UN Resolution on Jerusalem: consequences for the United States
Results of the UN General Assembly vote on Jerusalem turned out to be unpleasant for Washington: 128 countries condemned America's decision to transfer country's embassy to eastern Jerusalem. At the same time, the US and Israel received support of such countries as Honduras, Guatemala, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Togo.
Obviously, the decision of these small states was influenced by the threats of President Donald Trump to reduce financial support to countries that don't show their loyalty to Washington during the voting. As for the post-Soviet space, Georgia's and Ukraine's position is also logical. They decided to not vote at all since, on the one hand, these countries don't want to upset their European partners (primarily Germany), and on the other, they heavily depend on military and financial help of the United States. Azerbaijan and Armenia voted for the resolution. Baku's position, despite its close ties with Tel Aviv, was dictated by Islamic solidarity and close relations with Ankara, and Yerevan acted this way because of its relations with Moscow and Tehran.
By adopting this resolution, the international community expressed its open disagreement with the policy of Donald Trump after the United States blocked adoption of a similar resolution in the UN Security Council. It should be noted that open threats from the US before the voting in the General Assembly didn't have any noticeable effect and didn't affect the position of the vast majority of UN member states. At the same time, the biggest problem for the US is not position of Muslim countries on the Jerusalem issue, which was pretty easily predicted, but refusal of the overwhelming majority of allies and partners to support their "older brother". With the exception of Poland, Romania, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, the entire European Union opposed the US position. Even Canada, which traditionally follows the US foreign policy line, decided to take a neutral position. Against the background of Trump position on Jerusalem, anti-American rhetoric in Turkey also intensified.
"The fact that the United States suffered this loss shows that its global influence is in decline. And all participants gladly demonstrated this to Americans through the resolution on Jerusalem: Arab leaders, European governments, let alone traditional rivals such as Russia and China. Trump's threats to punish states that vote to adopt resolution only increase this satisfaction. Since it's impossible to punish 128 states, it creates the impression that America has less and less real opportunities," Die Welt collumnist Richard Herzinger writes.
Meanwhile, according to political editor of Die Freitag Lutz Herden, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's agenda in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict implies that Israeli settlements on the west bank of Jordan will be considered as sovereign territories of Israel and should be subjected to military control regime, which includes all occupied territories on the west bank. Palestinians don't have the right to return and expect compensation. And if the situation really turns out this way - and everything points out to this - then Palestinian state won't have capital in Jerusalem, sovereignty or the right to its own security. Such Palestinian state would become an Israeli protectorate and a continuation of today's realities under a new "label". But does at least one center of the Arab world - Riyadh, Cairo, Amman or any other - seriously plans to prevent the implementation of this new "Balfour doctrine" of the United States? After the situation will settle, there will be no united front of those who disagree with this or a new Intifada in the Gaza Strip.
Overall, Trump's decision on Jerusalem may be a smart move, Herden writes. "This way he protects himself from criticism that due to the lack of involvement in Syria, the United States gave Moscow, Ankara and Tehran carte blanche for formation of post-war architecture in this country. In addition to Russia, Iran and Turkey. By supporting Netanyahu, he gives him a mandate for further action in the region. From now on, the US don't consider itself an intermediary in the region, but a side of the conflict that cooperates with Israel."
There's no doubt that Trump's statement on Jerusalem seriously damaged the international image of the United States and became a reason for further strengthening of anti-Americanism not only in the Islamic world, but even in allied countries, in particular the EU countries. The latter believe that such sudden and inconsistent changes in the US foreign policy disregard not only principles of the international law, but also the idea of transatlantic partnership, which envisages development of common positions on key issues of the international politics by all partners. Meanwhile, in the context of adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution, the decreasing international prestige of the United States should be highlighted. However, it doesn't automatically mean that military, political and economic influence of Americans in the world is also decreasing. This is evidenced by the fact that all the protests against Trump's policy have been exclusively rhetoric so far. They weren't supported by specific steps to counter the US plans.