An emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by a huge majority on December 21 that a unilateral US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was "null and void". President Donald Trump had announced on December 06 that the US would move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This broke with the international consensus that the final status of the holy city should be decided as part of the peace process. Multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions have also called for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Trump's announcement was immediately welcomed by Israel. The rest of the world however was critical of the US decision. It was generally agreed that this was a flagrant violation of international law and of the many Resolutions adopted earlier on this issue in the United Nations.
Professor Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University has noted that the vote exposed that the Palestinian cause was a towering global concern not limited to Arab and Muslim countries. The General Assembly through its resounding majority demonstrated that UN member states considered that the US decision to unilaterally declare Jerusalem "the capital" of the Israel was not acceptable to the rest of the world. The United Nations General Assembly voted 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions. This vote came soon after the US veto on an identical resolution in the UN Security Council three days earlier. The US was outnumbered on that occasion by 14 to 1.
VOTE ANALYSIS: An analysis of the vote in the UN General Assembly reveals interesting facets within this evolving paradigm. The states which voted in favour of the resolution in the General Assembly included Muslim-majority countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen; Russia, India and China; European countries: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Macedonia and United Kingdom; other notable countries including Japan, Nepal, New Zealand, Republic of South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka and North Korea.
As compared to the diversity of supporters from around the globe, those who voted against the Resolution included: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo and the United States. Seven of these States can hardly be termed as significant.
Some among the 35 states which abstained were interesting. They included: Argentina, Australia, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Philippines, Poland and Romania.
This voting scenario was significant in view of the threat issued by Trump himself and US Permanent Representative to the UN Nikki Haley that going against the US position and voting for the Resolution could have serious consequences in terms of bilateral relationship with the United States.
ISRAEL BUOYED BY TRUMP'S DECISION: Israel was quick to call this moral victory for the Palestinians as nothing but a "nonbinding resolution". The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the UN as a "house of lies". Prof. Dabashi has rightly pointed out that Netanyahu had apparently "dismissed the whole world as delusional - a clear evidence of psychological projection."
Nevertheless, on December 22, Netanyahu indicated that "several countries" were considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem in the wake of US President Donald Trump's decision to recognise the city as the capital of Israel. Guatemala, accordingly, announced on December 24 that it would move its embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. If other nations follow Trump's lead, as Netanyahu has suggested, it would be interpreted as a sort of diplomatic victory for the Israelis.
Pressed by the media after the UNGA vote on whether he would openly commit to a two-state solution, Netanyahu demurred on committing "to a situation where the Palestinians can govern themselves." He insisted, instead, that Israel must remain in charge of security in the entire West Bank. It may be mentioned here that Netanyahu's right-wing coalition consists of hardliners on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Reaffirming their unflinching support for the two-state formula, the Palestinian leaders have flatly rejected such a proposal, saying it does not give them full sovereignty over their land.
Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst who served on President Barack Obama's National Security Council from 2009 to 2013, has made some significant observations. She has pointed out that, though non-binding in character, the Resolution "specifically and strategically distanced countries from the United States in its condemnation of President Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to relocate the US Embassy. This time around, the US approach undercut both the UN itself and exposed the United States as crying wolf, again. By voting for the resolution, countries were not doing anything that violated the terms of their foreign aid. Using such aid as a stick, the Administration issued an unfortunate set of empty threats. Some of the countries to whom we give the most support -- including Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- voted for the resolution anyway. It is unforeseeable that the US will cut off foreign aid to those countries." She has also stated that it is unclear whether any of the small countries - Guatemala, Honduras, Togo, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau - which sided with the United States "have a shared policy outlook on the status of Jerusalem."
CANADA AND INDIA: Two votes have drawn world attention - that of Canada and India. Canada appears to have departed from its past voting behaviour. Under Prime Minister Harper, who was in office for almost a decade, USA and Canada normally had matching votes at the UN. This time around, under Justin Trudeau, Canada abstained on the resolution. This, according to analysts, was slightly different but should not be construed as a big enough gesture to cause a major rift with Israel or with the United States. However, according to some of them, Canada's latest decision was also a notable departure from its previous voting record and could indicate an unwillingness to look like agreeing to a format which has been described as "bullying".
Consequently, both Europe and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have carefully analysed comments made by Adam Austen, spokesperson for the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland: "Canada is strongly committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. Canada's longstanding position is that the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This has been the policy of consecutive governments, both Liberal and Conservative." Marc-André Blanchard, Canada's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in a brief statement following the vote also stated that "Canada is of the view that the status of Jerusalem is part and parcel of the solution. Canada also calls for calm and firmly opposes the violence and targeting of civilians seen in recent weeks."
Analysts have remarked that the decision by Canada to abstain was not unexpected but represented a delicate balance where the Canadian government is trying to walk carefully as it navigates between not irritating the USA during on-going North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations and also not alienating the 57 OIC Member States with the power to cast votes as a powerful bloc against Canada's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
The voting stance of India apparently reflects the existing friendship between India and Israel that was outlined during Indian Prime Minister's visit to Israel in July 2017. This evolving situation has drawn particular attention because Netanyahu is expected to visit India in January, 2018.
In any case, since 21 December both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas are doing the rounds of international capitals and trying their best to evoke support for their respective positions. In the meantime, 12 Palestinians have died until December 25 while protesting against the US decision and Israel has sealed off the entrance to the Ramallah District to restrict movement of Palestinians.
One can only hope that better sense and reason will prevail in 2018. The world needs peaceful resolution of problems rather than the use of force.
The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
