Does Palestinian visa furor mean UN should move its HQ?

Yossi Mekelberg

The 80th UN General Assembly, which opened this week at its headquarters in New York, is expected to be one of the most consequential for the Palestinian people. One by one, leaders of countries, among them Canada, France, the UK, Belgium and Australia, are expected to announce from the podium of the Assembly Hall their recognition of a Palestinian state.

Regrettably, these moments of accomplishment and celebration for the Palestinian people will not be shared in person by their leader, since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been banned from attending the session, now that he and 80 other officials of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization have had their visas revoked by the US State Department.

There are plenty of good reasons to block people from entering a country, but in this case the reasons given by the State Department have been vague and far from convincing. It stated that “it is in our national security interests to … hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace.” No further details were given about the risk posed by Abbas and his delegation to US national security interests or what specific commitments to peace prospects he and those who are now prohibited from entering the US have allegedly violated.

Had these been the criteria for being allowed to attend the UNGA, there would have been more empty seats in the hall, including that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not only obstructing peace but is playing an active role in the carnage in Gaza and, with that, preventing the return of the hostages.

These are not easy times to decipher the logic of the decision-making processes in Washington and what motivates them. And the decision to deny the Palestinian leadership a presence on this rare occasion when most of the international community will be rallying around the right of Palestinians for self-determination is baffling. It seems to be an act of petty revenge for this series of recognitions made against the will of the US — a lack of judgment that leaves Washington isolated on a key international issue while disregarding the legality of its act.

There is a strong sense that Washington is punishing the Palestinian leadership for being successful in receiving recognition by most of the world and, especially recently, by allies of the US. This is also illustrated, according to CNN, by the State Department instructing its diplomats to refuse most visas for Palestinian passport holders, whether they live in the West Bank, Gaza or overseas.

From a legal perspective, the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which established the legal framework of the seat of the UN in New York, states clearly that “authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit” on “persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations.” Another provision of this agreement extends to the provision to visas, which “shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.”

The US authorities have played the trump card of protecting the country’s “national interest,” which tends to override all other considerations, including, apparently, adherence to a signed agreement. How Abbas, who will celebrate his 90th birthday later this year, poses a threat to the country’s national interest by attending the UNGA remains a mystery.

This arbitrary decision is also bound to raise the bigger question of whether continuing to situate the main headquarters of the UN, an organization which is supposed to symbolize peace and multilateral cooperation, in New York is the right thing to do. The decision to locate the UN building there was made not only because the US was then, and remains, the UN’s largest donor, but also because the country was regarded as one that respects contractual obligations and where law rules supreme. However, this is not the first time the US has taken such a measure. In 1988, it refused to issue a visa to Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO. Similar to its present action against Abbas, it cited national security and terrorism concerns.

Eventually, the UNGA session of that year was relocated to the UN’s offices in Geneva to enable Arafat to address it. Washington’s refusal to admit Arafat was hardly justified then but, more significantly, this was long before Palestine was granted “observer state” status at the UN — a decision that was supported by a huge majority of 138 in favor versus nine against, one of the latter being Israel and most of the rest opposing it out of fear of American retribution.

This was also before the Palestinian Authority was established and years of negotiations, even failed ones, in which there was a recognition that ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should revolve around a two-state solution, hence recognizing the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

Moreover, this was before Israel’s expansionist settlement policies completely changed the landscape of the West Bank and before senior Cabinet members began to forcefully advocate for the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. The countries that are expected to announce their recognition of a Palestinian state this month would no doubt like to do so in the presence of the Palestinian leadership — and hence it was worth contemplating moving this 80th UNGA session elsewhere.

Calls to reform the UN, especially the UN Security Council, have been made for decades. Many have felt that it is mainly a playground for the big powers, while the rest are marginalized. This is particularly evident in the UNSC, where five countries have a veto privilege that can override the wishes of the rest of the members. There is no clearer example of this than the issue of recognizing Palestinian statehood. With France and the UK now united in support, the will of one permanent member, in this case the US, is more powerful than most of the members put together.

The decision to prohibit Palestinian officials from attending the UNGA is now considered to be a step too far by the US and an abuse of its power to ignore the rest only because it can, doing so against the very principles and spirit of the UN. For those who see the decision to prevent the Palestinian leadership from attending this year’s UNGA as unjustly sidelining and disregarding their cause and their concerns, this sorry episode could still be a catalyst to unite, make their voice heard and insist on reforms that would give them more say according to the underlying principles of the UN and articulated in its charter.

Courtesy: arabnews