[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 142 (Saturday, October 10, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2036-E2037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RESOLUTION REASSERTING U.S. OPPOSITION TO THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF 
                          A PALESTINIAN STATE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MATT SALMON

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 9, 1998

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce with 
Representative Jim Saxton and Majority Whip Tom DeLay a resolution 
calling on President Clinton to publicly and unequivocally state that 
the United States will actively oppose a unilaterally declared 
Palestinian state and that any such action would have severe negative 
consequences for Palestinian relations with the United States. Though 
the United States has traditionally oppose a unilaterally declared 
Palestinian state, recent statements by the Administration have been 
ambiguous, and contradictory to its previous policy. This shift in the 
attitude by the U.S. government has been followed by recent 
announcements by the Palestinian Authority of their intention to 
declare a Palestinian state unilaterally. Such a declaration would be a 
violation of the Oslo Accords. It would also pose a threat to Israel, 
and it would have a destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. 
Therefore, it is urgent that the U.S. reaffirms its opposition to a 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
  For decades U.S. policy has been to oppose steadfastly the creation 
of an independent Palestinian state irrespective of how it is declared. 
The Administration's evolving policy on Palestinian statehood is 
skillfully explored in Robert Satloff's piece ``New Nuances'' that 
appeared in the July 13th New Republic. The author points to four sets 
of comments by Administration officials that have called into doubt the 
longstanding U.S. policy. (1) On May 7th, First Lady Hillary Rodham 
Clinton advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. (2) On May 
18th, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin 
Indyk refused to express firm U.S. opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of an independent Palestinian state, but rather restated 
traditional U.S. policy as a preference. (3) Also on May 18th, Vice 
President Al Gore made similar comments. (4) And finally, at a May 28th 
White House briefing, spokesman Michael McCurry refused to rule out the 
possibility that the United States would refuse to recognize a 
unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Mr. Satloff summarized the 
comments as follows: ``The United States strongly prefers a negotiated 
outcome of final status issues between Israel and the Palestinians and 
will work to achieve that goal. However, if the two sides do not reach 
agreement by May 1999 and the Palestinians issue a unilateral 
declaration of statehood over Israeli objections, the U.S. may or may 
not recognize that state.''
  Since these statements by the U.S. government, Palestinian Authority 
Chairman Yasser Arafat, his cabinet and the Palestinian legislature 
have repeatedly threatened to unilaterally proclaim the establishment 
of a Palestinian state when the Oslo Accords expire on May 4, 1999. In 
mid-July, Chairman Arafat stated that ``there is a transition period of 
5 years and after 5 years we have the right to declare an independent 
Palestinian state.'' Even more recently, on September 24th, Chairman 
Arafat's cabinet threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state 
that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem: ``At the end of the 
interim period, it (the Palestinian government) shall declare the 
establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied 
since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian 
state.'' (The Columbian, Mark Lavie, Associated Press, September 25, 
1998.) Chairman Arafat continued his push for statehood on September 
28th in a speech before the United Nations, calling upon world leaders 
to support an independent Palestinian state:

       I would like to call upon all of you from this place--the 
     source of international legitimacy and peacemaking, the 
     guardian of freedom, security and stability, and the source 
     for the achievement of justice and prosperity for humankind--
     to stand by our people, especially as the five-year 
     transitional period provided for in the Palestinian-Israeli 
     agreements will end on the 4th of May, 1999 and our people 
     demand of us to shoulder our responsibilities, and they await 
     the establishment of their independent state.

  A unilateral declaration of statehood would be a renouncement of the 
Oslo Accords and could ignite hostilities. The Oslo Accords make no 
provision for the creation of a Palestinian state and, in fact, 
prohibit the Palestinian Authority from taking any actions that would 
affect the sovereignty of the Israeli-administered territories. Earlier 
this week Assistant Secretary of State Indyk said that a declaration of 
statehood ``becomes a recipe for an almost immediate confrontation . . 
.'' (Hillel Kuttler, Jerusalem Post, October 4, 1998). The threat of 
designating Jerusalem as the capital

[[Page E2037]]

of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state is particularly offensive. 
It is also an affront to official U.S. policy. The Jerusalem Embassy 
Act of 1995 codified that ``Jerusalem should be recognized as the 
capital of the State of Israel.''
  In light of Chairman Arafat's repeated threats to unilaterally 
declare a Palestinian state, and due to the lack of clarity in the 
Administration's position on this issue, it is important that Congress 
urge the President to state explicitly that a unilateral declaration of 
Palestinian statehood is in contravention to long-standing U.S. policy 
and is a violation of the Oslo Accords, and the United States will 
oppose and refuse to recognize such as action.

                          ____________________