Today, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from “entity” to "non-member observer state.
138 countries voted for the bid, 41 countries (including Germany) abstained, and 9 voted against the bid: America, Panama, Palau, Canada, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, the Czech Republic, Micronesia, and of course Israel.
Was just wondering if the teeming millions had any insights on reasons these specific countries voted against the measure. What makes their views on the PA differ so much from the countries which voted to upgrade or which didn’t want to take sides?
I would assume they all indirectly have to do with Israel’s vote. The US has long been a supporter of Israel and even has rules that say we cannot abide by any Arab Boycott laws against Israeli products in our Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). I can only assume the other countries either have alliances with the US/Israel that make them go along the same way, or else they may have a large Jewish population that influences the way they vote…
The Czech Republic has always been a big supporter of Israel. I think a lot of this is still the lingering memory of the Nazi occupation-- nearly the entire Jewish community was destroyed and the Czechs themselves suffered greatly. As a result, there’s always been a strong sense of solidarity between Czechs and Israelis. They provided large amounts of material support during Israel’s war of independence and since the fall of communism have been the only big country other than the US that supports Israel more or less unconditionally.
I suspect Canada’s vote might have been different were it not for the current conservative government. That might be true of the Czech Republic as well, since they also currently have a right-leaning government, but I don’t know all that much about Czech politics.
Canada’s current government is very pro-Israel. Of course they aren’t stupid and knew full well their vote wouldn’t make a difference, but it would be completely out of whack for them to change course now; the vote was just remaining consistent.
The US recently approved a free trade agreement with Panama. The vote could be something of a quid pro quo.
As has been mentioned, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands were formerly administered by the US. They still have Free Associated States status, which means the US pays for their defense and other benefits. They don’t want to side against their patron.
Cameroon abstained. They have fairly good ties to the US, and I’m fairly certain they are hoping to cash in one the US’s anti-terrorism efforts in Africa.
Current Canadian government (a Conservative majority) is staunchly pro-Israel. Perhaps even more so than any other Western country. Canada recently closed it’s Iranian embassy and booted out the Iranian ambassador.
I suspect all the South Pacific Islands (Nauru, Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands) are completely dependent on Western aid (particularly from the US) and thus tend to align themselves with donor country foreign policies.
General Assembly votes aren’t subject to veto; only Security Council resolutions.
(I was one of those nerds who took a “Model U.N.” course in college. Very fun, and highly educational. The “Plenary Rules of Order” are somewhat different from the typical “Robert’s Rules,” but similar in that parliamentary maneuvering is a great deal of what goes on.)
See my post. Panama’s current government is highly business oriented and the vote probably reflects catering to US interests. Panama’s relationship with the US has always been the most important one for the country.
Most of the negative votes are probably not based on that country’s opinion on the Palestine question, but rather their relationship with the US.
Or with Israel. Micronesia, for instance, always votes our way. It’s a running gag around here that the whole world may be against us, but at least we’ll always have Micronesia.
I assume, however, that Micronesia has virtually zero economic or political interest in either Israel or Palestine. Its vote is entirely due to currying favor with the US, rather than any real opinion on the issue.
I understand why those with ties to the U.S. might not want to vote against the way we voted. But I don’t see an answer for why these eight other countries specifically voted against rather than just abstaining.
Which of these votes do you reckon were won by the Israeli diplomatic corps? You don’t really believe that Micronesia would still be in your camp if the political tide were to reverse in the United States?
Overall, no. But it’s pretty easy to see how it would be, for pipsqueak countries that have been under our wing longer than Israel has existed.
Seriously, what argument do you imagine your diplomats can put to Panama or Palau, that means more to them than the perceived benefit of pleasing Washington?
