US block on Fayyad makes a grave statement [THE NATIONAL]

February 15, 2017The nomination by the United Nations of the new security mission in Libya was supposed to be a straightforward affair. Even though Antonio Guterres did his best to assure that the UN Security Council would sign off on the former Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad, the United States abruptly declared that it would oppose the appointment.There might have been genuinely appropriate reasons to disapprove of Mr Fayyad’s appointment. After all, no one is perfect. However, none of the reasons cited by the US cannot be remotely described as appropriate. America's non-recognition of a Palestinian state and support for Israel as an American ally were the explicitly-stated rationale for the rejection – reasons that are in themselves untenable. Being a Palestinian, Mr Fayyad naturally did not fit this unjustifiable bill.The impact of this move should neither be underestimated nor ignored.Moreover, most countries recognise Palestine as a state and that Israel is a violator of many Security Council resolutions as it maintains its occupation of the Palestinian territories. What's even worse, the Israeli occupation and its treatment of the Palestinian people have nothing to do with Libya.If the UN were picking Mr Fayyad as a mediator between the Palestinians and Israelis, the US might have had a ground for objections. By doing so the US sent a clear message that the Trump administration will not leave any opportunity to make use of international forums to pursue a narrow idea of "America first" that disregards common good. In this case, the US did not even make the simplest effort to appear fair.Much of the world wanted to pretend that the US stood for the leadership of the West and, by extension, some universal values. Under president Donald Trump, that pretence is impossible to uphold. The White House has already declared that it stands for a communitarian world order. The US is now pushing for a little more than an American Sovietism – a unilateralist Pax Americana that will pursue its interests in a short-sighted and populist fashion.Now everyone – world powers big and small – will be tempted to essentially do the same: ignore the notion of an international order based on law and ethics and embrace the maxim of “might is right”. That temptation ought to be resisted.Across the European continent, there is already a realisation that Washington can no longer be counted upon. Nato is hardly safe and secure as a military alliance when the president of its most powerful member is essentially agnostic about its purpose and is more cosy with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin than with many of its traditional allies.This takes place at a time when Russia is becoming bolder on the international stage; invading, occupying and annexing a part of a sovereign state such as Ukraine, and supporting Syria’s Bashar Al Assad, one of the most savage dictators in the world. A sterner approach to Moscow is what is needed – not appeasement, particularly when Moscow is actively intervening in the domestic politics of a number of western states, let alone others.The response from Europe needs to be carefully considered, one which other parts of the world ought to ponder as well. For far too long, much of the international community has relied on the US for leadership, particularly when one considers the foreign-policy priorities of Russia.In this context, Mr Trump’s decision must to be seen as an opportunity for a more sensible multilateralism to become embedded in the international community. The failure of that to materialise in recent years allowed for Crimea to be occupied, Syria to be destroyed, Libya to be destabilised, the Rohingya community of Myanmar to be brutalised, as well as countless other tragedies to occur. And all that took place under Barack Obama.There will be many who will revel in the disintegration of America's leadership internationally, but there is in fact nothing to celebrate unless it's replaced with something better. That alternative replacement can’t be Russia or China. If that happens, the result would perhaps be further disintegration of the international order.If a sense of international justice is to prevail, there must be a deeper investment of nations to uphold a system of international law. That's needed now more than ever. If Mr Trump’s decision sets that process into motion, then that will be a great contribution of the White House – possibly the greatest to come out of this American administration.Dr HA Hellyer is a senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington and the Royal United Services Institute in ­LondonOn Twitter: @hahellyerSource: The National