Posted on 10/09/2002 3:55:26 PM PDT by knighthawk
There are differences between resolutions on Iraq, Israel
UNITED NATIONS - Is there one set of rules for Iraq and another for Israel at the United Nations?
A growing chorus says yes, among them Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While the United States and Britain have been united in calling on the UN to enforce its resolutions against Baghdad, Mr. Blair said last week all UN resolutions on the Middle East should be implemented.
"It is important to emphasize our commitment to doing it to assuage the fear, or claims that there are, that we operate a double standard," he said in Blackpool, northwest England, during the annual conference of his governing Labour Party.
But experts say there are important differences between the UN resolutions involving Israel and those concerning Iraq.
Arab diplomats and their supporters point to more than 70 UN resolutions they say Israel has violated since it became a state in 1948. What they fail to notice is the origin of these resolutions. Many emerged from the General Assembly, whose 191 members spend most of their time engaged in political rhetoric, rather than the Security Council, which creates international law.
With Arab and Muslim nations forming a sizable voting bloc in the Assembly, its resolutions routinely condemn the Jewish state while ignoring anti-Israel violence. They are nothing more than the synthesized opinions of an often despotic majority, and not legally binding.
This is not the case with resolutions passed by the 15-member Security Council, where the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China have permanent seats with veto power. These have legal force, but their contents are often misinterpreted or selectively quoted.
"Most of the accusations of double standards are coming from Arab diplomats who know better," said Andrew Srulevitch, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring group.
"They are also coming from the knee-jerk left, who are generally against the liberal Western democracies and their stances at the United Nations. "In saying that Iraq is getting a raw deal compared to Israel, they are trying to convince people of something that, on the face, is an attractive argument. But you really only have to scratch the surface to find there is no basis for comparison."
When Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, said Israel would not comply with last week's Security Council resolution calling on the Jewish state to end its siege of Yasser Arafat's headquarters, he also explained why: The Palestinians are not meeting the Security Council's additional demands to stop attacking Israelis and arrest those responsible. Oft-cited Security Council resolutions demanding that Israel withdraw from territories it occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War also contain obligations directed at both sides. They say, for example, Israeli security must be assured if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But security could be assured only through the negotiation of a comprehensive peace settlement with Arab states -- and that remains elusive.
Security Council resolutions demanding that Iraq, among other things, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction place obligations on no second party.
As part of the 1991 truce that ended the Gulf war, Iraq agreed to allow international verification of its pledge to end development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The "double standards" critics further argue that talk of authorizing a war to enforce resolutions against Iraq should also be directed at Israel.
But sending a UN-authorized force to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not foreseen in resolutions passed involving Israel. But it is an option in resolutions against Iraq. The distinction is legal, and depends on the authority the Security Council cites in the UN Charter when passing a resolution.
All Security Council resolutions passed concerning Israel cite Chapter VI, which calls for the "pacific settlement of disputes," UN Watch research said. Intervention by an international military force is not an option.
But the Security Council resolutions the United States wants enforced against Iraq were passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, which deals with "threats to peace" and "acts of aggression." Sanctions and military force can be considered to ensure compliance.
Many Arab leaders continue to ignore such distinctions.
"Why should the world request Iraq to adhere to Security Council resolutions, while Israel is allowed to be above international law?" Farouk al-Shara, Syria's Foreign Minister, asked during the General Assembly's annual debate last month.
"It is indeed odd that the United States considers Israel acting in self-defence in ... territories that are acknowledged to be occupied by Security Council resolutions."
Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said last week the world body has been "dogged" for years by charges Israel is allowed to flout UN resolutions while other countries are forced to comply.
"This is an issue that, as an organization, and as a Council, is a tough one to deal with," he said. "I don't thin k I have given a single press conference in the Middle East or an interview with a Middle East journalist where the question of double standards has not come up."
Since the United Nations was formed 57 years ago, Security Council debates have focused more on the Middle East than on any other region. The United States has used its veto 75 times, mostly to block resolutions it considered against Israel's interests.
While the United States remains the lead broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is also a member of the Quartet -- along with Russia, the European Union and the UN -- which has won the backing of Arab states.
"I hope the work that the Quartet and the Council ... will do ... will be able to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue once and for all and put this issue [of double standards] behind us," Mr. Annan said.
Middle East list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.