Go to the Middle East and North Africa programme's page
The Palestinian Authority isn't fighting a numbers game when it comes to their bid to join the UN General Assembly as a non-member observer state. When the resolution is put to a vote at the General Assembly in a few days' time, it will pass with a comfortable margin, as 131 countries already recognise Palestine as an independent state under occupation. Predictably, the US has declared it will vote no, and has pressed European partners to do the same, but the PA has been in a determined diplomatic battle to win the political support of the key Western bloc.
As much as possible, the European Union tries to project a common position at the UN, but often fails when it comes to resolutions involving Israel and Palestine (the vote on the Goldstone Report resolution in 2010 was a notable moment). Though the 2011 statehood bid was never put to a vote at the Security Council, European members were expected to vote against it there. But in the subsequent vote where the PA sought and received membership to UNESCO in October 2011, the European vote was significantly split. Twelve countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Spain) voted yes, another ten abstained (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom) and five voted no (Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden).
This year's resolution, despite being something of an anticlimax, has prompted much handwringing and mixed messaging from European governments. Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway*, Spain and Switzerland* have declared their support, and it's reasonable to expect that the states who supported the UNESCO bid will also vote yes. And the Netherlands can be expected to move from a 'no' vote to an abstention or a possible yes after a change of government earlier this year. The United Kingdom was wavering, declaring they would support the resolution with given public assurances that the PA would seek unconditional negotiations with Israel and forego applications to the ICC. At the time of this writing, the Palestinians have not agreed to condition their bid, which would curtail the meaningful gains of the upgrade, so the UK is at best likely to abstain. Germany had previously declared they were voting no, but are now expected to abstain too.
What drives the splits and shifts in European state positions, and how should they be interpreted? It's no secret that many European states are disenchanted with the moribund peace process. But the Oslo framework has not gone out of fashion for key European actors, who see the PA as integral a negotiated settlement. Accordingly, there is also considerable alarm among European policymakers that the Palestinian Authority that they have so heavily supported financially finds its legitimacy increasingly strained (not least in the last round of violence in Gaza, where the PA was dramatically and visibly sidelined). Supporting the PA bid this year would have been a relatively low-cost measure to bolstering Abu Mazen and sending a message to Israel that European actors are not copasetic with the status quo.
The PA will see the shifting positions of major European states like France as a boon, but not all EU member state votes are created equal, and without the support of heavyweights like the United Kingdom and Germany the victory is less dramatic. Israel can take continued comfort in the stalwart support of key European countries, even in a year where EU also introduced regulations demanding that exports from settlements in the Occupied Territories must be accordingly labeled and is also reportedly considering introducing visa bans on violent settlers.
*Norway and Switzerland are not EU member states.
This is an updated verion of an article originally published by The Daily Beast on the 28 November
Fatima Ayub is a Policy Fellow for the Middle East and North Afirca programme at ECFR
30th November 2012 at 03:11pm
Denmark voted yes. Sweden as far that I know also.
The are a number of wrong informations in the article.
Speaker of the Danish Parliament
Your message will be submitted to a moderator before appearing online. Name and email address are required, all other fields are optional. Your email will not be displayed.
On the nature of the reform agenda.
The EU should support the new Ukrainian government.
Relations between China and its neighbours changed dramatically
Qatar's foreign policy after a sudden regime change
A comprehensive assessment of European foreign policy
What Russia will do and how Europe can respond
Why the EU needs to develop a new policy towards Egypt
Formal rules and arbitrary power
Towards a new EU foreign policy
Why Europe needs a new Asia strategy
How sectarian agendas shape the politics of the Middle East