Analysis: Questions raised by veto

By Barnaby Mason BBC diplomatic correspondent

Arafat supporters have vowed to fight any attempt to remove him

Various questions arise from the American veto of a Security Council resolution demanding that Israel drop its threat to expel or harm Yasser Arafat.

One is why it happened and whether anything could have been done to avoid the veto.

Another is whether the episode constitutes, as one senior Palestinian official put it, a black day for the United Nations and the abysmal collapse of the UN Charter and international law.

The veto was hardly a surprise.

The Bush administration told the Security Council on Tuesday morning that the draft resolution was unacceptable, several hours before it was put to the vote.

Historic tensions

Over the years, the United States has vetoed many resolutions critical of Israel - often on the grounds that they were unbalanced and did not simultaneously condemn the behaviour of the other side.

Last December, the Americans vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of UN workers in the occupied territories, saying it was one-sided and did not contribute to peace.

This time too, the American ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said the draft was lop-sided.

The US based its objection [to a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of UN workers in the occupied territories] on fairly narrow ground

He complained that it did not contain explicit condemnation of Palestinian militant groups carrying out suicide attacks, like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

It must be said that the United States based its objection on fairly narrow ground.

The draft resolution drawn up by the Palestinians and Syrians did call for a halt to all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction.

And it expressed concern at a recent escalation in suicide bombings as well as in extra-judicial executions.

Palestinians say Israel should not be a member of the UN

The Arabs clearly thought they had gone far enough.

The Palestinian representative, Nasser al-Kidwa, said the text was very moderate; the Syrian ambassador, Fayssal Mekdad, said it was highly-balanced.

However, Mr Mekdad will not have convinced everyone that he himself was balanced: he said Israel was responsible for scuttling the Middle East peace process and should not be a member of the United Nations at all.

The Arab sponsors did not succeed in rallying all the members of the Security Council except the United States - that was a setback.

Siding

In the hours of informal discussions that followed the American threat of a veto, they did not offer any further changes to the text.

In the event, Germany as well as Britain and Bulgaria abstained.

Russia did join the 11 backing the resolution, but a foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow said it had not been essential to force a vote and the Council should have gone on working on a compromise.

The US was the only country to vote against the resolution

That argument was dismissed by one senior Palestinian official, who said the Americans were going to use their veto anyway. Their message to Israel was that they might at some stage give it the go-ahead to expel Yasser Arafat.

That is not what the Americans say.

After vetoing the resolution, they repeated that they did not support either the elimination of Mr Arafat or his forced exile.

The Bush administration's attitude may have been hardened by the fact that the resolution was sponsored by Syria, which it continues to accuse of backing terrorist groups, allowing militants to cross into Iraq and developing chemical weapons.

On the other side, Palestinian leaders were enraged by the statement by one senior Israeli minister that killing Mr Arafat was one of the options.

They were also unwilling to inflame a section of their own domestic opinion by condemning the militant groups by name.

'Bias'

The question of whether the episode of the veto does serious damage to the credibility of the UN is a simpler one. It does not make a lot of difference.

Israel has always rejected UN involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As its main backer, the United States maintains that the dispute has to be settled by the two sides directly, with American help.

Palestinian feelings about the UN are as strong as America's

Washington's traditional position is that additional UN resolutions serve no purpose. What matters now is implementing the international peace plan known as the roadmap.

For the Arabs, the United States is biased against them but no other credible mediator is available.

Washington has refused to back the enforcement of historic UN resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied territory, and presides over an international system of double standards.

The latest American veto has not changed any of that.