22nd October 2000

When US enters, UN leaves

NEW YORK— An Israeli cabinet meeting was once interrupted by an aide rushing in with the latest statistics on the economy.

The crops were down, growth was low, reserves were minimal and inflation was high, he said, portraying a rather gloomy picture.

Momentarily, the prime minister seemed flustered by the news — until he realized that the aide was really referring to the state of the Israeli economy.

Breathing a sigh of relief, he joyfully exclaimed: "Thank God, for a moment I thought you were referring to the American economy" — and went on with the business of the day, totally unfazed.

The anecdote reveals the hard reality of Israeli life: the very existence of the country has depended largely on the political and economic health of the United States.

A robust American economy has continued to ensure unrestrained economic and military aid to a country, which was a US creature.

Even in the worst of times, the Americans have never made any cuts in their overwhelmingly generous assistance to the Israelis.

Israel is the ultimate embodiment of a sacred cow in Capitol Hill. The political support for Israel has been so strong that Pat Buchanan, a vitriolic rightwing newspaper columnist and a presidential hopeful, has rightly described the United States Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory".

The Israeli lobby in the US, however, has never forgiven him for his anti-Israeli views — and his aspirations to become president of the United States were doomed long before they could take-off.

The US commitment to Israel dates back to May 1948, to President Harry Truman's recognition of the newly created state.

Currently, Israel is the largest single beneficiary of US aid amounting to over $3.1 billion annually, of which $1.9 billion is in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid.

Virtually all of the American equipment in the Israeli military inventory was purchased out of US funds. Between 1948 and 2000, US economic and military aid to Israel has totaled a staggering $77 billion.

Of the 189 UN member states, only five countries now receive outright US military grants under a programme called Foreign Military Financing: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. The largest annual military grant is to Israel ($1.8 billion rising to $1.92 billion beginning 2000), Egypt ($1.3 billion), Jordan ($75 million), Morocco ($2.2 million) and Tunisia ($2.2 million).

On the other hand, grants given to other countries under a programme called the International Military Education and Training (IMET) progamme are piddling: ranging from $93,000 annually to Vanuatu to $225,000 to Sri Lanka.

As a result of the large US investment in the country, Israel is under heavy American protection forcing both the US Congress and the White House to safeguard its interests even at the risk of being blatantly biased.

A letter published in the London Financial Times last week put the US unevenhandedness in its right perspective.

After the tragic killings of some six Israelis by Palestinians, and over 100 Palestinians by the Israelis, the White House stepped up pressure, not on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, to help quell the violence. "Has the world gone completely topsy-turvy," asked the author of the letter. In all key US-brokered Middle East peace negotiations, Washington has always ensured that the United Nations remained in the doghouse.

Fearing that the UN would either tilt in favour of the Arabs or display even-handedness, the US unscrupulously kept the world body out of all peace agreements. When Israel and Egypt negotiated the Camp David peace accord under US auspices in March 1979, the United Nations was not invited.

In July 1994, the US also brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan from which the United Nations was shut out once again. And in October 1998, the US brought the Israelis and the Palestinians to the negotiating table for a limited peace agreement under the so-called Wye River Memorandum. But the United Nations was nowhere in sight.

But last week there was a dramatic change in attitude as Secretary-General Kofi Annan was viewed as the single individual who played a pivotal role in bringing the Palestinians and the Israelis to the bargaining table at the summit meeting in the Red Sea port of Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

In an editorial last week, even the New York Times was constrained to admit that Annan "deserves credit for helping to bring the parties together."

At a press conference in Geneva early this month, Annan was asked why the UN has traditionally remained marginalised in the Middle East conflict.

"For every crisis, you can only have one mediator," Annan said referring to the US. "If you have a multiplicity of mediators, you can muddy the waters. But that should not be interpreted as meaning the United Nations or the Secretary-General were shirking responsibilities," he added.

However, it still remains to be seen whether or not the UN will be brought in as a key player in future Middle East negotiations.