The United Nations Resolution and the United States
Hirayama Kentaro / Journalist
February 2, 2011
A group of UN member states, largely led by Arab countries, are expected shortly to propose to the UN Security Council a resolution condemning the illegality of the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem, under Israeli military occupation. In the meantime, high American officials, such as Frank Carlucci, the former Secretary of Defense in the Ronald Reagan administration, and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to the United Nations, have jointly sent a letter to President Barak Obama, asking him not to veto such a resolution. President Obama has failed to dissuade Israel from continuing the construction and "to freeze" settlements on the West Bank, as the biggest obstacle to the resumption of direct talks with the Palestinians. However, Obama has so far taking a noncommittal attitude towards the Arab countries' activities in the UN Security Council, fearing that it would further harden the Israeli position. The high officials' letter during such a situation recommends that the United States not only refrain from vetoing the resolution, but actually vote for it! The point being that the credibility of Obama's statements favorable to the Islamic nations, made since his assumption of office, are at stake.
The probabilities are that the Arab states, if this resolution condemning the Israeli settlements is adopted, will proceed toward another resolution proposing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with boundaries based of those prior to the 1967 war. The settlement-condemning resolution therefore, is very important to assess the true intention of the Obama administration. It is clear now to everyone that, under the present Israeli situation, the formula for Middle East peace prescribed by the United States herself-the establishment of a state of Palestine co-existent with Israel-will be impossible to realize, as long as America, the only power that could effectively bring her weight to bear on Israel, is in the grip of a fixed idea that "the parties concerned should talk directly to each other" Hasn't the time come for America to take the initiative in the UN Security Council to present a fair peace-making plan to both Israel and Palestine and bring necessary pressure on Israel who actually controls the occupied territories.
We have a good example of such a peace-making plan. It is the concrete recommendation, known as the "Clinton Parameters," which President Bill Clinton wrote in December of 2000, just before he left office. It includes: the return of 96 to 97 percent of the Israeli-occupied territories on the West Bank of the Jordan River to Palestine, the offer of alternate land to Palestine in return for the annexation of settlements in the vicinity of the old boundaries, the restitution of at least a part of east Jerusalem-including Islamic holy places, the absorption of Palestinian refugees desirous of "coming-home" to a state of Palestine, and a security arrangement for Israel of American and NATO armed forces after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories. This concept differs from Arab League Peace Plan (adopted in 2002) but the difference is relatively narrow and could be bridged. During the past ten years since the inception of this plan, the Palestinian side has suggested to the Israelis in their intermittent back-stage negotiations certain "concessions," which have been leaked to Al-Jazeera and recently have come out. It is interesting to see that the broadcast concessions are mainly in line with the Clinton plan. The process leading to the acceptance of mediation by an influential third party (like the United States) should be effective to restrain the hard-liners on either side from calling the negotiators who make concessions traitors.
As a Japanese, I earnestly hope that President Obama will make a courageous decision for peace in the Middle East. Not only because the steady supply of energy resources from the Middle East is vitally important to Japan, but also because I see reflections of the Israeli occupation in Japan's on-going suffering under Russian occupation of the Northern Territories as well as the negative legacy of Japan's occupation and annexation of neighboring countries before 1945. The deepening and strengthening of the Japan-U.S. alliance is currently under discussion in reference to the issue of American military bases in Okinawa and the East Asian situation. From now on, greater expectations will be raised and more requests will be made that Japan send her Self-Defense Forces to the Middle East region to contribute to world peace. That is exactly why I hope for a well-balanced American policy for the Middle East, because it is also a matter of great concern for Japan's security.
Soon after I wrote this article, the political situation in Egypt began to move drastically, in a chain reaction of the collapse brought about by a uprising of the people under the long-time dictatorship by Ben-Ali in Tunisia. The outcome of the confusion in Egypt is yet to be seen and how much influence the Islamic forces will exert in this mass movement toward "civil revolution" It will be difficult, however, for both Egypt and Israel to keep the same level of mutual cooperation as has been seen in the blockade of Gaza. Obama administration's Middle East policy including Palestine, too, will be asked to take into account of this vital change.
The writer is a former Executive Commentator of NHK and Professor of Political Science at Hakuoh University.
The probabilities are that the Arab states, if this resolution condemning the Israeli settlements is adopted, will proceed toward another resolution proposing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with boundaries based of those prior to the 1967 war. The settlement-condemning resolution therefore, is very important to assess the true intention of the Obama administration. It is clear now to everyone that, under the present Israeli situation, the formula for Middle East peace prescribed by the United States herself-the establishment of a state of Palestine co-existent with Israel-will be impossible to realize, as long as America, the only power that could effectively bring her weight to bear on Israel, is in the grip of a fixed idea that "the parties concerned should talk directly to each other" Hasn't the time come for America to take the initiative in the UN Security Council to present a fair peace-making plan to both Israel and Palestine and bring necessary pressure on Israel who actually controls the occupied territories.
We have a good example of such a peace-making plan. It is the concrete recommendation, known as the "Clinton Parameters," which President Bill Clinton wrote in December of 2000, just before he left office. It includes: the return of 96 to 97 percent of the Israeli-occupied territories on the West Bank of the Jordan River to Palestine, the offer of alternate land to Palestine in return for the annexation of settlements in the vicinity of the old boundaries, the restitution of at least a part of east Jerusalem-including Islamic holy places, the absorption of Palestinian refugees desirous of "coming-home" to a state of Palestine, and a security arrangement for Israel of American and NATO armed forces after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories. This concept differs from Arab League Peace Plan (adopted in 2002) but the difference is relatively narrow and could be bridged. During the past ten years since the inception of this plan, the Palestinian side has suggested to the Israelis in their intermittent back-stage negotiations certain "concessions," which have been leaked to Al-Jazeera and recently have come out. It is interesting to see that the broadcast concessions are mainly in line with the Clinton plan. The process leading to the acceptance of mediation by an influential third party (like the United States) should be effective to restrain the hard-liners on either side from calling the negotiators who make concessions traitors.
As a Japanese, I earnestly hope that President Obama will make a courageous decision for peace in the Middle East. Not only because the steady supply of energy resources from the Middle East is vitally important to Japan, but also because I see reflections of the Israeli occupation in Japan's on-going suffering under Russian occupation of the Northern Territories as well as the negative legacy of Japan's occupation and annexation of neighboring countries before 1945. The deepening and strengthening of the Japan-U.S. alliance is currently under discussion in reference to the issue of American military bases in Okinawa and the East Asian situation. From now on, greater expectations will be raised and more requests will be made that Japan send her Self-Defense Forces to the Middle East region to contribute to world peace. That is exactly why I hope for a well-balanced American policy for the Middle East, because it is also a matter of great concern for Japan's security.
Soon after I wrote this article, the political situation in Egypt began to move drastically, in a chain reaction of the collapse brought about by a uprising of the people under the long-time dictatorship by Ben-Ali in Tunisia. The outcome of the confusion in Egypt is yet to be seen and how much influence the Islamic forces will exert in this mass movement toward "civil revolution" It will be difficult, however, for both Egypt and Israel to keep the same level of mutual cooperation as has been seen in the blockade of Gaza. Obama administration's Middle East policy including Palestine, too, will be asked to take into account of this vital change.
The writer is a former Executive Commentator of NHK and Professor of Political Science at Hakuoh University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
「安保理決議とアメリカ」
平山 健太郎 / ジャーナリスト
2011年 2月 2日
アラブ諸国を主体とする一部の国連加盟国は、イスラエルが東エルサレムを含むヨルダン川西岸の占領地に建設している入植地について、その違法性を非難する決議案を国連安全保障理事会に近く提出するが、レーガン政権当時のフランク・カールッチ国防長官やトーマス・ピカリング国連大使を含む高官らが連名でオバマ大統領に対し、この決議案にアメリカが拒否権を行使しないよう求める書簡をこのほど送った。オバマ政権は、ヨルダン川西岸でのイスラエルによる入植地の造成が、パレスチナ側との直接交渉を再開する上で最大の障害になってるとして、イスラエル側にその凍結を求めながら、説得に失敗しているが、国連安保理をめぐるアラブ諸国のうごきについては、イスラエルの態度をさらに硬化させるおそれがあるとして、曖昧な態度をとり続けている。元高官らの書簡は、そうした中でオバマ大統領に対し、単なる拒否権の不行使だけでなく、アメリカは決議案に賛成投票すべきであると論じている。オバマ大統領が就任以来試みてきたイスラム諸国への友好的な言動の信憑性が問われているというのが、その論点だ。
アラブ諸国は、この入植地非難の決議が採択されれば、これに続き、１９６７年の戦争以前の境界線を基盤とする国境を確定し、その中でのパレスチナ独立国家の樹立を決める別の決議案を提出する見込みが強いだけに、入植地非難の決議は、オバマ政権の真意を測る重要な場になる。イスラエルに対し影響力を有効に行使できる唯一の大国アメリカが「当事者同士の交鈔」という固定観念にとらわれ続ける限り、「イスラエルと共存し得るパレスチナ国家の樹立」という、アメリカ自身が掲げてきた中東和平への処方箋は、イスラエルの現体制下では、実現不可能であることは、いまや衆目に明らかだ。アメリカが主導して国連安保理を舞台に、公正な調停案を提示し、イスラエル、パレスチナの双方、とくに占領地を現に握っているイスラエルに必要な圧力を加える時期が来ているのではなかろうか。
そのような調停案には立派なモデルがある。たとえばクリントン大統領が離任間際の２０００年１２月に書き残した具体的な勧告、いわゆる「ＣＬＩＮＴＯＮ ＰＡＲＡＭＥＴＥＲ)だ。ヨルダン川西岸占領地の９６－９７％のパレスチナ側への返還．旧境界線に近い入植地群の併合の見返りにイスラエル領土からのパレスチナ側への替地の提供。イスラムの聖域を含む東エルサレムの少なくも一部の返還。「帰国」を望むパレスチナ難民の「パレスチナ国家」への吸収。占領地撤退後のイスラエルの安全についての米軍やＮＡＴＯ軍による保証などがその骨子で、アラブ連盟の和平提案（２００２年）ともすり合せが可能な構想に見える。この構想から今日までの１０年間、イスラエル側との断続的な裏交鈔の中でパレスチナ側がイスラエル側に示してきた「譲歩」の内容なるものが、アルジャジーラ放送で伝えられ、このところ論議を呼んでいるが、その大方が、クリントン構想の周辺での譲歩である点興味深い。アメリカなど強力な第三者の調停案の受諾というプロセスは、相手方への譲歩を裏切りとして交鈔当事者を脅かす双方の強硬派を抑え込む上でも有効な筈だ。
私は、日本国民の一人として、オバマ大統領の勇気ある決断を強く望みたい。中東からのエネルギー資源の安定した供給が、日本にとって不可欠な重要性をもっているからだけではない。北方領土のロシアによる不当な占領の継続という、日本自身が現在も抱える痛みや、１９４５年以前の日本による近隣諸国に対する占領や併合、その結末という、自らの負の遺産にも思いを馳せた上で、イスラエルの占領体制を糾弾したい。沖縄基地問題や東アジア情勢の緊張に関連し、「日米同盟関係の深化」が議論されている。グローバルな平和への貢献として、中東地域への自衛隊派遣の要請も、今後増えるだろう。であるからこそ、中東全域での、バランスのとれたアメリカの政策は、日本の安全保障にとっても大きな関心事であると私は考える。
本稿を執筆した直後エジプトの政情が激しく動き始めた。チュニジアのベン・アリ長期独裁政権が民衆の決起で崩壊した連鎖反応だ。エジプトの政治混乱の結末はまだ見えておらず、「市民革命」への動きの中でイスラム勢力がどこまで影響力を伸ばすかも不透明だ。しかし、エジプトのイスラエルとの関係が、ガザの封鎖で見られてきたような、これまでと同じレベルの協調性を保ち続けるのは難しくなるだろう。その辺も視野に入れたオバマ政権の対応が即刻問われる筈だ。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹・元白鴎大学教授）
アラブ諸国は、この入植地非難の決議が採択されれば、これに続き、１９６７年の戦争以前の境界線を基盤とする国境を確定し、その中でのパレスチナ独立国家の樹立を決める別の決議案を提出する見込みが強いだけに、入植地非難の決議は、オバマ政権の真意を測る重要な場になる。イスラエルに対し影響力を有効に行使できる唯一の大国アメリカが「当事者同士の交鈔」という固定観念にとらわれ続ける限り、「イスラエルと共存し得るパレスチナ国家の樹立」という、アメリカ自身が掲げてきた中東和平への処方箋は、イスラエルの現体制下では、実現不可能であることは、いまや衆目に明らかだ。アメリカが主導して国連安保理を舞台に、公正な調停案を提示し、イスラエル、パレスチナの双方、とくに占領地を現に握っているイスラエルに必要な圧力を加える時期が来ているのではなかろうか。
そのような調停案には立派なモデルがある。たとえばクリントン大統領が離任間際の２０００年１２月に書き残した具体的な勧告、いわゆる「ＣＬＩＮＴＯＮ ＰＡＲＡＭＥＴＥＲ)だ。ヨルダン川西岸占領地の９６－９７％のパレスチナ側への返還．旧境界線に近い入植地群の併合の見返りにイスラエル領土からのパレスチナ側への替地の提供。イスラムの聖域を含む東エルサレムの少なくも一部の返還。「帰国」を望むパレスチナ難民の「パレスチナ国家」への吸収。占領地撤退後のイスラエルの安全についての米軍やＮＡＴＯ軍による保証などがその骨子で、アラブ連盟の和平提案（２００２年）ともすり合せが可能な構想に見える。この構想から今日までの１０年間、イスラエル側との断続的な裏交鈔の中でパレスチナ側がイスラエル側に示してきた「譲歩」の内容なるものが、アルジャジーラ放送で伝えられ、このところ論議を呼んでいるが、その大方が、クリントン構想の周辺での譲歩である点興味深い。アメリカなど強力な第三者の調停案の受諾というプロセスは、相手方への譲歩を裏切りとして交鈔当事者を脅かす双方の強硬派を抑え込む上でも有効な筈だ。
私は、日本国民の一人として、オバマ大統領の勇気ある決断を強く望みたい。中東からのエネルギー資源の安定した供給が、日本にとって不可欠な重要性をもっているからだけではない。北方領土のロシアによる不当な占領の継続という、日本自身が現在も抱える痛みや、１９４５年以前の日本による近隣諸国に対する占領や併合、その結末という、自らの負の遺産にも思いを馳せた上で、イスラエルの占領体制を糾弾したい。沖縄基地問題や東アジア情勢の緊張に関連し、「日米同盟関係の深化」が議論されている。グローバルな平和への貢献として、中東地域への自衛隊派遣の要請も、今後増えるだろう。であるからこそ、中東全域での、バランスのとれたアメリカの政策は、日本の安全保障にとっても大きな関心事であると私は考える。
本稿を執筆した直後エジプトの政情が激しく動き始めた。チュニジアのベン・アリ長期独裁政権が民衆の決起で崩壊した連鎖反応だ。エジプトの政治混乱の結末はまだ見えておらず、「市民革命」への動きの中でイスラム勢力がどこまで影響力を伸ばすかも不透明だ。しかし、エジプトのイスラエルとの関係が、ガザの封鎖で見られてきたような、これまでと同じレベルの協調性を保ち続けるのは難しくなるだろう。その辺も視野に入れたオバマ政権の対応が即刻問われる筈だ。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹・元白鴎大学教授）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟