Bolivia can challenge the two-state paradigm at the UN

As Bolivia assumes the presidency of the UN Security Council this month, President Evo Morales has used Twitter to promote his country’s priorities: the Middle East conflict on the 50th anniversary of the complete occupation of Palestine, and the non-proliferation of chemical and nuclear weapons. The presidency will be headed by Bolivia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Sacha Llorenti, who in 2014 described Israel’s settlement expansion as “colonies that hamper the search for a solution to the historical conflict.”

At the UN, Morales has used strong rhetoric repeatedly against Israel’s colonial aggression, followed-up by diplomatic action. In 2009, his country severed ties with Israel as a result of Operation Cast Lead and called for Israeli officials to be charged with genocide at the International Criminal Court. Morales also declared Israel to be “an international threat to stability in the Middle East and Latin America” in 2012, which indicates an approach that goes beyond the more usual restraints of the two-state paradigm. If Bolivia can assert this international narrative at the UN and expound upon its implications, the pedestal upon which the two-state compromise rests can be challenged. However, this also means that Bolivia must implement an approach that will differ from the defunct trajectories that play into the international impositions inflicted upon Palestine and its people.

So far, Bolivia has also upheld the two-state rhetoric, which is the contentious point in Latin American support for Palestine. Venezuela and Cuba under Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro respectively also veered towards this narrative, which diluted their otherwise anti-imperialist and anti-colonial support. Apart from this detail, all three countries staunchly declared their allegiance to the Palestinian struggle. It would seem, however, that the two-state imposition represents a stumbling block. On one hand, Bolivia is furthering the Palestinian cause, whilst on the other it is also advocating in favour of the international narrative of two states being the “solution”, despite the discrimination and colonial plunder inherent in the concept.

Read: Israeli annexation of the West Bank will bury the two-state solution

A challenge to the international institutions would call out the fallacy of referencing an obsolete paradigm. This is not a novelty, as it has been done by the Middle East Quartet, albeit belatedly, and spurred other declarations and discussions about a reality that is ignored in diplomatic circles. Bolivia, however, is part of a region with a strong history of anti-colonial struggle. The indigenous populations of Latin America are still fighting to reclaim land from their governments. It is also a region where Israel has penetrated deeply through military and surveillance technology. If Morales was aware of the latter in 2012, such knowledge would have only increased his opposition. Moreover, logically, it should be used to formulate a strong stance that not only asserts the importance of Palestinian liberation, but also how Latin America itself, especially the countries that benefit from Israeli technology, is at risk of political alienation from the Palestinian plight.

Hence, Bolivia should avail itself of the UN Security Council presidency to refuse to stick to the two-state narrative if it is to excel in its support for Palestine. If this important detail is overlooked, the presidency is in danger of resembling that of other countries professing support yet aligning themselves with the oppressors. Latin American history should be remembered and utilised to form a coherent stance at the UN, showing that the Palestinian call for liberation is not an isolated lament, but a shared aim and responsibility.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.