Any hallmark of good governance is the fidelity to principles that one considers almost sacrosanct. One does not bend from these principles to serve another end, unless there is compelling reason to do so. At that point of revision, a larger and more unassailable principle takes its place, which will require no less fidelity than that which attended the previous principle. This is true not only of individuals, but of nations.

Last Thursday, the United Nations conducted a vote to repudiate the decision of the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. To give some context to this vote, as far back as 1995, America passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act which recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Successive presidents have waived moving the US Embassy there. Not so, Trump, who recently reaffirmed the recognition and decided that the new American embassy will be built there.

The UN’s vote had a significant majority voting for the repudiation, with a few nations against, and a good number abstaining. Each nation in the UN, however small or poor, has a vote equal to that of any great power. Jamaica voted to abstain, which was its remit to do. But to abstain in a vote of this magnitude sends a very powerful signal, perhaps even more powerful than if the country had voted yes or no. In abstaining, the Government decided to sit on the fence. Some will argue that this was a cowardly move, which was not in keeping with Jamaica’s long tradition of not recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And the reasons have been well founded given the intractable problem between the Israelis and its Palestinian neighbours. The question now is: Is Jamaica abandoning the high moral ground that it has taken on the Jerusalem question?

The Andrew Holness-led Administration’s decision to abstain is a departure from a tradition that has been acceded to by successive administrations. We have long known that the Middle East problem is one to which no easy solution is applicable. The UN believes that to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is to muddy the waters and set back the process of a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The US’s move to unilaterally recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a huge setback to the peace process. The Palestinians and other Arabs have now been further alienated from the negotiating process.

The UN had to act and in acting send a powerful message to the US Administration that they cannot agree with the posture taken. But Trump is not constrained with what the UN and, ostensibly, what the rest of the world thinks. Republican politics has had a long-running disdain for the UN. They have used the body when it is convenient to them and rejected it when it did not serve their purposes as in the present situation. What made matters worse was the open threat to sovereign nations of retaliation if they should support the UN vote. A vote in support of the UN, according to US representative Nikki Haley, would be considered a vote against the US with apparent consequences to follow. She was merely echoing the sentiments of her boss Trump.

It is against the historical background that Jamaica has always maintained and the apparent desire of the US Administration to bully sovereign states into compliance, why Jamaicans find Holness’s fence-sitting particularly revolting. Jamaica’s voice in the international fora has never been muted when it comes to matters on which the nation ought to be heard. As big and powerful as the US is, Jamaica has never been afraid to speak its mind. One can well recall the days of the Manley Administration and the opposition to America’s neo-imperialist designs in Third World countries.

The Administration might not have wanted to incense the Israeli Government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with whom Holness is seeking to build a relationship. Perhaps it thought that playing it safe was the better approach at this time. If this is the case then it is regrettable for sovereign relationships between nations do not preclude any nation from standing up for what they believe. If your friends are going to be angry and sever relationship with you because you dare to make a principled stand on a matter, so be it. But one should not appear cowardly for the sake of getting along.

This is not how Jamaicans think. We have had a long history ever since the Maroons defied the British to stand up for what we believe in no matter the consequences. I can say without any reservation that none of our prime ministers, living or departed, would have sat this vote out, especially after the bullying rant of the American chief executive. If the Government has a cogent and credible explanation for its actions it must come out and tell the Jamaican people. If it cannot, then it should apologise for insulting us in this matter.

In the meantime, there are questions to be answered. What level of consultation was there between the foreign ministry and other interested parties, such as the Opposition, before deciding to abstain? By abstaining, does the Government want to revise the policy of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? If the answer to this last question is yes, will it now engage the Jamaican people, through its Parliament, in a debate on this matter? These questions need to be answered forthwith. Clear the air, Mr Prime Minister.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer or stead6655@aol.com.