Editorial | What’s with the Abbas vote?

It might otherwise have gone unnoticed and uncommented on.

But the exceptional circumstances of Gaza, and Jamaica’s previous misstep in a related UN vote, requires that Kingston explain why it didn’t cast a ballot on the General Assembly decision on Friday to allow Mahmoud Abbas to address the body remotely this week after a raft of Western states formally recognised Palestine as a sovereign state.

Mr Abbas, 89, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), can’t travel to New York to deliver his speech in person. The United States hasn’t granted him a visa to enter the country. Indeed, the US has either declined visas to, or withdrawn them from, another 80 Palestinian officials.

The United Nations says this is a breach of its headquarters agreement with the United States. A reading of the plain language of that agreement suggests that the UN is right.

Mr Abbas’ speech will be both of political and symbolic significance in the context of developments in the Middle East, and Gaza especially, in the 23 months since Hamas’ incursion into Israel, which resulted in the massacre of nearly 2,000 people and 250 taken hostage.

In the aftermath of Hamas’ atrocity, Israel’s legitimate right of retaliation has morphed into a morally indefensible and gratuitous orgy of violence, killing and destruction that amounts to collective punishment. Nearly 70,000 Gazans have been killed, more than double that amount injured, and tens of thousands more are believed buried under the rubble of the strip.

CONTINUES TO BOMB

Yet, Benjamin Netanyahu’s right wing government continues to bomb the rubble of Gaza, as it severely limits the flow of aid into the territory and seeks to displace Palestinians from the strip. Several international organisations have declared a man-made famine in Gaza, while an independent commission established by the United Nations concluded last week that Israel has committed genocide.

This is part of the backdrop against which Britain, Canada, France and Australia – all staunch allies of Israel – on Sunday formally recognised Palestine, in a bid to give renewed legitimacy to the idea of a two-state solution to the Israel Palestinian question, and to forestall Israel’s increasingly aggressive moves to make that impossible by absorbing more Palestinian territory.

Jamaica formally recognised Palestine last year, as did Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, the remaining Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members that hadn’t yet done so.

In that context, speeches by world leaders on Palestine, at the UN this week will have special resonance, hence America’s and Israel’s effort to deny Mr Abbas that symbolic platform. Given Mr Abbas’ inability to be in New York, he required the vote to allow him to address the general assembly by digital means.

One hundred and forty-five (145) countries voted in favour; five voted no and six abstained. Jamaica, based on United Nations information, was one of 34 countries that didn’t vote – neither, yea, nay, nor abstain. Belize, a vocal critic of Israel over Gaza, was the other CARICOM member that didn’t cast a ballot.

However, it is the absence of the Jamaican vote that has caught attention in the Caribbean, given the island’s historic support for a two-state solution and what used to be a stand-out posture in global affairs. And then there is the fact that something like this happened before – on October 27, 2023 when the island didn’t vote on a resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and humanitarian truce” between Israel and Hamas. That was weeks into the war.

TECHNICAL HITCH

At the time, the foreign ministry blamed the development on a technical hitch between the Kingston headquarters and its UN staff. Kamina Johnson Smith, the foreign minister, stressed then that Jamaica has played a major role in drafting CARICOM’s position on the resolution.

It is understood that countries sometimes alter, or adjust, positions in the national interest. This is usually framed within a broader foreign policy strategy.

Among the ways other states and analysts gauge a country’s emerging foreign policy, or how a country signals its posture on issues, is how it votes (or doesn’t vote) in international fora. Which is why Jamaica’s reported failure to vote on the Abbas matter has drawn attention and demands an explanation.

This is also significant against the contours of the foreign policy framework sketched last week by Prime Minister Andrew Holness, for Jamaica to thrive in a changing world. Although he didn’t name the US president, the prime minister likely had Donald Trump in mind.

Said Dr Holness: “... We must continue to speak boldly and clearly in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. We must continue to defend democracy at home and abroad. We must stand up for small states whose voices are too often drowned out by great powers.

“But we must also be smart in understanding our interests and identifying opportunities that emerge as the world changes. We must be nimble enough to adjust and grasp them. The world owes us no favours.

“Though we will continue to fight for justice in global affairs, we will also continue to build our resilience and economic independence. Jamaica must also have a seat at the global table.”

Ms Johnson Smith, no doubt, will clarify the matter.