Gordon Robinson | Jamaica and the UN vote

Let me declare up front that I’m a big fan of Kamina Johnson-Smith.

But I can’t fathom her convoluted and seemingly inconsistent “reasons” for Jamaica’s refusal to vote on a recent United Nations Resolution calling for a temporary cease fire in the Israel/Hamas war. The Resolution was supported by an overwhelming majority.

The Resolution, proposed by Jordan and passed in emergency session on October 27, demanded an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”. One-hundred-and-twenty-one countries voted in favour; 14 against; and 44 abstained.

USA, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Fiji, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Tonga voted against. Among the 121 voting for were Antigua/Barbuda; Barbados; Bahamas; Belize; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Grenada; Guyana; Honduras; St. Kitts, St. Lucia; St. Vincent; Suriname; Trinidad/Tobago. Haiti abstained. Jamaica was among 14 countries refusing to vote and the only CARICOM member to take that deliberately devious decision. In my opinion, it was deliberate because, on that same day, Jamaica voted “abstain” on a Canadian amendment to the Resolution. In my opinion, it was devious because it contradicted a CARICOM Statement to the General Assembly delivered on behalf of CARICOM by Jamaica’s Permanent Representative Brian Wallace.

Through Wallace, CARICOM warned if we don’t immediately put an end to the conflict it could escalate into a wider regional war. The regional body expressed concerns about adverse implications for international stability with devastating consequences, particularly for small vulnerable island states.

“Let us recognise once and for all the utter futility of war, violence and terror,” Wallace read, reaffirming CARICOM’s continued support for UN Security Council resolution 242 and calling for accelerated efforts for a peaceful, lasting outcome to the conflict.

In proposing the Resolution Jordan’s Ambassador, Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud, said the “urgent need for an immediate ceasefire cannot be overstated” and predicted Palestinian people’s immeasurable suffering would leave a lasting mark on future generations. He called the Resolution’s goal “simple yet vital” and argued it “aligns with the very purpose for which UN was established, peace and compliance with international law.”

Ghana’s Ambassador Carolyn Oppong-Ntir’s expressed reason for voting in favour was that, in her opinion, the humanitarian crisis couldn’t be ignored. She said: “We’ve a responsibility as an international community to help end the heart-breaking tragedies”. She emphasised Ghana’s objective as being “Out of this tragedy, we must find the fierce agency to support the two parties to resume and conclude a peace agreement.”

Canada sought an amendment to specifically name Hamas and recognize the October 7 terrorist attacks and hostage taking. It failed to attract the required two-third majority so was defeated. In a powerful speech rebutting Canada’s proposed amendment, Pakistan’s Ambassador, Munir Akram, said not naming either side was best:

“Israel needs to be named too, if you are to be fair and equitable and just”. But he didn’t stop there. He insisted “We all know who started this. It’s 50 years of Israeli occupation and killing of Palestinians with impunity.” He called Israeli occupation of Palestine “the original sin.”

After the Resolution passed, France’s Ambassador, Nicolas de Rivière, said his delegation voted in favour because “nothing justifies killing of civilians”.

ACTIONS ANGERED JAMAICANS

When Jamaica’s internationally awkward actions became known back home, social media exploded with anger, anxiety and aggression to the Foreign Affairs Minister. This came from many Jamaicans but, naturally, loudest from the Opposition. On October 27 Kamina tweeted this explanation:

“Regrettably, consultations were underway with Kingston which didn’t conclude in time for the close of vote. Jamaica welcomes the action taken by the United Nations General Assembly and hopes it contributes to progress. Jamaica chairs the CARICOM caucus at UN and earlier delivered the statement attached.”

We know! We read that statement. What We the People are grappling with is how “consultations” on the Resolution were sufficiently concluded to permit Jamaica to register a vote on Canada’s proposed amendment but not to vote on the Resolution itself.

HOW. CUM?

Not unreasonably, this facile dismissal of genuine public concern didn’t go down well with many Jamaicans’ herbal tea so critique grew louder until PNP reverted to its default position namely calling for the Minister’s resignation. Well, that clearly hit a nerve and an out-of-character looking Kamina, at a political rally of all places, retorted:

“I’m not a lady who is into cass-cass. I’m a lady who is into doing my work…. But if you bring crosses to me, I’m going to defend myself.” So Kamina, sounding a lot like Netanyahu, introduced her secondary defence of the no-vote decision.

In an obvious swipe at PNP Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Lisa Hanna, Kamina suggested that, had Lisa done her homework, she would’ve known about the CARICOM Statement delivered by Jamaica to the General Assembly:

“A statement [was done] on behalf of the whole of CARICOM, including Jamaica; we write the statement, we draft it, we led the discussion on it. So it is not a thing nobody don’t know where we stand on the issue. A little communication thing happened, yes, and that was a problem and we are going to fix that problem.”

That’s more than a tad condescending. I’m certain the Opposition’s Spokesperson read that Statement. It’s the second time you’ve mentioned it. THAT Statement makes your initial explanation so out of whack that “whack” becomes what the heck!

If “we” led CARICOM “discussions” that resulted in CARICOM’s statement on the Palestinian crisis and “we” drafted that statement then with whom and on what were “we” consulting that caused us not to vote with CARICOM?

I posted that analysis on Twitter and Kamina responded that the consultations were “internal” and reminded me (gently) “not everything is a conspiracy”. True. But some things might be. So I asked (equally gently) why Jamaica needed consultations after CARICOM’s Statement. She replied:

“Later that day there was a Canadian amendment proposed then a Pakistani amendment proposed on the basis of that then a whole group of countries were considering changing positions – especially as Chair of caucus our Ambassador had to be monitoring and in discussions and consults on all of this.”

OPPOSITION

Pakistan didn’t propose any amendment. Pakistan opposed Canada’s amendment. It criticised Canada for naming one but not the other side. We abstained from voting on Canada’s amendment. Why does Jamaica care what a whole group of countries was considering? Did Jamaica need to consult with them? I thought “consultations” were “internal”? Why would Jamaica need to consult internally on a position already agreed with CARICOM because other countries “were considering changing positions”?

Do we have a national spine?

On the political platform she insisted people who understand the system would know it became complicated on the day of the vote. “Different countries were suggesting all kinds of different things that complicated the matter during the day. I want to tell you that if [Lisa Hanna] had just done some research and listened to the statement, listened to the fact that Jamaica said that there should be a cessation of hostilities, Jamaica said there was no justification for killing innocent people, Jamaica said we call for peace…”

So. Why. Not. Vote?

What could possibly be so complicated about this fluidity that takes place in every international forum every day? If this sort of international volatility is too much for our UN team we need another team. The crucial piece of evidence making this unlikely is that Jamaica was able to register a vote on Canada’s amendment (that Kamina said “complicated the matter”) but not on the Resolution itself despite having our permanent representative deliver CARICOM’s Statement of support. It’s obvious to all but the most blindly tribal there were considerations external to CARICOM that bent Jamaica’s diplomatic arm.

Independent analysts must never forget USA and Israel voted against the Resolution. Less than 24 hours after the brutal Hamas attack, Andrew Holness condemned it and said “We call for a cessation of hostilities [my emphasis], a return to peace within internationally agreed guidelines and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions.” Now that Israel’s retaliation has slaughtered more than 10,000 Palestinians including 4,000 children, Jamaica can’t find the testicular fortitude to support a UN Resolution calling for a “cessation of hostilities” and “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce.”

I’ve secretly longed to see Kamina as legal and constitutional affairs minister but won’t join the resignation chorus which yet again ignores Westminster governance realities in a small country. But this one just feels wrong. I get a sense of an attempt to walk between raindrops that left Jamaica wringing wet. Sometimes we just have to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

Peace and Love.

- Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com