CLC: Regarding the final status issues, there have been some reports saying that the Palestinians are reserving an option to go before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to argue that its failed Security Council bid was politically motivated rather than based strictly on the Montevideo Convention's four criteria for statehood - a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and capacity to enter into relations with the other states - outlined in the 1933. Is that argument palpable?
RM: I think that to argue whether we are a state or not is an academic issue now after what happened in UNESCO. As I said following the Vienna formula, that is not an issue within the UN system. Maybe these ideas were raised before UNESCO, but once a UN agency accepts you as a state, that has ramifications across the system. So therefore, there should be no discussion or issues of whether we are a state or not. You add to it the fact that the two-thirds majority of member states at the UN have recognized us as a state; this issue is not an issue to be debated any longer. Those who want to debate it, they're welcome to continue, but I think there are new facts on the ground now.
CLC: Lastly, do you see any big change in January when five new Security Council representatives come on the Council? Will they change the voting balance in the Council?
RM: I don't think that there will be a significant change with regard to the non-permanent members in the Security Council. I think that there might a be shift in a different direction from a different group of nations. But that depends on what will happen in other agencies and in the General Assembly, so we just have to wait and see.
(AP Photo: The Palestinian envoy to the UN Riyad Mansour speaks to reporters Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011 at United Nations headquarters.)
