USUN PRESS RELEASE # 44 (01)
March 28, 2001

Explanation of Vote by Ambassador James B. Cunningham, Acting U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the Situation in the Middle East, in the Security Council, March 27, 2001

The U.S. casts this vote with great regret.  It should not have been necessary and this draft should not have  been put to a vote.  We wanted to be supporting an action in the Council that advanced the cause of peace. For us, this is a matter of deeply-held principle.  Sadly, that is not what was offered.  We ask why was the decision to force a vote taken now when it was clear to all that our deliberations had yet to produce a consensus?  The cause of peace would have been better served by additional deliberations, no matter how difficult or protracted.  The Secretary-General of the United Nations is in Amman to attend the Arab Summit and to continue his mission of good offices in a troubled region.  We support him.  But this resolution sought to prescribe to the Secretary-General and through him to the parties themselves the way forward in the search for peace in the Middle East.  The draft has, in doing so, demonstrated an unrealistic approach to this complex
conflict by ignoring the most basic precept of peacemaking:  the need to encourage the parties to find and implement their own lasting solutions and then to stand ready to help in their implementation.  Sadly, the opportunity to play such a constructive and encouraging role was missed today.

The United States opposed this resolution because it is unbalanced and unworkable and hence unwise.  It is more responsive to political theater than political reality.   In this resolution some pretended that the Council could impose a solution, including a protection mechanism for civilians, in the absence of an agreement between the parties.  Instead, the Security Council - acting on behalf of the international community - should have called on the parties to end the violence, to protect civilians, and resume negotiations so that all civilians on both sides would be safe.  The U.S. wanted and would have supported a resolution making such a call. The Council could and should have called on both parties to take the steps necessary to restore confidence, such as ending incitement and resuming contacts at all levels to implement their reciprocal commitments, including the understandings reached at the summit at Sharm el-Sheikh.   The U.S. wanted and would have supported a resolution making such a call. Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has never fulfilled its commitment made at Sharm el-Sheikh to speak out unequivocally in Arabic against violence.  Most important, the Council should have expressed its readiness to assist the parties in the implementation of any agreements they reach. The U.S. would have supported and indeed promoted such a call.

Last December, a similar resolution failed to receive the nine affirmative votes required for adoption, sending a message that the road to the just and lasting peace we all seek in the Middle East does not begin in the Council.  That road begins in the region and the parties themselves must make the difficult choices required. The Council can and should support them in that effort.  The seven Council members that abstained last December, including the United States, were able to defer a premature and wholly impractical call to establish a UN observer force.  By acting together, however, we were able to preserve the concept of an international
presence for reconsideration at a future time.

We acted out of similar motives tonight.  We support much of the substance we have been discussing in the past week.  But, as we repeatedly made clear to all other Council members, we cannot allow the Council to adopt a resolution that simultaneously risked damage both to the prospects for peace and to the Council's own credibility and authority.  Casting this vote gives us no pleasure.  However, abstaining and allowing the Council to adopt such an ill-conceived and unworkable resolution would have been irresponsible.  Frankly, we are troubled that other members who recognized the glaring weaknesses and clear danger of this resolution did not join us in opposing it.   The Council was engaged in very serious - at times intense - deliberations, seeking a way forward that recognized the legitimate roles and responsibilities of both the Council and the parties.  We worked hard for consensus and a common approach.   That process was cut short by this vote for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the search for peace.

Now that this resolution is behind us, we should turn our attention to ways in which the Council can genuinely support and encourage the search for peace.  We ask the other members to join us in that very difficult but necessary effort.  It should begin today.  The blessings of peace have been denied the people of the Middle East for far too long.