It was not a veiled threat shrouded in diplomatic speak and there was no need to read between the lines. “The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested that I report back on those who voted against us,” stated Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, in a letter to all member states. This was prior to Thursday’s vote on a resolution opposing the unilateral action of the United States in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

President Trump was even more blunt last Wednesday: “For all these nations that take our money and then vote against us… we’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”

Eight resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council over the last 50 years and reaffirmed as recently as in 2016 insist that the legal status of Jerusalem, a thorny and pivotal issue between Israel and Palestine, should be determined only through a negotiated settlement between the two. Jerusalem holds deep religious and cultural significance for both of them. This approach was endorsed by both Israel and Palestine in the Oslo Accord of 1993 for which Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The United States tacitly supported this position and has always refrained from exercising its veto power to kill the Security Council resolutions. Hence, despite a law passed by the US Congress in 1995 requiring that Jerusalem be recognised as the capital of Israel, successive US presidents, including President Trump in June 2017, have, every six months, formally waived implementation on the basis that it would be detrimental to achieving a final settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict. President Trump has now upended that policy.

The implications are grave. It has undercut the gains tediously made in developing a framework for peaceful coexistence of the two states, as it has radically and unilaterally altered the negotiating agenda. It has also deprived the United States of an effective role in negotiations toward a final settlement, and it is almost impossible to envisage a final settlement without the involvement of the United States.

Twelve Jewish settlements housing some 200,000 people have so far been established in the disputed eastern section of Jerusalem. The US action could possibly have had tactical value if, in return for its recognition of Jerusalem, the US had secured from Israel a binding commitment to cease the construction of new settlements in East Jerusalem in conformity with existing UN resolutions, and to keep open the possibility that it could eventually become Palestinian territory in keeping with the pre-1967 demarcation.

The threat to withhold financial support to countries that did not side with the US in Thursday’s vote is not entirely a departure from the norm. Foreign aid disbursements have long been influenced by the extent to which recipients are seen to be supportive of US policy positions, but it has never been so blatantly and aggressively expressed.

A congressional delegation complained to me in 2008 that Jamaica had sided with the US in only 12 per cent of the resolutions voted on at the United Nations. However, almost all of the other resolutions had to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict, where Jamaica’s votes were consistent with the two-state policy that successive Jamaican governments have maintained. Jamaica has also repeatedly voted, contrary to the US position, in favour of resolutions seeking an end to the isolation of Cuba.

It is disheartening that, once again, the votes of Caricom countries were fragmented. Seven countries — Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname — supported the resolution. Five others — Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago — abstained. St Kitts and Nevis, and St Lucia absented themselves. It is to the credit of Dominica, a tiny country desperately in need of foreign assistance in the wake of Hurricane Maria, that it was bold enough to vote in favour of the resolution. Apart from itself and Israel, the US was able to persuade or coerce only seven other countries to tow its line.

US foreign aid to Caricom countries has declined considerably since the 1980s. In the case of Jamaica, it amounted to only US$29 million in 2016 — less than one half of one per cent of our total budget — which really does not provide much of a leverage for coercion, but there are several other ways in which recalcitrant countries can be penalised.

The world is having difficulty adjusting to the new foreign policy dynamics of the United States. Being “reasonable” means doing things the way America wants, and “unreasonableness” amounts to disloyalty that must be punished. Increasingly, however, the “America first” doctrine is morphing into “America alone”. Its own career diplomats are finding it difficult and embarrassing to explain and justify US policy decisions and actions.

International agreements are summarily shredded and important allies are “dissed” publicly. Unilateralism has replaced dialogue and consensus, and foreign policy positions are often enunciated by impetuous, early morning tweets and differ among critical US functionaries.

A huge void has been created in the leadership of a turbulent world that is desperately in need of stable, credible and persuasive leadership. It is now adrift in uncharted waters.

This, too, will pass, but it may take several years to repair the damage and return to normality. In the meanwhile, countries like Jamaica must look beyond the dust, see the horizon and calibrate their compasses.

— Bruce Golding is a former prime minister of Jamaica