When President Donald Trump declared, on December 6, 2017, that the United States would move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing that city as the capital of Israel, it triggered the usual condemnation from the Arab world about the stability of the Middle East and the peace negotiations in the area. Vice President Mike Pence announced in Jerusalem in January of this year that the move will be accelerated to occur by the end of the year, rather than the three to five-year window originally believed necessary for it to be concluded. A consulate in an area in West Jerusalem, an area under control by the Israelis since 1949, could be retrofitted to serve as our embassy while a new complex is constructed.
Beyond the rhetoric from Arab and even European nations against these announcements was the unmitigated gall of 128 countries in the United Nations who voted, on December 22, that our President’s decision was “null and void”. This phrase flew in the face of centuries of international precedent about the right of nations to make their own decisions free from interference from other nation-states.
Most scholars agree that such state sovereignty stems from the Peace of Westphalia, which ended two long-running wars in Europe in the 17th century. Two agreements in that year were signed, one in Osnabruck and the other in Munster, Germany. An eighty-year conflict between Spain and the Dutch Republic and the other a thirty year war between states in the Holy Roman Empire were ended.
Other than finally bringing to an end these long-term conflicts, the agreements set into international law the idea in political theory of sovereignty for all nations. Allied to the principle that each nation-state had the right to make decisions within its own borders was the “prohibition” against other countries interfering with the internal political decisions made in other nations. The idea of messing with the sovereignty of foreign states has been a staple of international relations; to do so was to invite condemnation and retaliation.
Part of the problem with the action of the United Nations and its condemnation of President Trump’s proclamation is that, by implication, Israel should not and cannot declare Jerusalem as its capital. That is absurd. Any nation can decide on the location of its capital city, and if so desired, can change it at any time. Brazil has done this, even creating a “new” city for its capital. Other nations have done the same. It is their right.
Since 1995, the United States has had as its policy that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, giving the sitting President the right to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Also in the bill passed then was the “out” for the President to delay that move by a simple declaration he was delaying the move for six months. Each of the Chief Executives, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have declared their agreement with the law, but also opted to delay implementation of the move to Jerusalem each six months. Trump publicly agreed with the 1995 law during his campaign for President, but did more than his predecessors — he followed through and decided not to delay the move.
The issue of sovereignty was obviously ignored by the 128 U. N. nations who voted to declare an official policy of the U. S. “null and void”, an action none of them would tolerate from the U. S. If we were to look at France, Saudi Arabia, China, select a policy from any one of those countries, and declare that policy was “null and void” there would be angry outcries of our violating their sovereignty.
And what of the cries about President Trump undermining the peace “process” in the Middle East, particularly the peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Most objective observers would rightly claim that there is no peace process. With the Palestinians refusing to recognize the right of Israel to even exist, no talks are being held and none that have been held yielded any concrete steps toward peace.
But back to the issue of the sovereignty of the United States — do we not have the right to make and implement our own policies, ones voted on by our Senators and Representatives? Many in our country have urged the U. S. to leave the United Nations, and this action by an overwhelming majority of U. N. members reinforces that idea. If they can advocate blatant disregard for our internal sovereignty, why should we be in the U. N. and continue to pay the lion’s share of its expenses?
Perhaps we should return to the attitude of a certain member of South Carolina’s delegation to the Second Continental Congress in 1775. Colonel Christopher Gadsden was part of the Maritime Committee, which was to start the implementation of a national naval mission. Before that mission began, he gave to Commodore Esek Hopkins a flag, which became the personal standard flying on the main mast of Hopkins’ flagship. This flag, which sported, on a yellow field, a coiled rattlesnake, ready to strike. Beneath the snake were the words, “Don’t Tread on Me”. That attitude needs to be reaffirmed by the United States today. Other nations should take care not to tread on our national sovereignty, and we should applaud America’s U. N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, for her blistering response to that vote in the U. N. Assembly.
For too many years during recent administrations, other nations have felt no hesitancy in “treading” on us. We Americans should insist that it stop, and stop now.