Diplomacy versus Lobbying

The question of the status of the Palestinian Authority at the United Nations Organization highlights the differing positions in the international community; on one side, Diplomacy and a balanced approach, on the other, sheer hypocrisy and lobbying. Needless to say, the Russian Federation represents the former and the west, the latter.

Needless to say, the Russian Federation backs the status of the Palestinian Authority as a non-member State at the UNO, an observer engaged in the Middle East Peace Process which sees Israel and the Palestinian Authority residing side by side in peace, prosperity and security. This is in line with General Assembly Resolution 3236 of November 22 1974 which refers to: "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty" and UN Security Council Resolution 1397 of March 12 2002, which mentions, "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."

And what is the position of the West? The USA vows to vote against, along with Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands; the UK promises to abstain and France is to support the motion. The FUKUS Axis, which came together to rape Libya and Africa and supplant the African Union dream with the AFRICOM nightmare, could not be more divided.

But it should not be a question of being divided or not, it should be a question of respect for international law and the norms of international diplomacy, governed by the Westphalia Agreements in 1648 and by all diplomatic documents, agreements, contracts, treaties and covenants up until Helsinki, 1975, namely respect for the inviolability of frontiers and the acceptance of the status quo which exists.

It is clear, upon observation of the modus operandi of the west, that diplomacy for those countries, and mainly the USA, UK and France (though not unanimously in this case) has a different meaning from the same word in Russian. The Russian Federation defends a policy which respects international law, uses the UN Security Council as the proper forum for crisis management, with an approach based upon a principle of debate, discussion and dialogue.

The diplomats representing the west, on the other hand, appear to have part of their anatomies gripped by a vice controlled by the lobbies which decide when and how hard to squeeze, fostering their own interests and feathering their own nests through a warped and twisted notion of policymaking. This is not supposed to be how it is.

When the UNSC gives clear signs that it will not back the west's imperialistic exploits or personal vendettas, as was the case in Iraq, then they plough ahead without consulting it. When the interests of the west go beyond the terms and conditions of the UNSC Resolutions, why, they blatantly disrespect them and perform a spectacular mission creep, as was the case in Libya.

In the Middle East, instead of respecting international law, and condemning Israel for stealing Palestinian territory and building illegal settlements on it, while at the same time pressing for Israel's right to security and the Palestinian Authority's right to Statehood within the original frontiers (1948), as far as the west is concerned, it's each one pandering to his lobbies.

This is not diplomacy, it is lobbying, and a particularly pervasive and underhanded form of lobbying which disrespects the law at the drop of a hat. The west has therefore lost any moral high ground it ever claimed to hold and the diploma for Right and Reason goes most definitely to Moscow. The Russian Federation represents a new world order based upon the rule of law, respect for dialogue among all parties to a conflict and crisis management based upon the foundations of sustainable democratic coexistence.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


Author`s name Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey