Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Apparently, not satisfied with the threat of the veto, Americans don't even want the UNSC vote to even come up. Why is that? Because a veto, while effective in short term, will have long term consequences for American interests.
And so bribing and 'diplomacy' begins. Bribes, in case of countries like Gabon.
What a shame! What a shame to deny even the vote.
Currently, the count to make a vote is 8 in favor. 9 are needed.
PS. Good to see that unlike Indian bloggers here the Indian govt. is likely to vote in favor of Pals.
Palestine: Vote-counting on the Security Council (updated) | The Multilateralist
And so bribing and 'diplomacy' begins. Bribes, in case of countries like Gabon.
What a shame! What a shame to deny even the vote.
Currently, the count to make a vote is 8 in favor. 9 are needed.
PS. Good to see that unlike Indian bloggers here the Indian govt. is likely to vote in favor of Pals.
Palestine: Vote-counting on the Security Council (updated) | The Multilateralist
The Palestinian leadership has now made clear that they will seek full UN membership through the Security Council (rather than opting for something less by going directly to to the General Assembly). The ultimate outcome here is not in doubt: if necessary, the United States will use its veto. But it may not come to a veto. If the Palestinians cannot muster nine votes, the 15-member Council cannot act. It's very possible that their supporters will at that point choose not to introduce a formal resolution. From a political perspective, the distinction between a resolution that fails to gain nine votes and one vetoed by the United States is significant, and the United States undoubtedly will be pulling out the diplomatic stops to see that the Palestinians do not muster the magic nine votes.
Here's my current assessment of where the current Council members stand (note: I'm updating this assessment regularly as new information becomes available):
Bosnia and Hercegovina: Very likely to support Palestinian membership. Arab ambassadors to Bosnia have reportedly been lobbying Bosnian leaders, reminding them of their support to Bosnia's Muslims during the 1992-1995 conflict.
Brazil: Likely to support membership. Brazil surprised Washington late last year by recognizing Palestine.
China: Likely to support membership. Beijing has recently indicated its support for the Palestinian membership bid.
Colombia: Likely to oppose membership. Israel has had good relations with Colombia recently and has lobbied the Colombian government to oppose the Palestinian bid.
France: On the fence.
Gabon: On the fence.
Germany: Unlikely to support. Often supportive of Israel, Germany's foreign minister recently signaled his displeasure at the Palestinian membership campaign.
India: Very likely to support membership.
Lebanon: Almost certain to support membership.
Nigeria: Likely to support membership.
Portugal: On the fence.
Russia: Likely to support membership.
South Africa: Likely to support membership
United Kingdom: On the fence. British leaders appear to still be undecided.
United States: will not support membership.
That leaves eight members who are likely to support, four who are probably on the fence, two likely to oppose, and one certain to oppose. As one Security Council diplomat told me this afternoon, this is shaping up to be a very close call. There are several quite important considerations. First, Council members need not take a position; abstention is an option, and one that will work against the Palestinians and their supporters, who need affirmative votes to force a U.S. veto. Second, the European Union (which accounts for four votes) may be in a decisive position if it adopts a common position. Finally, it is well documented that foreign aid has been deployed in the past to sway Council votes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in the State Department were hurriedly checking on Gabon's aid package to see what leverage might exist.