Peter Sinkamba

TEST CASE FOR UPND GOVERNMENT: ON WHICH SIDE WILL GOVERNMENT VOTE AT THE UNITED NATIONS CONCERNING UKRAINE?

Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council called for a rare emergency special session of the 193-member General Assembly on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which will be held today, Monday, as western allies step up a diplomatic campaign to isolate Moscow.

A resolution convening the General Assembly session was adopted with 11 yes votes. Russia voted no, while China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained.

Ten such emergency special sessions of the General Assembly have been convened since 1950, following the adoption of resolution 377A(V), widely known as ‘Uniting for Peace.’

The text gives the Assembly the power to take up matters of international peace and security when the Security Council is unable to act because of the lack of unanimity among its five veto-wielding permanent members.

In 2017, adopting three resolutions by recorded vote on the questions of Palestine and the Middle East, the General Assembly called for respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem and stressed the need to urgently exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process.

Through the terms of the text titled “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”, the Assembly reiterated its call for the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. By further terms, it also called upon Israel to cease all unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and called upon all States not to recognize any changes to the pre‑1967 borders and not to render aid or assistance to illegal settlement activities.

Also adopted was a resolution titled “Jerusalem”, in which the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal. Recalling the 2015 Security Council press statement on Jerusalem, in which the Council called for upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al‑Sharif, the Assembly stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

By the terms of a resolution titled “The Syrian Golan”, the Assembly declared that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and demanded that Israel withdraw from the territory.

The question of Palestine was first brought before the General Assembly in 1947. By resolution 181 (II), the Assembly decided to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. After the 1948 war, the Assembly by resolution 194 (III) of 1949 established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) to help the parties reach a final settlement, while reaffirming the rights of Palestine refugees to return and restitution. UNRWA, a Palestine refugee agency, was established by the Assembly the same year.

In 1974, the question of Palestine was re-introduced in the Assembly’s agenda. Resolution 3236 (XXIX) reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property. In 1975, the Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The question of Palestine and related issues have been the subject of numerous resolutions and decisions adopted by the Assembly’s regular, special and emergency sessions.

On 29 November 2012 the Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer State status in the UN. The relevant issues on the agenda of the Assembly and its subsidiary organs, such as the Human Rights Council include the right of Palestinians to self-determination, their sovereignty over natural resources, assistance, refugees, IDPs, UNRWA, human rights, Israeli settlements, peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, and Jerusalem, among others.

In the 2017 vote, the Zambian representatives to the United Nations were absent at a controversial General Assembly emergency session called at the request of Arab and Muslim states to vote on the condemnation of the decision by the United States of America to recognize Jerusalem as the future capital of Israel.

The voting took place after threats by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, that Washington would remember which countries “disrespected” America by voting against it.

The United Nations General Assembly defied warnings from the United States and overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and calling on countries not to move their diplomatic missions to the city.

A total of 128 countries voted in favour of the motion, defying the threats — that were forcefully reiterated in an address before the vote by US envoy Nikki Haley — to cut aid to countries that opposed the motion.

Nine countries — the US, Israel, Togo, Micronesia, Guatemala, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands and Honduras — voted against the resolution.

There were 35 abstentions, including a number of countries that had been widely expected to support the move, such as Colombia, Mexico, Malawi and Rwanda.

Another 21 delegations, including Zambia and Kenya, were absent from the vote.

The then US President Donald Trump supported his Ambassador’s position and threatened to cut aid to countries that woul vote against the US position.

“I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations for all of these nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council, or they vote against us potentially at the assembly,” the Trump told members of his cabinet in the White House.

“They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us,” he said. “Well, we’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”

After the vote the US ambassador to the UN, Haley, defended the administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, saying the US had the sovereign right to place its embassies where it wished, and warned that America — the biggest funder of the UN — did not take kindly to being disrespected and paying for the “dubious privilege.”

Repudiating the Resolution, Haley said “the decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that,” she said. “The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the president’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.”

“America will put our embassy to Jerusalem,” Haley stressed.

“That’s what the American people want us to do. And it’s the right thing to do.” No vote at the UN will make any difference on the American decision, she declared. But this vote will be remembered, she vowed, when America is being asked once again to make the single-largest contribution to the UN budget or when “so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

The resolution, co-sponsored by Turkey and Yemen, called Trump’s recognition “null and void” and reaffirmed 10 security council resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city’s final status must be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The resolution also demanded “that all states comply with security council resolutions regarding the holy city of Jerusalem, and not to recognise any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions”.

The rationale for repudiation of UN Resolution by the US was that the issues concerning Israel and Palestine should be resolved by direct talks between the two parties.

Now, in this case, Russian and Ukraine presidents have agreed to send delegations to meet for direct today near the border with Belarus.

For consistency, will the US and its allies use the same rationale they have used to vote against the Resolutions on Palestine crisis, where they advocated for direct talks instead of UN Resolutions?

Surely, as the saying goes: what goes around come around.

Let’s wait and see what happens.

As for the UPND Government, the question is: on which side will the Zambian Government vote? Or will you also be absent?

My advice: Just don’t go there. Be absent. Let the Russians and Ukranians sort the issues themselves.