Palestine's Flag To Fly at UN, 119 Yes, 45 Abstain, 8 No: US, Israel, Canada, Australia and Four Islands, List of Non-Voters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10, updated -- The UN draft resolution to fly the State of Palestine's flag in front of the UN passed on September 10, 119 in favor, 45 abstaining and eight against: the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, Tuvalu, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Inner City Press put the UN voting sheet online here.

  There were also countries which didn't vote at all, like Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Malawi, South Sudan and, strangely, Yemen. Iraq's Permanent Representative said all Arab Group members supported the draft; Yemen's representative was in the building, Inner City Press saw and greeted him. What happened?

Update: Inner City Press went to the UN General Assembly stakeout after the meeting and asked Iraq's Ambassador about Yemen not voting; it was explained as a problem of Yemen being behind on its dues to the UN.

  The resolution states that it is “taking note of the participation of non-member Observer States, which maintain permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters, in the sessions and work of the General Assembly, recalling that the State of Palestine became a non-member Observer State at the United Nations on 29 November 2012, and recalling also in this regard its resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 and previous relevant resolutions.”

   The adopted resolution “decides that the flags of non-member Observer States at the United Nations maintaining permanent observer missions at Headquarters shall be raised at the United Nations Headquarters and Offices following the flags of the Member States of the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary measures for the implementation of this resolution during the seventieth session of the General Assembly and within 20 days of the adoption of this resolution.”

 After the vote, for example, Sweden explained why it voted Yes; Netherlands said why it abstained. The two, and Italy, will vie for two WEOG seats on the UN Security Council.

On August 28, the Holy See / Vatican has issued this:

“In accordance with the rules governing the General Assembly no Member or Observer State is entitled to oppose the tabling of a draft resolution by a Member State. In light of this, the Holy See does not object to the tabling of a draft resolution concerning the raising of the flags of Observer States at the UN Headquarters and offices.

“The Holy See, however, notes the long established praxis and tradition of the UN, sing 1945, whereby only flags of member States are displayed at the UN Headquarters and offices and will accept whatever  decision the UN may wish to take in this regard in the future.”

  Got it?

  Staking out the August 27 Arab Group meeting, Inner City Press was told by two major Arab states that the flag will "definitely" go up, and was reliably informed that the flag for Palestine would go after those of ("full") member states, that is near 42nd Street in front of the UN Library building.

  Inner City Press asked an involved delegation if the UN was ready with the flag pole and was told yes, a letter has been sent to that effect.

  Much earlier, anti-flag delegations were pitching the story, which was eventually picked up.

 On both August 27 and again on August 28, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's office of the spokesperson:

"Yesterday, Inner City Press was told in but not by the UN that if the draft resolution on raising the State of Palestine's flag at the UN passes, (1) it would go at the end of Member States, that is, nearest 42nd street and (2) that 'the UN' has written a letter concerning its readiness to install the needed flagpole.

 "I understand you will not comment on what may happen in the GA but I am requesting UN Secretariat (Protocol, OLA and/or DM/FMS) confirmation of where a non-member State's flag WOULD go, and on readiness to install the flagpole including that a letter to that effect has been written and sent."

 The UN has refused to answer that question, for more than 24 hours.

 On August 27, a meeting on the Diplomacy of Pope Francis, scheduled at 4 pm in Conference Room 3, waslisted as "Closed." (There was another 4 pm event upstairs at the UN.)

Back on June 18 after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided not to list Israel or Hamas in the annex of his Children and Armed Conflict report -- nor the French troops alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic -- Ban came to the UN Security Council media stakeout, accompanied by CAAC expert Leila Zerrougui. But he answered no questions.

  On June 24, the UN's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman addressed the Security Council, saying:

“The Secretary General took note of the release on Monday of the Human Rights Council's independent Commission of Inquiry's report on Gaza. While we do not comment on the substance of such reports, it is our hope that it will contribute to bringing justice to victims of last year's war and encourage the parties to engage in serious and credible examinations of their own behavior." 

  But is that credible? Down in UN Conference Room 3, US, joined only by Canada, voted with Israel against a UN Budget resolution on Lebanon and the attack on Qana; upstairs, the US' representative left the Council with Feltman and got on the same elevator with him. Periscope video here available for 24 hours, after 470 live views. Geneva may well tilt one way, but the Secretariat tilts the other. Watch this site.

  Back on June 18 after Ban read a statement about climate change and then the "controversy" about his report, he said he had to leave. There were some grumbles; Inner City Press asked, about the Central African Republic rapes and cover up, what about the Panel? Ban did not answer. Periscope video for now here.

  Zerrougui stayed, gamely; she declined to answer about the non-inclusion of Israel. Inner City Press asked her about the CAR rapes and cover up. She said while she didn't find out all in time, once she did, she spoke with the government concerned.

  Inner City Press reported exclusively that Zerrougui met French Ambassador Francois Delattre -- his Mission declined to confirm or deny, when asked in writing by Inner City Press - but what has come of it? 

  And what of the CAR rapes by the French troops? They are mentioned in the text of the report, but not in the Annex. Ban said a Panel would be set up- but hasn't yet done it.

 Inner City Press is exclusively informed that concerned member states will meet not with Ban but his Deputy Jan Eliasson on June 19. Some are concerned Ban might even try to put Eliasson on the "independent" panel, despite controversy about an August 8, 2014 email saying Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon about the CAR rapes. (The UN now says Eliasson didn't learn of them until April 2015.)  We'll see.

   

On Palestine Self-Determination at UN , 7 No Votes (Including US, Israel, Canada & Islands), 4 Abstain - Including South Sudan

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.

 On December 18 in the UN General Assembly, a resolution on the "Right of the Palestinian People to Self Determination" was adopted with 180 votes in favor, seven against and four abstentions.

  The seven against were predictable: Israel, the US, Canada and four islands: Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. 

 The four abstentions, however, were more surprising, including the country most recently accepted by the UN as a new member state, South Sudan. 

 Also abstaining were Cameroon, Tonga and Paraguay.  

(Palau, it should be noted, joined with previous nay-sayers US, Ukraine and Canada in voting no an a resolution opposing the glorification of Nazism. And so it goes at the UN.)

  On December 17, after an afternoon meeting of the Arab Group in the UN, Mansour spoke again. He announced that a modified draft resolution would be "put in blue" - that is, prepared for a vote in as little as 24 hours. But he did not say when a vote would be called: in 2015, or in January when the composition of the Security Council changes in Palestine's favor, for example with Malaysia replacing South Korea.

   The text of the draft put "in blue" is below:

Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties, Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement, 

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

- borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;

- security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.

- A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III); 

- Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

- an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement andprovocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations; 

10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties; 

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  On December 16, a Senior State Department official said:

"Today, Secretary Kerry met in London separately with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and with Arab League Secretary General Nabil El Araby and members of the Arab League Special Committee. In both meetings, the Secretary exchanged thoughts about the situation in the region, ongoing deliberations related to possible UN Security Council action, and the United States' interest in finding a path forward to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation on the ground. All the parties agreed to continue their consultations going forward."

  So what does this mean, on the resolution(s)? Inner City Press on December 11 asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour if the US was engaged in any negotiations on the resolutions proffered by Jordan or France. He said no, then added "you are a smart journalist," asking if France would do this work without coordination with or against the interests of the US. Afterward another journalist joked this meant, "French puppet." So what's up?

  Back on December 11, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the International Criminal Court.

  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.

  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:

"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—

"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or

"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

  Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.

  Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.

  At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.

  Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."

  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. But that's it.

  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at the UNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographed by the Free UN Coalition for Access, here. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?

   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.

 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

As Palau Uses Social Media for Oceans SDG As for Sharks, UN Tries to Ban Free Speech, & FUNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 25 -- With fifteen months to go until the “Sustainable Development Goals” are determined by the UN General Assembly, Palau's Ambassador Stuart Beck on Tuesday made the case for an oceans SDG. He recounted that only last night, Palau had its highest tide ever.

  The seas have become so acid, he continued, that mussels and clams are having a hard time forming their shells.

   Inner City Press asked Beck about Palau's shark sanctuary, which became with 600,000 square kilometers and is now up to 12.5 million square kilometers, with subsequent joiners like Mexico, Honduras and Costa Rica, Bahamas, Barbados, Micronesia and the Maldives. If sharks could say thanks, he concluded, they'd give thanks for the sanctuary. Video here from Minute 7:05.

  Accompanying Beck was Ghislaine Maxwell of the TerraMar Project, who said the oceans account for 16% of humanity's food and spoke of using social media in the campaign. It must target all 193 states, Beck pointed out. (Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, it is understood, doesn't know much about the idea.)

It seems Ban's UN doesn't know much about social media or new style network organizations either. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, formed after the old UN Correspondents Association showed itself willing to spy for the UN and seek to get new media thrown out, has been using the Internet and now Twitter to press for media access.

  Now the UN Department of Public Information has threatened to suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' UN accreditation, ostensibly for having a FUNCA sign on the door of its office. (Ironically, it was FUNCA that thanked Beck for his briefing; no UNCA Executive Committee member even came.) It was about this office that a DPI official demanded to speak to Inner City Press in the two minutes between Palau's presentation and the noon briefing.

  Inner City Press asked again for answers to questions it has put to DPI, about double standards for UNCA Executive Committee members with solo offices and two UNCA signs, and crackdowns on free speech. DPI is trying to dictate that FUNCA use old organizational forms. But there is no going back. Watch this site.

On Palestine, US Pressure Gets Pacific Abstentions, Scorn at Slovenia, ICC Games

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, November 29, updated Nov 30 -- When finally the UN resolution on Palestine as an Observer State came to a vote, it passed with 138 in favor, 41 abstentions and only nine against. 

  Inner City Press had predicted ten negative votes, even days before the vote. But things change.

  Ultimately the negative nine were the US, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands. Panama, Nauru, Canada, Israel and the Czech Republic. Sources in the EU tell Inner City Press that the Czechs were flirting with abstention, but fell back to no.

  There were 138 votes in favor, and 41 abstentions. List here.

  A well placed European Permanent Representative, speaking exclusively to Inner City Press, expressed particular scorn for Slovenia, which after almost voting Yes, ending up abstaining.

   He told Inner City Press the Slovenian mission at the UN in New York pushed for a Yes vote, but couldn't get the capital to agree. And not having an Ambassador here, he said, was a problem.

  US pressure didn't get even ten "no" votes. But many Pacific Island states abstained. And, it was noted, Liberia did not show up. But neither did Ukraine, nor Madagascar. Two of these three accounted for small gap between Palestinian Mission's internal projection of 140, and the final 138 Yes votes.

  After the vote, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about his statement about abstaining because he could not get assurances such as Palestine not rushing to the International Criminal Court.

   Doesn't this cheapen the ICC and make it look like a political chip to be played?

   Lyall Grant gamely answered that the assurances sought were in order to permit the peace process.

   Inner City Press asked the Ambassador of Sudan, which introduced Palestine's resolution as this month's head of the Arab Group and whose president Omar al Bashir is under ICC indictment for genocide, about the UK's position. 

  He replied that it is strange that a country that is a member of the ICC would ask another not to take a case there.

  Indonesia's Foreign Minister, when asked by Inner City Press if the blockage of Palestine from UN membership by the US veto in the Security Council militates for reform said, the rules are the rules. But for how long? One wanted to ask him about the Rohingya in Myanmar. Next time.

   When Palestine's Rial Malki came to speak, Inner City Press asked him about the ICC. He said that if Israel doesn't continue with settlements and aggression, then Palestine won't go to the ICC. And if they do? Watch this site.

One wag joked that perhaps Hamas, for Gaza, could go to ICC.

Footnote: more transient insights remain on Inner City Press' Twitter feed, here.

Update: ... where you'll find this Inner City Press photograph in GA November 30, State of Palestine:

Objectors to G77 on Palestine Swell to Micronesia, Guatemala, Nauru & Barbados

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- On the hot issue of Palestine, while the Group of 77 has come out with a pro-Palestinian Paragraph 108 to its declaration, as Inner City Press exclusively reported on September 29, this has triggered "reservations" from Paragraph 108 from such countries as current Security Council member Colombia, financial powerhouse Singapore, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Panama and the Bahamas.

Now the list of those distancing themselves from the pro-Palestinian position includes the small island states of Nauru, Micronesia and Barbados according to sources in the GRULAC Latin American and Caribbean grouping, and Guatemala, slated through an October 21 election to join in 2012 the Security Council, whose Committee on Admission of New Members was meeting Friday about Palestine.

While the Palestinian Observer mission is publicly dismissive of these reservation, the inclusion of prospective Security Council member Guatemala cannot be helpful. Some in the GRULAC were surprised.

Colombia, which already distanced itself not only from the G77 but also Non-Aligned Movement pro-Palestinian statements, is slated to host a visit by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas within ten days -- to what end is not clear.

There appear to be other reservations as well. Watch this site.

How an initial G-77 memo about reservations was phrased:

To : Permanent Missions of the Member States of the Group of 77 and China

Attn.: Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Committee delegates

From : Office of the Chairman

Date : 28 September 2011

In continuation of its last circular of 26 September 2011, the Chair wishes to provide delegations with copies of Notes that it has received from the Permanent Missions of Colombia, the Republic of Cameroon and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire which are hereby circulated upon their request regarding paragraph 108 of the Declaration adopted by the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Group of 77 on 23 September 2011 at UN Headquarters in New York.

Watch this site.