Some journalists are critical of U.S. policy that welcomes the new leadership of Libya, while opposing Palestinian statehood at the U.N. Specifically, two NYT writers claim that:
"The trouble for Mr. Obama, though, is that even as he was publicly proclaiming his backing at the United Nations for a new Libyan state, American officials were working furiously behind the scenes to make sure the United Nations did not bestow a similar recognition on a Palestinian state."
I find this an odd criticism (especially appearing, not in an op-ed piece but in a 'news' item), because it purposely sets up a false analogy. In the Libyan case, there is no "new state," but only new government of an existing state, one with a well-defined and broadly recognized geographic territory. That's quite a far cry from the Palestinian situation, where nothing is "generally recognized" and no state currently exists.
Further, the new leadership in Libya has a credible claim to control of said geographic area. True, some (Gaddafi for one) may challenge that claim of control, which is one reason U.S. policy has always been to avoid formal "recognition" of a new government - it's too political. We continue diplomatic relationships, sometimes rekindle them if the previous leadership was hostile, but we deny that we ever "recognize." President Obama's "welcoming" may amount to the same thing in the real world, but certainly it's impossible anyway either to welcome or to tacitly recognize a "state" that doesn't exist.
Creating a new state, if parties agree to it, is a decidedly more complex and long-term matter, as Obama has subsequently sought to make clear. (Just consider that even within our own country, the creation of a new "state" - really a substate in international terms - for the District of Columbia is considered not just difficult, but impossible.)
Comments