Diplomacy inbox fills up as U.N. awaits U.S. presidential vote

UNITED NATIONS Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:04am EDT

The United Nations headquarters building in New York September 22, 2010. REUTERS/Eric Thayer

The United Nations headquarters building in New York September 22, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Eric Thayer

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - As the United States prepares for a presidential election next month, thorny diplomatic issues like an arms trade treaty, the Palestinians' U.N. aspirations and talks on banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East have had to wait.

For months, U.N. officials and diplomats have complained privately that discussions at the United Nations aimed at resolving a range of problems have been delayed until after the November 6 election in which President Barack Obama, a Democrat, faces off against Republican contender Mitt Romney.

Some analysts and political pundits suggest U.S. hegemony is waning. But the decision by U.N. member states to put important negotiations on hold shows the power and influence of the United States at the United Nations. Such deference to a national election is unusual.

The stalemate at the U.N. Security Council over the conflict in Syria has not featured prominently in the U.S. campaign, but might emerge as an issue in the final Obama-Romney debate on October 22, which will focus on foreign policy.

Some analysts and diplomats say Obama's caution on Syria is partly driven by election concerns, but others say Washington has abandoned the U.N. track because of Damascus ally Russia's repeated vetoes of U.S. initiatives before the council.

A perennial touchy issue in U.S. politics is gun control, a topic that came up in Tuesday's presidential debate. U.N. delegates and gun control activists said talks on a global treaty to regulate the $60 billion arms trade collapsed because the Obama administration feared a political attack from Romney if it supported the pact.

The treaty negotiations at U.N. headquarters broke off without any agreement in July after the United States, Russia and a few other major arms producers, said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

Washington wanted to "bump (the issue) down the road until after the election," in the words of a European diplomat.

David Bosco of American University in Washington said: "The administration clearly feared that the treaty would become a major election issue for gun rights organizations and, with a few other countries, worked to ensure that it would not move anywhere until after the election."

Frank Jannuzi of Amnesty International echoed Bosco's views.

Gun control is controversial in the United States, where the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The powerful National Rifle Association strongly opposes the arms trade treaty and has endorsed Romney. Arms control advocates say they hope Obama will eventually back the treaty if he is re-elected.

The United States denies that it wanted to delay the arms treaty negotiations, insisting it had genuine problems with the draft treaty under discussion.

"While we sought to conclude ... negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at the time.

Despite their obvious frustration, delegations accepted the hold-up and treaty talks are expected to resume in March. They have no choice but to acquiesce, envoys say, since a treaty without the support of the world's top arms producer would not carry much weight.

PALESTINIANS LOOK FOR U.N. UPGRADE

The United States did not have to tell the Palestinians to postpone their plans to ask the U.N. General Assembly to vote on upgraded U.N. observer status for the Palestinian Authority, which Washington opposes.

The Palestinians made that decision on their own, U.N. envoys said, because they did not want their desire to achieve implicit U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood to play into the U.S. presidential campaign, forcing Obama to take a harsher stance against the Palestinians than he might otherwise take.

The president of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic of Serbia, said this month that the Palestinian push to become a "non-member state" like the Vatican would be debated by the 193-nation assembly in mid-November. He said the timing was due to "electoral and political calendars.

Having failed last year to win recognition of full statehood at the United Nations, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would seek a less-ambitious U.N. status upgrade that implicitly recognizes Palestinian statehood.

The Obama administration has made clear it does not want the Palestinians to pursue a U.N. upgrade at all. The United States and Israel also have suggested that funding for the Palestinian Authority and the U.N. could suffer.

If the Palestinians decide to put the issue to a vote, U.N. diplomats predict they will succeed with a strong majority.

There are other issues that are on hold, diplomats say. One is a planned conference on ridding the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, an idea that Israel is resisting due to fears that it will become a forum for bashing the Jewish state.

Israel neither denies or confirms having atomic weapons, but is widely believed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal.

The conference was due to take place this year. But diplomats said it was delayed until after the U.S. vote, partly to see whether the United States would remain committed to the idea.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Stacey Joyce)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
AZWarrior wrote:
Obama has his people doing a deal with Iran to get himself reelected. He will call off the crippling sactions the Republicans forced him to apply to Iran if they will agree to a deal before the election. Like Jimmy Carter, the Iranians are scared of the Republican candidate now that it looks like he will get elected. Before, with Carter, it was Ronald Reagan, which caused them to release the American hostages on the very day Reagan was sworn in, but now it is Mitt Romney who scares them and they are desperate to keep Obama as American President so they can complete their nuclear weapon. Conveniently, Obama is dealing through Valerie Jared, who has close ties with the Iranians leading families, but cutting out any input by the EU or others so he can claim all credit. Look for this deal to be the usual “October Surprise” so loved by failed American politicians.

Oct 18, 2012 10:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RegisteredRep wrote:
It’s time to relocate the UN to Haiti. For cost reductions. It will be cheaper to keep the thralls in line without having to subsidize the costs of Manhattan property, with the added benefit of, there is only so much trouble you can get into on an island. No need for expensive limos, drivers or security. Just think. I’m sure they’d jump at the chance.

Oct 19, 2012 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RegisteredRep wrote:
It’s time to relocate the UN to Haiti. For cost reductions. It will be cheaper to keep the thralls in line without having to subsidize the costs of Manhattan property, with the added benefit of, there is only so much trouble you can get into on an island. No need for expensive limos, drivers or security. Just think. I’m sure they’d jump at the chance.

Oct 19, 2012 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.