21

As DELEGATES of the PEOPLE'S CONGRESS elected directly and democratically by a transnational electorate spread over more than 100 countries,

WE STATE

that the 20 Declarations adopted by the People’s Congress from 1972 to 1982 dealing with problems and issues related to nuclear energy, world oceans, disarmament, drinking water, multinational firms, refugees, environment, world population, food, energy and raw materials etc.  are all unfortunately still accurate today.

that if some Declarations need to be modernized in their formulation (statistics, new data and new vocabulary) their content  and the challenges facing humanity have not really changed  during the last three decades: in 2011, a billion people suffer from hunger, the reduction of biodiversity is accelerating, pollution contaminates water, air and earth, nuclear energy demonstrates its highly dangerous characteristics for both our generation and the coming ones , desertification gains ground every day, civil wars and terrorism drown the planet in blood; and human rights continue to be flouted etc.etc.

In addition, a scourge,  that no solution has been able to eradicate, has been added: global warming, whose short term consequences also threaten all of  humanity.

WE DECLARE:

More than ever that only the creation of World Institutions with limited but real supranational power will enable us to resolve in a sustainable way these problems which threaten the very existence and the survival of humanity.

In order for these Institutions to be created as soon as possible:

WE CALL FOR:

All of the inhabitants of the planet to join this world movement, the only movement able to federate all of the citizens of the world whatever their political, philosophical or religious convictions are:

WE ASK THEM

To become part of this movement that can be defined  in one sentence

“To any world problem, there is a world solution”

Palestinian Status at the UN: Breaking the logjam

There is a good deal of discussion in the halls of the UN, both in New York and Geneva, concerning a possible application of full membership in the UN by the Palestinian Authority.  The discussions reflect similar discussions within Foreign Ministries in the hope that there can be an agreed-upon program of action (or non-action) by September when the new General Assembly meets.  Currently Palestine has observer status at the UN from a time when liberation movements were given observer status – two organizations for South Africa, one for South West Africa as Namibia was then, and for the PLO.  With the changes in South Africa and Namibia, the liberation movement observer status was dropped for the three, and only the PLO remained.

            In practice, there is little effective difference between observer status and full membership.  Observers can not vote, but voting in the UN has been largely replaced by ‘consensus making’. Effectiveness for all countries except for a small number of Great Powers depends on the skills of the diplomats which represent them.  The Vatican has only observer status but a good deal of influence due to an effective diplomatic team.  The Palestinian diplomats in Geneva have been weak, in New York somewhat stronger.  The Palestinian diplomats have always been in the shadows of the representatives of the Arab States who want to play ‘Big  Brother’, but with the exception of Egypt which has always had a strong core of diplomats, the Arab diplomats have rarely been more competent than the Palestinians.

            Being overshadowed by the larger Arab States would probably not change even if full membership is granted, but full membership would be a symbolic victory of legitimacy and open the door to the independent use of the

World Court

. As Mahmoud Abbas has written “Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one.  It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.”

            As of now, there are a number of variations being discussed around three possible approaches:

1)      The first approach favored by the USA, some of the Western European members of the European Union, in particular Germany, and a few others including Israel is that the issue should go away. It is felt that there are enough problems in the world, especially in the Middle East not to have a complicated procedural battle in September.  This has been the ‘advice’ given to the Palestinians by the US, Canada, and some Western European States.  It may be also what some of the Arab States are saying more privately.  To reinforce their arguments, the US and the Western European governments have a strong card — they can cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority. The pretext would be the Hammas support or participation in a ‘unity government’ even if such a government is made of ‘non-political technocrats’. Hammas is still listed by the USA and the European Union as a ‘terrorist organization’ and so cannot receive funds from the US or EU governments. The Palestinian Authority depends largely on external financing; thus cutting off financing is an argument that carries weight — even if it is called ‘blackmail’ in other settings.

            In exchange for dropping the full membership application, there would be some sort of short Israel-Palestine meeting where each side would speak of a ‘peace process’ through September when the membership issue has gone by.  Such a sleight of hand will not advance real negotiations but may ‘buy time’ which is what many governments now want.

2)      There is, however, a real possibility that the Palestinian Authority will ask for full membership in September. This will depend in part on discussions among the Palestinian leadership and the views of the three key States concerning the Middle East: Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. Iran which is one of the Vice Presidents of the upcoming General Assembly will be particularly influential in procedural matters. The UN Charter states that the admission of new members “will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”.  The Council makes its membership recommendation through a resolution; thus it must be approved by at least nine of the Council’s 15 members and not be vetoed by the one of the five permanent members.  If the USA abstains — abstentions are not considered a veto — it is likely that there would be at least nine positive votes for Palestinian membership in the Security Council.  Then it is most likely that the General Assembly would follow the Security Council recommendation as it has always done in the past.  Thus current discussions turn around what could convince the US to abstain rather than veto.  We will return to this key issue after a consideration of a third possibility.

3)      The third possibility in the case of a US veto is to move the issue to the General Assembly under what is known now as the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism.  UN General Assembly resolution 377(V) of 3 November 1950, first known as ‘the Acheson Plan’ from the name of the US Secretary of State who proposed it and later re-named Uniting for Peace states that in cases where the UN Security Council fails to act to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement among the five permanent members, the matter shall be discussed immediately by the General Assembly.  If the General Assembly is not in session, an Emergency Special Session can be called.  This procedure has been used 10 times since its 1950 start. (1) As from September to December, the General Assembly will be in session, a Special Session will not have to be called.  For a resolution to pass under the Uniting for Peace mechanism, there must be a 2/3 majority, meaning now 135 States if all are present and voting.  However, not being present is a ‘diplomatic’ way of not having to be seen making a choice.  Currently, 112 UN members recognize a Palestinian State within the pre-1967 frontiers.  What can not be analysed is how hard the USA and some of its allies would work to prevent the 135 positive voters.

            To turn back to the Security Council procedure, we can ask could there be a ‘deal’ that would satisfy no one completely but not dissatisfy any of the five permanent powers to the extent of their casting a veto. Here we can turn to precedent because at the UN everything functions by precedent. If something has been done once, one can argue that it can be done again. If it has never been done, it takes an exceptional situation and a few highly skilled diplomats to get any innovation.

            Thus we can turn to the 1954 period and the breaking of the ‘logjam’ on membership. During the first ‘hot round’ of the Cold War — the June 1950 to July 1953 Korean War— the Soviet Union and the USA blocked each others potential allies from UN membership. At the end of the Korean War, there was a host of pending membership applications on which no progress had been made.  There seemed to be little possibility of moving things forward.

            The 1954 membership issue was my start at looking closely at diplomatic negotiations around procedural issues at the UN. At a time when I should have spent my time chasing girls, I was a university student representative on the Executive Committee of what was then the United World Federalists in the USA. In 1955, the issue of a review conference on the UN Charter was to be placed automatically on the agenda of the General Assembly. During the 1945 negotiations that led to the creation of the UN Charter, a review conference on the Charter after 10 years was to be placed on the agenda.  This was a demand of some of the smaller States at San Francisco, in particular Australia.  It was expected in 1945 that such a review conference would be held and that was still the expectation in the period 1953-1954.  There was a good deal of reflection on how to improve and strengthen the Charter during such a Review Conference. Universal membership was one of the demands of UN reformers, both some diplomats and activists such as those in the United World Federalists who had taken a lead on the Charter Review issue.

            However, both the USA and the USSR opposed holding a Charter Review conference and brought most of their allies along with them.  The result was that when the Charter Review conference came upon on the agenda, it was swept under the rug, and there has never been a review. Nevertheless, the diplomats of the USA and the USSR felt that some of the ‘steam’ for a Review Conference had to be lowered and this could be done by getting rid of ‘universal membership’ as an issue. Negotiations to break the logjam on pending applications started with the aim of making as close-to-possible balance between pro-USA, pro-USSR and neutral States entering the UN.  The negotiations were carried out in 1954 and in 1955, before the debate on Charter Review, the membership logjam broke and Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sri Lanka entered the UN. Japan should have been part of the group, but there was still the “enemy states” clause in the Charter which took more negotiations concerning Japan. Japan only came in the next year, 1956.

            Can there be something comparable in September? In an article “Coming in from the Cold: UN Membership Needed for the Phantom Republics”, I suggested at the time of the Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia conflict that Abkhazia, Chechenya, Kossovo, Nagrono-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistra be given UN membership as a necessary first step for security and a lessening of tensions. I had stressed that “to find mutually acceptable forms of government in these conflicts will require political creativity (breaking out of thinking in fixed patterns) and then new forms of constitutional order such as renewed forms of federal-confederal types of government, greater popular participation in decision-making and new forms of protection of minorities.  Flexibility, compromise and cooperation are the hallmarks of success when it comes to resolving such conflicts concerning independence and autonomy.  There is a need for a healing of past animosities and a growth of wider loyalties and cooperation.”

            Both diplomats and members of the UN secretariat as well as secretariat of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe where I had also floated the idea explained in detail why such a joint membership procedure would not happen.  None the less, if we added upgrading the status of Palestine in the UN, another membership logjam might be broken.  The point I have repeatedly made is that membership does not solve difficulties; it just provides a framework where serious negotiations might be carried out.  The 1955 access to membership of Cambodia and Laos did not ‘solve’ the Indochina conflict.  The French-led war in Vietnam was still going on, to be followed a decade later by the US-led war.

            Thus, I think that a world citizen position is that full Palestinian membership in the UN will not ‘solve’ all the Israel-Palestine issues, and certainly not the issues of the wider Middle East.  However UN membership will allow the Palestinians to come out from the shadows of the Arab States and to negotiate with the Israelis as equals.  Such is a very modest step forward but it is worth taking.

(1)   For a useful discussion of the background to the Uniting for Peace procedure see

Dean Acheson Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (New York: W.W.Norton, 1969, chapters 47-51)

             

Rene Wadlow