Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06USUNNEWYORK1367
2006-07-17 15:58:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USUN New York
Cable title:  

US VETOES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION

Tags:  PGOV PREL UNSC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO0912
OO RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHKUK
DE RUCNDT #1367/01 1981558
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 171558Z JUL 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9610
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHEE/ARAB LEAGUE COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001367 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: US VETOES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION

REF: STATE 115170

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001367

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: US VETOES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION

REF: STATE 115170


1. The U.S. July 13 cast a no vote -- its first in nearly two
years -- to veto an unbalanced Qatari-sponsored resolution on
the current Palestinian-Israeli situation in the Middle East.
The final vote was 10-1(US)-4(UK, Denmark, Slovakia and Peru).

Ambassador Bolton's Statement
--------------


2. Ambassador Bolton (per reftel instructions) delivered the
U.S. explanation of vote (EOV):

Begin Statement:

Mr. President, we are all aware of the delicate situation in
the Middle East, where new and major developments are
unfolding as we speak. In light of the fluid and volatile
nature of events on the ground, the United States believes
this draft Resolution is not only untimely, but already
outmoded. We have just recently witnessed a major escalation
by Hizballah. On top of that, we have the announcement that
the Secretary-General will be sending a team to the region to
help resolve the situation. These important new developments
should be reflected in any text we consider.

Not withstanding these new developments, there were many
other reasons to reject this draft. The draft Resolution
before the Council was unbalanced. It placed demands on one
side in the Middle East conflict but not the other. This
draft Resolution would have exacerbated tensions in the
region and would have undermined our vision of two democratic
states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace
and security.

Passage would also have undermined the credibility of the
Security Council, which itself must be seen by both sides as
an honest broker in the Middle East conflict. In this
regard, public statements of UN officials must also
accurately reflect positions agreed by member governments.

The United States worked hard with other delegations to
achieve a more balanced text, one which acknowledged that
Israeli military actions were in direct response to repeated
rocket attacks into Southern Israel from Gaza and the June 25
abduction of Israeli Defense Force Corporal Gilad Shalit by
Hamas. Regrettably, we were not able to reach consensus.

While we remain gravely concerned about the deterioration of
the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, we remain steadfast
in our conviction that the best way to resolve the immediate

crisis is for Hamas to secure the safe and unconditional
release of Corporal Shalit.

Establishing the foundations for a lasting peace, however,
will require us to focus our attention not just on Hamas, but
on the state sponsors of terror who back them -- particularly
Syria and Iran. Let us be clear that without the financial
and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be
severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations.
We call upon Syria and Iran to end their role as state
sponsors of terror and unequivocally condemn the actions of
Hamas, including this kidnapping. We yet again call upon
Syria to arrest Hamas ringleader, Khaled Meshal, who
currently resides in Damascus. We stress again our
condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hizballah,
which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings
along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon.

We further call on the Palestinian Authority government to
stop all acts of violence and terror and comply with the
principles enunciated by the Quartet: renounce terror,
recognize Israel, and accept previous obligations and
agreements, including the Roadmap. The failure of the
Palestinian Authority government to take these steps hurts
the Palestinian people.

We are obviously concerned about the duration of the present
difficulties and the lack of a solution, but the issue for us
is whether action by the Council makes such a solution more
or less likely, not simply whether or not the Council seems
to be "engaged".

The United States remains firmly committed to working with
others to establish the foundations for a lasting peace in
the region -- a foundation that would have been undermined
had this draft Resolution passed.
End Statement.

Peru, Denmark, Slovakia and UK EOVs
--------------

USUN NEW Y 00001367 002 OF 002




3. Peru, Denmark, Slovakia and UK made EOVs to explain their
abstentions. Peru said that the draft did not adequately
reflect the facts on the ground, specifically the kidnapping
of the soldiers and the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel
that precipitated the Israeli response. Nor did the
resolution mention failure to comply with the Quartet
principles by the PA. Peru called for the release of the
Gilad Shalit as well as illegally detained Palestinians.
Denmark also said it abstained because the draft resolution
did not adequately reflect the facts on the ground. Denmark
called for the release of Palestinian legislators and for the
Palestinian leadership to bring an end to the violence and to
immediately arrange the release of detained Israel soldier.
Slovakia called for the release of all abducted persons, and
noted the draft resolution's failure to call on Palestinians
to adhere to Quartet principles as well as the absence of any
reference to events occurring on the Blue Line. UK said that
the text was not sufficiently balanced and did not reflect
the facts on the ground. The UK also regretted that the
sponsors of the draft resolution had not provided greater
opportunity for discussion. UK called for the release of
Cpl. Shalit, called for an end to rocket attacks on Israel
and noted that Israel had the right to self-defense, which
should be carried out in a measured way.

Palestinian, Israeli Statements
--------------


4. Palestine and Israel, both invited to participate in the
meeting, also spoke, Palestinian Permanent Observer Riyad
Mansour's comments, which focused on the destruction of
Palestinian infrastructure and suffering of the Palestinian
people as a result of Israeli actions, provided not a single
reference to any Palestinian actions -- the abduction of an
Israeli soldier, the firing of Qassam missiles into Israel.


5. In his statement, Israeli PR Dan Gillerman thanked the
U.S. "for its bold stand" and for other Member States who
abstained on the resolution. Gillerman said that a year ago
Israel disengaged from Gaza and six years ago, Israel had
withdrawn from southern Lebanon. Neither were easy processes
for Israel. And in each case, the Palestinians and the
Lebanese respectively had choices: either to care for their
people and improve the quality of life or allow their
territory to be used as bases for terrorism. Tragically, in
each case they had chosen the latter -- that the respective
governments had chosen to make their own people hostage to
terror. Israel had withdrawn from these territories, but
would not permit these areas to be used as launching pads for
terrorist action.


6. Gillerman said that Israel had been under attack and had
taken the necessary steps to defend it self only after all
international efforts to mediate had failed. He said also
that the world was witnessing the actions of Hamas and
Hizbollah but they were simply the executioners of the Syria
and Iran, which he referred to as an axis of terror. On
persistent Arab characterizations of Israel as "the Occupying
power," Gillerman said that Israel does not want to control
Palestinian lives and that it is not Israel but Terror that
is the "occupying power" of the Israeli, Palestinian and
Lebanese people. Finally asking, rhetorically, what
colleagues would do if their own countries were under attack,
borders infiltrated, and citizens kidnapped. And he answered
that they would do exactly what Israel is doing now to
protect its people.
BOLTON