16 October 2009

U.S. Disappointed by U.N. Council’s Vote on Goldstone Report

The United States says the report by Richard Goldstone, above, raises serious allegations but a U.N. resolution on it was not balanced.

By Stephen Kaufman
Staff Writer

Washington — The United States is disappointed by the decision of the U.N. Human Rights Council to endorse a report on the January conflict between Israel and Hamas, saying the resolution approved in Geneva was unbalanced and goes beyond the serious allegations that came out of the U.N. inquiry, led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said October 16 that the U.S. decision to vote against the resolution “in no way diminishes the deep concern that we have about the tragic events of last January” and the suffering they caused to Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis in southern Israel.

“We believe very firmly that Israeli and Palestinian children deserve the right to grow up without the threat of violence and without the kind of conflict that we saw last January,” he said.

However, U.S. officials believe the resolution had “an unbalanced focus,” and are concerned that “it will exacerbate polarization and divisiveness” at a time when the Obama administration is working to bring Israelis and Palestinians together for talks that would lead to a two-state solution.

“We believe that [the resolution] went beyond even the scope of the Goldstone report itself,” Kelly said, and included “a discussion of elements that have to be resolved in the permanent status negotiations, between the Palestinians and the Israelis.”

The U.N. inquiry into the violence accused Israel of targeting Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure, and condemned Hamas for firing approximately 8,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians for the eight years preceding the January conflict.

The United States is also concerned over the timing of the resolution, Kelly said. He said its passage was done “precipitously,” coming only one month after the September 15 release of the Goldstone report.

Instead of having the Human Rights Commission vote to endorse the report, “we think that a better approach would have been to give the parties adequate time to study the report and establish accountability measures through credible domestic processes,” Kelly said.

A few weeks do not present “a whole lot of time to set up mechanisms to try and investigate these allegations,” he said.

In addition, he said, it is “distressing … that we're losing focus on this ultimate goal, which is a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” which would help remove “the root causes” of the violence.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell is now “very intensively involved in talking to both sides and getting them to agree to talk directly,” Kelly said. Mitchell met with Israeli representatives October 16 and plans to meet with a Palestinian delegation October 20. Following those meetings, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be submitting to President Obama an update on the efforts to restart peace negotiations. (See “Give Mideast Talks a Chance for Success, Obama Tells Leaders.”)

In his explanation of the U.S. vote, Charge d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths told the Human Rights Council in Geneva October 16 that the United States regrets the council’s choice of “precipitous action rather than judicious deliberation regarding a 575-page report that has far-reaching implications,” before allowing adequate time for the parties to study the report and “conduct their own domestic investigations and follow-up of alleged violations of international law.”

At the council, the U.S. delegation had discussed a resolution “focused on accountability” that would be more balanced.

“We had worked for a resolution that recognized the right of a state to take legitimate action to protect its citizens in the face of threats to their security while also condemning violations of international law regardless of the actor. Regrettably, this is not the resolution that is before us today,” Griffiths said.

He said the council needs “a serious and measured response” to the January crisis — “one that focuses on the future, upholds the rule of law, demands accountability and respects the rights of democratic states.”