Becoming an international actor: A case study of the Palestinian multilateral diplomacy.
Introduction:
States and international actors possess the capacity to cultivate dimensions of power through various avenues. Historically, the conventional evaluation of power in international relations has revolved around absolute and relative capabilities. Nevertheless, power can also be gauged by a nation's cultural identity, historical legacy, norms, values, and its alignment with prevailing global values (referred to as ideational power).
The protracted imposition of the settler-colonial framework by Israel upon Palestine for more than five decades has subjected the Palestinian population to a pervasive form of power asymmetry that impacts all these facets. The gradual institutionalization of the "peace process" has only exacerbated this predicament by entrenching Israel's dominion, enabling the expansion of its settler-colonial endeavors into Palestinian territories. Concurrently, it has marginalized, constricted, and curtailed the Palestinians' capacity for strategic maneuvering, thereby exacerbating the power disparity between the two parties.
Ink was put to the Oslo Accords in September 1993, an accord often regarded as the bedrock of the peace process. This pact ratified and fortified Israel's military dominion over the occupied Palestinian lands. It also fostered a lasting economic reliance of the Palestinian population on Israel and international aid, achieved through the implementation of the "economic peace" doctrine. Additionally, it contributed to the depoliticization of the Palestinian leadership by giving rise to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The "language of Oslo," propelled by the ascendancy of the United States within the negotiation process, has progressively been established as both the prevailing lexicon and cognitive framework to comprehend the "conflict" and its managerial procedures. This has simultaneously delegitimized any propositions deviating from this ideological paradigm. Hampered by decades of Israeli occupation and American influence on the negotiation trajectory, Palestinians have found themselves equipped with notably feeble material, behavioral, and relational attributes of power.
Nonetheless, in the latter part of the 2000s, the Palestinian diplomatic corps began recognizing the foundational nature of the power asymmetry impeding the negotiation proceedings. Acknowledging that their historical concessions and fundamental compromises rendered at the negotiation table were unlikely to yield diplomatic progress or substantiate the Palestinian right to self-determination, they acknowledged the necessity to extricate themselves from this "power trap" crafted by the Oslo peace doctrine. They endeavored to break free from the dominance of US-driven ideational, relational, and material control.
Reflecting the constructivist standpoint that power is, to a certain extent, socially constructed and appreciating the crucial role of recognition in shaping power dynamics within international affairs, Palestinians directed their attention globally and devised a diplomatic strategy to counterbalance their significantly frail material attributes. This approach involved amplifying their relational, ideational, and behavioral manifestations of power. This exposition aims to critically dissect and contextualize this endeavor from a worldwide vantage point with one central question : can the Palestinian Leadership reshape a Post-Oslo multilateral Diplomatic Strategy ?
I) Enhancing power : an attempt to rebalance power asymmetry with Israel through multilateral leverage.
a) Relational attributes : international recognition as leverage.
As elucidated by Struye de Swielande and Vandamme,1the true manifestation of a State's or State-like entity's potential for power and its definitive role within the global order materialize when it garners recognition and acknowledgment from both smaller and larger States with which it engages. The concepts of reputation and recognition form the linchpin of this facet of power. Recognition stands as a pivotal element in the strategic reorientation of the Palestinian agenda. The Palestinians have actively pursued international recognition and legitimacy from various global players and public sentiments. Their objective has been to amass a "critical mass of recognitions," which can then be translated into influence and alliances within the realm of multilateral forums.
The "Palestine 194" initiative has emerged as an instrumental force in this endeavor, accompanied by an astute lobbying campaign that has encouraged specific countries, including those from the Western bloc, to acknowledge the State of Palestine at a bilateral level. This campaign marked a significant triumph when, in 2012, it achieved the elevation of the "State of Palestine" from its former United Nations (UN) non-member entity status to that of a non-member Observer State. This elevation was secured through a decisive and affirmative vote within the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). This achievement, although somewhat a "consolation prize" due to the unsuccessful bid for a similar vote within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for full membership, held substantial implications.
However, far from being solely symbolic, this status elevation granted the Palestinians a range of rights and legal avenues. It empowered Palestinian diplomacy to engage with international treaties and construct a legal case against the prevailing occupation. The concerted effort to reimagine their standing on the global stage is also indicative of the Palestinian diplomatic corps' endeavor to galvanize and reinforce the behavioral facets of their power.
Through strategic positioning and astute diplomacy, Palestinians are demonstrating a nuanced approach to enhancing their power dynamics, leveraging recognition as a key instrument in their pursuit of justice and self-determination.
b) Behavioral attributes : regaining the initiative.
In their pursuit of reclaiming the initiative, Palestinians have been diligently crafting a foreign policy strategy aimed at rebalancing the prevailing power asymmetry and realizing their long-held goal of self-determination. In this endeavor, they have adopted tactics and behaviors reminiscent of what Holmes termed "middlepowermanship" back in 1970. Although this concept has been extensively debated and applied to characterize the conduct of middle powers, its essence lies in a predilection for multilateralism and coalition-building with likeminded nations. This approach empowers actors to harness their influence, amplify their leverage, and augment their clout while negotiating with major powers on issues pertinent to their specific interests. While Palestine may not fit squarely into the 1TS de Swielande - The European Union and Emerging Powers in the 21st …, 2016 middle power archetype, it has strategically borrowed elements from this approach to harness the advantages of multilateralism and coalition-building.
Parallelly, Palestinians have channeled substantial efforts into securing enhanced redistribution and representation within international organizations. Within these forums, they capitalize on their collective legitimacy, skillfully amplify their leverage, and harness the "voice amplifier" capacity these platforms offer. Here, they manage to "exert a degree of influence that surpasses their individual economic dimensions or formal voting authority." This is notably exemplified by their adeptness in mobilizing regional coalitions within the United Nations (UN) framework. Capitalizing on the more democratic organs of the UN, such as the General Assembly (UNGA) and the Human Rights Council, has become a cornerstone of their strategy. Simultaneously, they tactfully navigate around or defang other multilateral mechanisms that have been rendered impotent or muted by the hegemonic policies of the United States, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Quartet.
Additionally, Palestinians have been actively advocating for reform within the UN, particularly regarding the "unlocking" of collective security mechanisms that are too crucial to be entirely bypassed. This encompasses a push for comprehensive restructuring of the UNSC, with the intention of rendering it more reflective of the current global power distribution. This reformulation is viewed as an integral element of their overarching strategy.
In essence, the Palestinians' diplomatic approach involves strategic emulation of established tactics while adapting them to their specific context. By adeptly navigating the complex web of international relations, they are endeavoring to forge a path toward more equitable power dynamics, greater self-determination, and broader international recognition.
c) International law and representation as leverage
Another pivotal aim of the Palestinian strategic pivot has been to establish a framework for legal safeguards for their population and to demand accountability from Israel through the channels of international law. In pursuit of this goal, the Palestinians have undertaken the ratification of several fundamental international treaties, including notable examples such as the Rome Statute and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. This shift has propelled their strategy beyond a singularly "land-based" approach, expanding it into a more comprehensive "rights-based" paradigm. This revised approach situates international law, protection of rights, and the principles of accountability at its foundational core.
In recognizing that established collective security mechanisms and forums, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), have been hampered by perceptions of manipulation and inactivity due to unilateral actions by the United States, the Palestinian leadership has redirected its focus. They have identified the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international legal institutions as more autonomous and suitable platforms to advance their cause and exact accountability from Israel. This strategic recalibration stems from the belief that these entities possess a greater degree of independence and are better equipped to serve their objectives.
As a tangible outcome of this paradigm shift, on the 5th of March in 2015, the PLO Central Council resolved to submit two distinct cases to the ICC: the first pertaining to the 2014 Gaza conflict and the second relating to the ongoing settlement issue dating back to 1968. This resolute step underscores the Palestinians' commitment to wielding the power of international law as a tool for justice and accountability, augmenting their diplomatic efforts with a formidable legal framework to address their grievances on the global stage.
II) Unrealized power: a critical analysis of the shift’s limits and flows
a) Lack of conceptual autonomy .
While Palestinians have steadfastly endeavored to counter the ideological dominance of the Oslo framework, their efforts have encountered a stumbling block in the form of the enduring sway of American hegemony over the negotiation process. Scholar Cecilia Baeza insightfully underscores the prevailing US- and Euro-centric perspective within the Palestinian leadership, contending that "Palestine has internalized narratives of dominance and succumbed to US hegemonic policies." This is evident in their embrace of the American narrative that posits that no other pertinent entity exists to mediate and ultimately resolve the conflict.
As astutely observed by Palestinian scholar Nadim Rouhana, the notion of exclusively entrusting the US with the role of sole mediator predates even the erosion of the third world. This inclination, according to Rouhana, is counterproductive, as it incorrectly assumes that the United States possesses the exclusive capability to bring about a resolution to the conflict.
This process of internalization on the part of Palestinians, whereby they have absorbed and assimilated the prevailing Oslo paradigm and the preeminent actors, becomes particularly evident through interviews conducted by the author. When queried about conceivable alternatives to the United States as a third-party intermediary in the talks, a significant portion of Palestinian diplomats persist in asserting that the US is the sole entity equipped with sufficient influence to sway Israel's calculations of cost and benefit.
The phenomenon underscores a complex interplay of power dynamics, where the historical imprint of US engagement, combined with deeply ingrained perceptions of its dominance, have contributed to a situation where viable alternatives are discounted in favor of an established belief in American exceptionalism. This intricate interplay shapes the contours of diplomatic strategies and negotiations, further underscoring the need for innovative approaches in order to break free from the constraints of this entrenched paradigm.
b) No contestation of the dominant ideational paradigm.
Furthermore, Palestinians find themselves grappling with an inherent challenge—unable to present an alternative framework that can rival, let alone supplant, the prevailing spirit of Oslo. The Palestinian strategic shift, at its core, is primarily a procedural transformation. It does not seek to bring about substantial alterations; rather, it retains the foundational principles, norms, and ideas that underpin the overarching "peace process." At best, the strategy contemplates introducing a handful of new norms associated with the proposed rights-based approach. Concepts like "protection" and "accountability" are introduced, but they operate within the confines of the traditional normative and ideational boundaries of the process. In essence, the Palestinian strategic shift manifests more as a recalibration of the existing regime rather than a paradigm-shifting regime change.
In tandem with maintaining the monopoly of these ideational constructs within the process, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has become enmeshed within a system that has bestowed economic and political incentives upon its upper echelon. These incentives work to preserve the status quo rather than challenging or altering it. The Oslo system has bestowed significant advantages upon the PA leadership in Ramallah, affording them an array of financial, political, and logistical perks that the wider population is denied. These material benefits have unequivocally buttressed the inertia, deterring any inclination towards a sudden, structural transformation of the prevailing status quo. Consequently, the strategic option of imposing the weight of security and economic costs stemming from the occupation onto Israel—achieved through dissolution of the PA or cessation of security cooperation—has been consistently discarded by the leadership. This stance remained steadfast until May 2020, when the Trump administration's "peace" plan and its annexationist undertones left the Palestinian leadership with no recourse other than a temporary suspension of security cooperation as an act of protest.
c) Weakened and impairing material power attributes
Transforming strategic thinking into a fully functional and triumphantly effective foreign policy demands a confluence of material attributes encompassing financial resources, autonomous governance, proficient political institutions, legitimate leadership, well-trained diplomatic corps, streamlined governance mechanisms, transparent institutions, widespread public support and engagement, adept power-sharing and diffusion strategies, and more. Regrettably, the Palestinian leadership finds itself grappling with an acute deficiency in these material attributes, either due to external constraints or self-inflicted limitations.
Indeed, issues such as corruption, oligarchical practices, perceived illegitimacy, internal competition, divisions, and a paucity of diplomatic acumen within the Palestinian leadership have substantially hindered the formulation and execution of their strategic shift. An illustrative example lies in the protracted absence of elections since 2005, which has undermined the democratic legitimacy of the leadership, thereby impinging upon their ability to rally a cohesive and resolute approach.
Moreover, the Palestinian strategic shift has predominantly unfolded within the echelons of officialdom, remaining confined to a top-down paradigm. The engagement of Palestinian grassroots organizations, despite their formidable density, dynamism, and adeptness, has been notably lacking. Notably, the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and pivotal grassroots movements, such as the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, has been fraught with tension and antagonism. Both parties have ascribed blame for this hostility to the other, fueling an atmosphere of discord. The Palestinian leadership has exhibited a degree of ambiguity in its stance towards the BDS movement; while it refrains from officially disapproving of its actions, it also refrains from overtly expressing support, except in isolated instances. While this cautious positioning might ostensibly be justified as an effort to "preserve each other's independence," the palpable unease remains, signaling a profound disconnect between official policy and grassroots aspirations.
This dichotomy underscores the complex interplay between officialdom and grassroots activism within the Palestinian context. Harmonizing these elements and establishing a synchronized, coherent strategy is an intricate task, requiring deft diplomacy and a willingness to bridge divides. Achieving such cohesion holds the potential to invigorate the Palestinian strategic shift by tapping into the latent energy of the grassroots movements while channeling the capacities and resources of the official leadership.
Conclusion :
The recalibration of Palestinian foreign policy comes at a juncture marked by the increasing salience of multilateralism and the ascendancy of global governance. Multilateralism, an enduring trend in international relations spanning over a century, exerts its influence across various domains, both locally and on the global stage. Consequently, the realm of Palestinian diplomacy finds itself at an opportune moment to harness this momentum of multilateral engagement, capitalizing on the catalyzing potential of collective action and the legitimizing function performed by international institutions. This strategic shift holds the promise of not only rebalancing the power dynamics and mitigating the prevailing asymmetry with Israel but also amplifying the voice of Palestine in the international arena.
Amidst this transition, certain achievements have been recorded, most notably the recognition bestowed by the United Nations in 2012. However, these accomplishments are counterbalanced by a series of setbacks and inconsistencies that have cast a shadow over the process. Among these are instances of overlooking non-Western nations' perspectives and the internal fractures that have hindered and even subverted the Palestinian leadership's collective approach. These challenges, combined with a history of sporadic success, highlight the complex nature of diplomatic maneuvering in a charged geopolitical landscape.
As the Palestinian leadership aspires for a just resolution for their people, it becomes pertinent to scrutinize the prospects of this diplomatic transformation attaining its objectives.
The likelihood of its success is beset by uncertainties, particularly given the myriad factors that interplay within the multilateral framework. These encompass not only the intricate intricacies of international politics but also the internal dynamics of Palestinian leadership and the broader geopolitical context. The outcome hinges on a delicate equilibrium, demanding astute diplomacy and adaptability to navigate the evolving terrain of global governance and multilateralism.
Bibliographie :
- Tanguy Struye de Swielande and Dorothée Vandamme, “Power in International Relations: Modernizing Holsti in the 21st Century”, in Power in the 21st Century: Determinants and Contours, Louvain, Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2015
- John W. Holmes, The Better Part of Valour: Essays on Canadian Diplomacy, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1970
- Tom Long, “Small States, Great Power? Gaining Influence Through Intrinsic, Derivative, and Collective Power”, Oxford, International Studies Review, Vol. 19, n°2, 2017, pp. 185-205
- N. BENJELLOUN-OLLIVIER, La Palestine, un enjeu, des stratégies, un destin, Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris, 1984
- The Palestinian Uprising : a War by other Means, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1991
- Jean-Paul Chagnollaud, Sid-Ahmed Souiah, Atlas des Palestiniens, un peuple en quête d’un Etat, Paris, Editions Autrement, 2011.
- Nadine Picaudou, Les Palestiniens, un siècle d’histoire, Bruxelles, Editions Complexe, 2003. - Aude Signoles, Les Palestiniens, Paris, Editions Le Cavalier Bleu, 2005.
- Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe à l’heure américaine, de la guerre du Golfe à la guerre d’Irak, Paris, Armand Colin, 2005
