(Source: Dun and Bradstreet Economic Analysis Department. Reprinted
in The New York Times)
But disappointment is as deep as expectation was high. Unless a
ceasefire can be maintained and a political solution reached,
peace-keeping forces in the former Yugoslavia will continue to be
unable to accomplish their mission. So it was in Somalia, following the
initial stages of purely humanitarian involvement. In the wake of these
experiences, the belief is growing in many nations that there is a need
to set more limited parameters for the deployment of UN peace-keeping
forces: Only in the case of humanitarian assistance or when the parties
themselves jointly agree to UN intervention. This view has been echoed
at the highest echelons, and even the Secretary-General, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, has said that UN peace-keeping guidelines require
reconsideration.
While peace-keeping preoccupies decision-makers in a disproportionate
manner, burning issues like the population explosion, economic and
social development, human rights, the advancement of women, and
democratization suffer from being pushed to the sidelines. But there
are indications that a change might be near. The new openness of the
international order has increased the UN's importance as a framework
for diplomatic contacts and economic-technical cooperation and
assistance. The international community has come out of the bipolar
deep freeze of the Cold War, and the thaw is melting the ice at the UN
as well. An increasing number of new initiatives are seeking to change
the UN's areas of emphasis, assigning higher priority to a regional and
global perspective on issues like security, nuclear armament, economic
and social development, environmental protection, education and
professional training, industry, health and population. As a result of
this movement, three World Summits are addressing some of these issues,
and additional summits are likely to take place.
ISRAEL AND THE UN: THE TURNING POINT
The history of UN-Israel relations has known both good days and bad. We
are fortunate to be living at a time when substantial opportunity
exists to define a more positive, constructive relationship. Looking
back, we can divide the history of UN-Israel relations into three eras:
The Early Years: Beginning with the adoption by the General Assembly of
the "Partition Plan" on November 29, 1947, the UN decreed the
establishment of two states one Jewish, one Arab in Mandatory
Palestine west of the Jordan. The Jewish leadership accepted the
proposal, and Israel was established. It became a UN member upon
celebrating its first year of independence.
The Cold Years: The growing rift between the United States and the
Soviet Union swept along the entire world, and produced the second
period in UN-Israel relations. This period reflected the prevailing
international order which dominated the second half of the twentieth
century. The Cold War polarization between the two superpowers, and the
alignment of the Arab countries and the Third World with the Soviet
Union led to an automatic majority against Western-aligned Israel in
the United Nations. Hostility towards Israel among the Member States in
the General Assembly developed into antagonism also on the part of the
UN's executive agencies.
The Turning Point: With the end of the Cold War, the progress towards
peace in the Middle East, and the new approach of the Israeli
Government and Mission of Israel to the United Nations, a substantive
change is redefining relationships with Member States in the General
Assembly and with the UN Secretariat, agencies and bodies.
We are concentrating efforts on increasing participation in all spheres
of UN activity and decision-making, and on normalizing the UN-Israel
relationship as much as possible. This includes significant activity
designed to eliminate obsolete General Assembly resolutions on the
Middle East, drafted at the height of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet it
goes far beyond this. The UN is much more than simply a forum for
adopting resolutions in the General Assembly. Rather, it is a framework
for establishing and strengthening bilateral ties with 184 other member
states, on many issues that bear little direct connection to the
official UN agenda.
One should remember that many UN ambassadors come to New York well
connected to the decision-making centers in their respective countries,
be they diplomats, former ministers, academics or legal experts. Many
also come from the upper echelons of government and return there
following their service in New York. Indeed, during the past year, not
a few left the UN to accept ministerial appointments at home.
Likewise, our work here offers a channel for cooperation with the UN
agencies involved in Israel and its immediate environs: UNDOF, on the
Syrian border in the Golan Heights; UNIFIL, in southern Lebanon; UNRWA
and UNDP, in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The two peace-keeping forces
(UNDOF and UNIFIL) number 6,300 troops and civilian personnel, and the
two agencies (UNRWA and UNDP) annually spend approximately $300 million
in the Palestinian Authority and West Bank.
A RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP:
PROGRESS TOWARDS PEACE AND ISRAEL'S INTERNATIONAL STANDING
Since the signing of the Declaration of Principle by Israel and the PLO
on September 13, 1993, we have established full diplomatic relations
with 25 countries. In a number of instances, first contact was made
here at the UN, and some of the agreements even were signed here in our
offices. In addition, we have established formal ties with Morocco and
Tunisia, exchanging interests offices with the two states.
Israel now has diplomatic or formal relations with a total of 147
countries, out of 185 UN member states. (When you add those states that
are not members of the UN, the total number reaches 153). The Israeli
Mission to the United Nations maintains regular working relationships
with about half of the countries with which Israel does not yet have
diplomatic relations. In this way, we have widened exposure to the
Israeli point-of-view and enhanced our ability to maintain contact on
issues beyond those on the UN agenda. Greater openness was also
witnessed on the part of countries which have long-established
diplomatic relations with Israel. This was expressed in a four-fold
increase since last year in the number of invitations to cosponsor
resolutions, as well as in the personal relationships maintained with
the diplomatic staff of other UN missions.
The progress towards peace and the change in our standing within the
international community exert a reciprocal influence. The one nourishes
and influences the other. On the one hand, contacts initiated and
nurtured in the multilateral setting of the United Nations give birth
to bilateral relations, both diplomatic and economic, with former
enemies. On the other, progress towards peace further enhances our
standing in the multilateral international system, enabling greater
contact with other states.
THE 49TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY: PROGRESS AND PITFALLS
Following the turning point reached in the 48th General Assembly, the
recently-ended 49th session saw a continuation of the qualitative
improvement in the language and content of resolutions, and in the
voting patterns. During the past two years, most of the condemnation
and criticism of Israel has been removed from the resolutions, although
points of contention remain in a number of them.
Yet the fruits of the change are precisely the factors which may slow
its pace in the future. As a result of the moderation of the
resolutions, the Arab side now finds it easier to garner support for
many of its positions than it did when the resolutions more blatantly
contradicted the new spirit of cooperation and conciliation. This,
however, should be taken as a sign of the far-reaching success of our
initial efforts, even as we prepare for the next stages of the campaign
to eliminate obsolete resolutions.
From our perspective, it seems clear that the Arab side views certain
issues as non-negotiable. These are issues related to the permanent
status between Israel and the Palestinians or Syria: Palestinian
self-determination, the status of settlements, Jerusalem and the Golan
Heights. In all these areas we remain in the minority. It is clear that
the Palestinians are fighting for these resolutions in order to
strengthen the hand they bring to the permanent status negotiations
mandated by the Declaration of Principles.
This accounts for much of the hardening of the Palestinian line at the
UN, witnessed during the past year. Other factors are also involved
including, perhaps, criticism leveled at the PLO leadership by Hamas
and by factions within Arafat's own Fatah.
But the clashes over these issues were again overshadowed by the
continuing positive developments in the GA. For the second year in a
row, a "positive resolution" was adopted, calling for the continuation
of the Middle East peace process and for regional cooperation. It also
welcomed the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, the Cairo Agreement,
the Washington Declaration with Jordan, the Israel-Jordan peace treaty,
the Casablanca Conference and Declaration and the appointment of the UN
Special Coordinator in the West Bank and Gaza. The resolution was
adopted with full coordination between the US and Israel, and with
close cooperation with Russia and Norway. Initial disagreements on
language with certain members of the Arab Group were overcome through
cooperation between the missions of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the PLO
observer.
In addition, a resolution was adopted calling for a comprehensive war
on international terrorism. The resolution detailed the areas in which
states can and should cooperate to eliminate this worldwide scourge.
I wish to point out that an Egyptian-initiated resolution on Israeli
nuclear armament, despite the moderation in content and the addition of
a general subtitle, "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle
East," was not supported by 104 countries in the General Assembly. Of
this number Israel and the United States, along with two other
countries, voted against the resolution, and 100 abstained. In
addition, a resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East
was adopted by consensus after the General Assembly accepted Israeli
amendments linking the establishment of such a zone to progress in the
Middle East peace negotiations. Egypt's active role in promoting both
these resolutions is interpreted by many as an attempt to return to a
position of leadership in the Arab world in general, and in the Arab
Group at the UN in particular.
In general, the 49th General Assembly was characterized by continued
improvement in UN resolutions, and greater involvement on Israel's
part. The latter phenomenon is part of a broader effort to participate,
like any other state, in the discussions and the general activities of
the United Nations. As a result of this effort, members of the Israeli
delegation participated in discussions on eleven topics raised in the
plenary sessions of the General Assembly, compared to three last year
and two the year before that. I took part in five of these discussions:
the Situation in the Middle East, the Question of Palestine, an Agenda
for Development, the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, and
the Fiftieth Anniversary of the End of the Second World War. Other
members of the Mission represented Israel in discussions on the Report
of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, Coordination
of Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance, an International
Convention to Combat Desertification, International Assistance to
Nicaragua, Law of the Sea, and Support for New or Restored Democracies.
PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES
Israel has also increased its participation in United Nations
peace-keeping and humanitarian activities during the past year,
establishing a field hospital for Rwandan refugees in Zaire, which won
wide international recognition for treating 5,500 people in its two
months of operation. Israelis were also integrated into peace- keeping
activities in other areas: Thirty police were sent to Haiti as part of
the multi-national force in that country. In addition, Dr. Yaakov Adler
was appointed to serve as the Assistant Director of the Medical Unit of
the Department of Peace-keeping Operations, becoming the
highest-ranking Israeli in UN peace-keeping activities. For the first
time the history of our relations with the UN, Israeli observers
participated in UN-sponsored election monitoring efforts, in South
Africa (April 1994) and Mozambique (October 1994).
At the same time, Israel is becoming better represented within the UN
system itself, through the election of Israeli candidates to various
positions of authority. Following over thirty years of exclusion from
elected UN positions, three Israeli candidates were voted into UN posts
in the past eighteen months: Mr. Mayer Gabay, who won a seat on the UN
Administrative Tribunal, Dr. Carmel Shalev, who joined the Committee on
the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
and Prof. David Kretzmer who will serve on the Human Rights Committee.
Of late, we are being asked more and more to submit Israeli candidates
to various positions in the UN, both as civil servants of the United
Nations and as representatives of Israel in the organization.
Consultations are being held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an
effort to establish a pool of candidates for this purpose.
The visits of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres during the General Assembly enabled meetings with other Foreign
Ministers, members of the Security Council and ambassadors from key
Arab and Moslem countries. Among these states are those with which we
have full diplomatic relations, other formal ties or informal working
relationships. The high positive response to these meetings gives
testimony to Israel's growing acceptance in the international community
and to the fruitful relationships being developed at the UN.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The past year deepened the improvement in Israel's relationship with
the international community at the United Nations. This critical
turning point was reached thanks to the progress towards peace in the
region, the changes in the global arena and the tireless efforts of
Israel's representatives at the United Nations. It is proper to note,
however, that until a permanent settlement is reached with the
Palestinians and Syria, conflict will continue to be a feature of our
relationship with the General Assembly.
During the past session, there were serious and sometimes bitter
disputes on issues related to the Middle East, issues that required
wide-ranging and sophisticated activity on our part. In spite of this,
it is clear that the changes in the international order are manifest
and manifold. Certainly, the dynamism and openness are greater than in
the past. Yet the process of change demands that we not take any
achievement or disappointment for granted, nor as necessarily so in the
future.
With this in mind, let me attempt to define the task of the coming
years. As we look forward, it seems clear that we must strive to
achieve the following objectives:
* Continue expanding the bilateral relations with various states at the
UN, and continue deepening the ties with those with whom we have
diplomatic relations.
* Press on to complete the process of normalization through gaining
membership in a geo-political group in the short run, and until it
becomes possible to join the Asian Group, this means the Western
European and Others Group (the group comprised of Western Europe,
Australia, New Zealand and the USA).
* Expand our participation in the activities of UN bodies and
international agencies by taking part in their discussions and by
integrating Israelis into their decision-making and executive
structures.
* Increase our participation in discussions on subjects outside the
narrow confines of Israeli and Middle East issues, in order to
establish for ourselves the standing of a country that is not a client,
but an active participant and partner.
* Continue the effort to bring all UN Middle East resolutions into tune
with the new reality in the region. This will be harder in the future,
given that the most dramatic gains have already been achieved in the
turning point of the past two years.
* Place greater emphasis on the international and multilateral
perspectives in regional meetings which include Israeli delegations.
This would include sending representatives of the Permanent Mission of
Israel to the United Nations to all UN- sponsored international
conferences, such as those being held on the environment, population,
social development, and women.
All these, I believe, are achievable. Doors once closed are now opening
before Israel. It is up to us to walk through.