Editorial | The UN faux pas

One of Jamaica’s greatest assets used to be its principled conduct of foreign policy.

It operated with a sophistication and moral clarity that allowed a pre-Independence government to ban imports from apartheid South Africa, and later decades for the independent country to defy America’s entreaties, through Henry Kissinger, that the island turn a blind eye to South Africa’s attempt to expand its hegemon into Angola.

Jamaica, for a long time, enjoyed global respect for its diplomatic leadership. We like to claim that the island punches above its weight on this front. Which is why, notwithstanding the explanation by Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith, many people were nonplussed over the island’s handling of the October 27 vote at the United Nations General Assembly calling for a halt to hostilities in Gaza for humanitarian assistance to reach the territory.

Jamaica did not vote, although, according to Ms Johnson Smith, it supported the resolution. To be clear, we voted neither yea nor nay. Neither did we abstain.

The declared reason for the absence is, on the face of it, implausible.

For the avoidance of doubt, this newspaper holds Hamas’ October 7 slaughter of Israeli civilians, including concertgoers, as an act of terror. This condemnation stands on its own.

But condemning Hamas and insisting on respect for international humanitarian law by Israel are not mutually exclusive. And neither does condemning Hamas and insistence on Israel’s respect for humanitarian law conflict with acknowledging that a genuine two-state solution, with Security Council Resolution 242 as its starting point, offers the best opportunity for lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We can do all.

Which Ms Johnson Smith implied is Jamaica’s position, but which it has executed with great strangeness.

Last week, Jordan took a resolution to the UN General Assembly calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” in Gaza and demanding “the immediate, continuous, sufficient and unhindered provision of essential goods and services to civilians throughout the territory”.

This resolution supposedly had Jamaica’s support.

TECHNICAL HITCHES

In her claim that it was technical hitches rather than fundamental policy issues that caused the Government not to cast a ‘yes’ vote, Ms Johnson Smith pointed out that Jamaica is chair of CARICOM’s Council of Foreign Relations and the current coordinator of the community’s UN caucus. Jamaica, she said, led the drafting of CARICOM’s statement on the Gaza issue, which was delivered on behalf of the regional group by the island’s UN ambassador, Brian Wallace.

She added: “While a technical cross in communication led to Jamaica’s representative not voting, our statement on the UN General Assembly floor, on behalf of all CARICOM member states, unequivocally supports a peaceful resolution of the conflict, humanitarian aid for victims of war, and the release of hostages. Jamaica’s foreign policy unquestionably rests on robust principles and democratic values, which guide our stance in an increasingly dynamic and complex global landscape.”

The technical issue to which Minister Johnson Smith referred was ostensibly ongoing consultation between Kingston and its UN delegation, which, presumably, was not completed before the vote. But that argument raises further questions.

With Ambassador Wallace having led the drafting of CARICOM’s statement (which he delivered on the community’s behalf), and Ms Johnson Smith implying that it also represented Jamaica’s position, it is surprising the delegation required further instructions from Kingston on how to vote on the resolution.

There is also the question of Ambassador Wallace’s whereabouts at the time of the vote, including whether he had left the floor of the General Assembly, with someone left to act in his stead.

At 3:44:45 p.m., the General Assembly completed a vote on a Canadian amendment to Jordan’s resolution. The amendment was defeated. Jamaica abstained in that vote. It actively participated, suggesting that whoever was in the chair knew what would be tolerable to Kingston.

REMAINED ON THE TABLE

The outcome also meant that the Jordanian draft remained on the table.

The vote on the Jordanian resolution, whose 14 no votes included the USA, was less than five minutes after the defeat of Canada’s proposed amendment – at 3:49.02 p.m. Fourteen countries, including the USA, voted against the Jordanian resolution. What happened with respect to the Jamaica delegation in the short period between these two votes?

It is, of course, not the first time that Jamaica failed to vote at a UN agency on a resolution involving Israel. In 2016, Jamaica was absent for a UNESCO vote on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem’s Old City, which, Israel argued, airbrushed away Jewish ties to the site that is holy to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Months later, on Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ visit to Israel, Jamaica’s action was praised by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Nethanyahu. Also in 2017, Jamaica abstained in a UN vote criticising Israel’s controversial decision to transfer its capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Ms Johnson Smith has insisted that there is no shift in Jamaica’s Middle East policy and that it still holds to a two-state solution in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But when technical hitches such as occurred last week recur, questions will inevitably be asked whether a marionette’s string is being pulled by unseen hands.