The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

C. David Welch Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs U.S. Department of State Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee Washington, DC, July 14, 1999

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to appear before the Committee to present the Administration's views on the treatment of Israel in the United Nations. After my prepared remarks, I would be happy to answer any questions from Committee members or to offer additional clarifying details on issues of interest and concern. I am secure in the belief that a new spirit of compromise and hope in the Middle East can result in genuine progress -- both in our quest for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the region and in our ongoing efforts to improve the way Israel is treated in and by the United Nations, its membership and its organizations. I look forward to working with the Committee and the Congress in those regards.

The treatment of Israel in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations has too often been driven by a desire by some UN members to gain short-term political or rhetorical advantage rather than by the obligation shared by all members to employ the UN system to advance its Charter purposes: the maintenance of international peace and security and the development of friendly relations among nations. The U.S. has consistently opposed efforts in the UN and its organizations that seek to isolate Israel, to subject it to unbalanced or unwarranted criticism, or to interpose the UN in issues reserved for negotiations between the parties in the Middle East. This commitment by all parts of the U.S. government extends back to the founding of the State of Israel and is unwavering.

The United States has always enjoyed the closest cooperation with the Israeli Mission in New York. We have not hesitated to employ our veto in the Security Council when necessary to oppose resolutions that would be damaging to Israel or to the search for peace in the region. In the General Assembly, we have consistently voted against actions that stigmatize Israel and have strongly encouraged other UN members to do likewise. Despite our sustained efforts in this regard, we often find ourselves standing alone or with only a few others on these votes. We continue to assert our positions on these issues and seek ways to expand our ability to influence other delegations.

Let me now turn my attention to specific issues of concern regarding Israel's treatment at the United Nations.

Israel has been effectively denied membership in a regional group. This exclusion prevents Israel from participating fully and effectively in the United Nations. This Administration, like many before it, opposes this prejudice and has worked hard to reverse this injustice. As an interim measure, we have supported Israel's admittance to the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). Most members of the European Union continue to oppose inclusion of Israel in the WEOG. We continue to press the Europeans and report to the Congress on these and other actions in support of Israel's admittance to a regional group.

Primarily because it has been denied regional group membership, Israel is also precluded from membership in other UN bodies -- including the Security Council -- and is consequently unable to participate fully in their deliberations and decisions. We have made numerous efforts in Washington, New York, and in capitals to reverse this anomaly and allow Israel to contribute fully to the community of nations. Exclusion of Israel from the UN's regional groups and other organizations denies Israel its due as a sovereign UN member, including the opportunity to participate in the full range of international activities conducted at the UN; and it denies the rest of the world the benefits that could flow from Israel's contributions.

Each year, the UN General Assembly adopts a number of resolutions related to the situation in the Middle East. These perennial resolutions (on the Syrian Golan, the Question of Palestine, Israeli Settlements, Palestinian Right to Self-Determination, and Israeli Practices) -- some of whose very titles are evidence of their lack of balance -- do nothing to advance the search for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the region. Several of these resolutions attempt to address Israeli-Palestinian permanent status issues that must be reserved for the negotiations between the parties themselves. Others advocate language or activities incompatible with the basic principles guiding the search for peace or call for the expenditure of resources which could be utilized in better ways to improve the lives of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the U.S. opposes these resolutions each year. We continue to work vigorously to convince other nations to join us in rejecting these misguided and counterproductive efforts. We will continue to do so forcefully at this year's General Assembly.

At this year's General Assembly, we intend to propose again a "positive" resolution on the Middle East taking note of the increased likelihood of peace between Israel and its neighbors. The absence of such a resolution in the last two General Assemblies has been an unfortunate manifestation of the down-turn in the peace process. Renewing the positive resolution can be a step toward establishing a voice for the General Assembly that helps, rather than hinders, the search for peace.

In February 1999, the UN General Assembly's Tenth Emergency Special Session recommended that the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention meet in Geneva on July 15 to discuss enforcement of the Convention with regard to Israeli settlement activities. The U.S. voted against this resolution. We have worked strenuously in the days since its adoption -- up to and including today -- to cancel or delay this ill-conceived conference. We strongly oppose convening this conference on legal and policy grounds. We have conveyed these objections to a number of other governments at the highest levels. President Clinton has raised this issue personally with the presidents of Switzerland and France. Secretary Albright has had a number of conversations with her counterpart ministers to underscore the approaches we have made in capitals and with other UN delegations. We have also addressed this issue with senior Palestinian and other Arab leaders. We informed Switzerland (in its role as depositary of the Convention) and others that the U.S. would not attend the conference. Australia did likewise. Other countries have expressed their concerns about convening the conference so soon after the formation of the new Israeli government. We continue to believe that convening the conference is a very serious mistake.

In addition to our concern about its negative impact on the peace process, we have serious legal concerns that have not been adequately addressed. The Fourth Geneva Convention contains no provision for an enforcement meeting of the High Contracting Parties. Nor do any of the other treaties of this regime contemplate such an enforcement mechanism.

The Convention does contain provisions to address questions of enforcement (e.g., Article 12 conciliation procedure, Article 149 enquiry procedure), but these do not entail highly public meetings of the High Contracting Parties. The idea of permitting meetings of the High Contracting Parties to address specific questions of application of these rules was raised (by the Arab group) and rejected during the negotiations leading to the adoption of Protocol I Additional of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The negotiating record demonstrates clearly that the High Contracting Parties discussed and rejected precisely this sort of conference.

We also raised concerns about the use of UN funds to offset some of the costs associated with convening this conference. We are continuing our dialogue with senior Secretariat officials to try and ensure that no UN funds are so expended.

Another issue of concern is the scheduled opening of this year's General Assembly on September 20, which is also Yom Kippur, the most solemn Jewish holy day. Our Mission in New York worked hard to convince the General Assembly to select a different date on which to open the Assembly. Unfortunately, our efforts were unsuccessful. As a consequence, President Clinton will not address the General Assembly on its opening day, as is customary, but on September 21 in recognition of the sanctity of Yom Kippur. If this date conflict should arise in future years, we will work to have it resolved in a fashion that embodies the fundamental principle of respect for all religions and beliefs.

The U.S. will continue to support fair treatment for Israel. This struggle, however, is hindered by our continued failure to pay our arrears to the United Nations. The U.S. now faces the possibility of losing its vote in the General Assembly, which would eliminate our ability to oppose formally any proposed actions in the Assembly judged to be inimical to our interests or to those of Israel. This would result in even greater isolation for Israel in the world body and the international community.

Clearly, genuine progress in the peace process will result in better treatment for Israel in the United Nations. For our part, the U.S. will work tirelessly to protect our vital national interests by securing fair treatment for Israel, using all the tools at our disposal against unwelcome UN initiatives, and continuing our efforts -- in the UN and elsewhere -- to advance the cause of peace in the region.

Finally, I would like briefly to address the issue of General Assembly resolutions 181 and 194. The Administration has made its position very clear on these resolutions. The only basis for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation are the terms of reference defined in Madrid and the Oslo agreement, UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace. The differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians can only be settled through negotiations.

The United Nations is an organization that mirrors its membership. In the General Assembly, positions adopted or actions taken with the concurrence of a majority of the membership do not always reflect U.S. national policy. On many matters of concern to Israel, the current UN membership often takes action despite the opposing votes of both the U.S. and Israel.

I would like to distinguish the treatment accorded Israel by the UN organization (the Secretary General and his staff) from that accorded by the member states of the United Nations. The former has been and continues to be correct and respectful, as it should be to every UN member.

Israel has experienced both positive and negative treatment over the years from the UN membership. Indeed, the United Nations had an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel. On occasion, the U.S. has been able to employ the United Nations to further our objectives in the peace process as well as help Israel lessen its isolation and more effectively engage in the international arena. We can report a measure of success -- such as the repeal of the "Zionism equals racism" resolution -- over the UN's history, despite the most recent experiences.

I appreciate the members of the Committee affording me this opportunity to appear before you. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.

[end of document]

|| International Organization Affairs | Policy Remarks |
U.S. Department of State | Disclaimers ||