Australia and the UN
Review 22.11
8 August - 28 August 1997Upon the passing of the era of superpower rivalry, a new onus fell upon the United Nations as the broker and enforcer of international standards. Its actions began to carry more weight. However in the Middle East, the continued atmosphere of heated disputation has not been assisted by repeated annual UN resolutions weighted heavily against Israel, despite the concessions Israel has made to further the peace process. Until recently, Australia has supported the majority of these resolutions.
However, in recent months Australia appears to have softened its voting policy in the UN - key resolutions condemning Israel for the commencement of settlements at Har Homa have seen Australia abstain rather than side with the overwhelming majority of nations supporting the resolutions.
Australia initially voted in favour of the first Har Homa resolution in March this year, soon after construction activity began in the disputed area of Jerusalem. Initiated by the Arab Group of States and countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, the resolution brought before the General Assembly stated that the new settlement activities were illegal and called on Israel to "refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which alter the facts on the ground, pre-empting the final status negotiations, and have negative implications for the Middle East peace process." The resolution was supported by 130 countries, with only Israel and the United States opposing.
Richard Butler, Australia's then Ambassador to the UN, told the Assembly of Australia's concern over the Israeli decision, claiming it was "inconsistent with the body of Security Council resolutions on the Middle East. It is unhelpful. It complicates the process of achieving a peaceful settlement."
In April, an Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly was convened to highlight the Har Homa housing project issue, again at the instigation of the Group of Arab States and the Non-Aligned Movement. Such sessions are normally reserved for threats to international peace and security and only ten have ever occurred - the last Emergency Special Session was held in 1982 at the height of Israel's involvement in Lebanon.
Demanding the "immediate and full cessation" of the construction in "occupied East Jerusalem" and calling for the "cessation of all assistance and support for those Israeli activities", the resolution was passed by a vote of 134 to three against. Australia was one of 11 countries that abstained. In explaining the Australian vote, UN delegate Richard Rowe said "Australia's fundamental interest is in the resumption of the negotiations between the parties ... [and] considers there is an urgent need to re-establish trust and confidence between the parties as a prerequisite for progress. We are deeply concerned that the draft resolution will do nothing to advance the achievement of that result and we have, therefore, abstained." Other notable abstentions were Germany and Canada.
The UN Emergency Special Session was re-convened in July, frustrated by the Security Council's failure to adopt a similarly condemnatory resolution against Israel because of the United States' veto. This time the resolution's 15 Arab and Muslim nation sponsors were pushing for economic sanctions to be imposed on Israel, but they were held back after European countries warned they would vote against such a resolution. Yet, the resolution did contain veiled calls for economic reprisals, which prompted US Ambassador Bill Richardson to describe it as tantamount to "a demand for a partial economic boycott of Israel."
Condemnatory of Israel's non-compliance with the demands made in the April resolution, it recommended that states "actively discourage activities which directly contribute to any construction or development of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem." It further demanded that "Israel, the occupying Power, make available to Member States the necessary information about goods produced or manufactured in the illegal settlements". Despite the rising tide of rhetoric inherent in the resolution, coupled with the invitation to punitive economic measures, it was comfortably passed as expected by 131 to 3 against (Israel, the United States and Micronesia). However, the resolution's phrasing was ambiguous enough to stir some significant abstentions - the group of 14 countries included Australia, Germany and Russia.
The most recent UN vote concerning the Middle East was held in the 52 member Economic and Social Council on July 25. The resolution put forward demanded that "the Israeli occupation force cease its measures of collective punishment against the Palestinian people, in particular, the closure of occupied Palestinian territory." It also called for the Secretary General to report on the implementation of the resolution and for the council's 1998 agenda to include an item entitled "Repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the economic and social rights and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan." Once again, the resolution was easily passed by 43 votes to one (the United States). Australia was one of only two abstentions.
Considering Australia's voting pattern on Middle East resolutions over the last few years, the recent votes suggest that a shift in policy has occurred. For decades now the series of Middle East resolutions that come before the General Assembly each year have been overwhelmingly negative towards Israel and up until the end of the 51st session of the General Assembly early this year, Australia has voted in favour of most of them, including: calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, rejecting Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Old City, and blaming Israel for the abuse of Palestinian human rights. But as the peace process has fallen into crisis, the tone of resolutions against Israel has become harsher and, accordingly, Australia has tended away from supporting them.
Officials in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs believe, firstly, that the initiative to censor Israel was not sufficient justification for the convening of the Emergency Special Sessions. Reservations were also held about specific clauses in the resolutions which hinted at trade reprisals. "We continue to be of the view that the only authoritative body empowered to impose sanctions is the Security Council," one official told the Review. Australia's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, John Crighton, confirmed to the Review that the Foreign Minister Mr. Downer "was unhappy about the process [of the vote] and our likely position changed as the wording changed, so the extent to which new words make a resolution more or less helpful is central to the Government's thinking."
Foreign Affairs officials also see an emerging trend towards more polemical and politicised resolutions this year and anticipate that this will continue. The concern is that they "prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations and attempt to put the UN in the way of the parties concerned," as one official described it. For Australia, the emphasis remains on bringing the parties together, rather than "allowing the atmosphere to be poisoned by polemics or rhetoric."
For Israel's part, Australia's backing away from the Har Homa resolutions was appreciated, particularly as Israel has found Australia's previous voting record in the UN to be somewhat disappointing. Aaron Jacob, Director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Division for Political Affairs at the UN, told the Review that the moral validity of the Har Homa resolutions lies in the composition of the vote. "When a country like Australia, which is a Western style democracy, and an important country in the region and on the international scene, does not support an Arab resolution this has significance. I would say the same about Germany as well, for example." Jacob says that Israel mounted a large campaign to counter the Emergency Session resolutions, lobbying extensively both among the UN delegates and via its ambassadorial personnel. "We knew to begin with that it would be impossible to prevent the adoption of the resolution, but we tried to place our opposition on the records of the various countries and to improve the voting pattern as much as possible," he says.
At the UN, John Crighton acknowledges that Australia's abstention was appreciated - "I remember as I was walking out that my hand was warmly shaken by the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Israeli Embassy," he says. "They were quite pleased with us and we received some letters about it as well. On the other hand, either through body language or expressly, some of the Middle Eastern countries expressed their disappointment." However, Aaron Jacob would still like to see more of a shift in Australia's UN policy. "It is important for us to maintain good relations with Australia. We have many things in common," he says. In attempting to understand the Australian position, Jacob identifies the different views the two countries have on Israel's presence in the West Bank - which Australia sees as an occupation, and alludes to political realities in the UN: "Unfortunately, in the international scene it pays more to side with the Arabs than the Israelis. A country that wants to be elected to any organ of the United Nations has to consider the one Israeli vote against the 20 Arab votes, and that counts I suppose."
Michael Ronen, the newly appointed Counsellor at the Israeli Embassy in Canberra, told the Review that while Israel would prefer Australia to vote with Israel against the resolutions, "not too many countries even dared to abstain, and Australia did it. We know that it was not very easy for them and we appreciate it." He believes the present Australian Government is friendly to Israel and that even though in recent years Australia has usually voted against Israel in UN resolutions, Australia's record is "still much better than most countries." Ronen adds that Israel is not happy with the conduct of the UN in general, which is made worse by Israel's exclusion from the main voting blocs.
Australian Foreign Ministry officials insist that all voting decisions are made entirely on the merits of the resolution, after an extensive process of consultation between senior officials in the Ministry and the Foreign Minister, along with input from the UN mission in New York. Although John Crighton concedes that usually after a period of corridor consultations at the UN, the likely votes of other countries are taken into account: "Generally speaking, Australia is reluctant to be out on a limb. When you consider the implications of a particular policy action, a factor is always 'what sort of company are we in' and secondly, 'how isolated are we'. But that's not to say we're not prepared to be in quite a small group if we have to be." He further believes that it is important to know the likely outcome of the vote - "We're going to have to go to the Minister and say how we think it will turn out, so unless we are active in surmising the prevailing opinions we cannot advise the Minister properly," he says.
Aaron Jacob contends that Australia's voting policy in the UN could be more balanced, citing the example of the United States. "It exercises great influence in the Middle East because it maintains good relations with both sides. The Arabs may complain here and there but it is seen by both parties as an honest broker. That's why the United States was so effective in promoting the peace process. The moment you side with one party, you lose the confidence of the other party. I'm not only referring to Australia here, but to all Western countries.
"We have never had any difficulty in maintaining a good bilateral relationship with Australia," Jacob continues. "But it was not always reflected in the voting pattern of Australia. If the two recent votings in the Assembly indicate some change in Australia's policy, then that is something we will have to see in the future."
Both Israel and Australia anticipate the increasingly strident tone of condemnation for Israel in the UN to continue into the next session of the General Assembly, which begins mid-September. Jacob talks of a major political campaign conducted against Israel in the UN over the last year, including the UN's special agencies such as Habitat, the World Health Organisation, UNESCO and the Commission on Human Rights. "I wish it was not the case, but I can't exclude the possibility that the Arabs will introduce some more condemnations of Israel," he says.
An Australian Foreign Ministry official told the Review that "more polemical, rhetorical, divisive and embittered resolutions" are expected in the coming session but that each will be judged on its merits. "Obviously it makes it harder then to attract any sort of consensus for resolutions like that, or to attract the support of countries like us. And the bedrock of our policy is supporting the security of Israel."
Copyright © 1997 J.O.I.N.