IN THE pre-war rumblings going on in
the United States, a strange argument is being made. War supporters are
chiding permanent members of the UN Security Council for reflecting
international (as well as some American) public opinion by contemplating
the possibility of a veto to any resolution that will approve war.
Countries like France, Russia and China are being accused of making the
world body “irrelevant” and “obstructing and paralysing” the work of the
UN. William Safire went as far as to call this anti-war position a
“further abdication of collective security”.
No better situation could justify the
form the Security Council was shaped in than the present. When one country
decides that it knows better than the rest of the world what is good for
world peace and is ready to start a war for that purpose, the opinion of
the rest of the world does count.
Also troubling is the intellectual
dishonesty of the same commentators when the US was using its veto power
to stop any anti-Israel resolution. Unlike the present attempt of the
United States, many of those resolutions were based on sound legal
arguments and were meant to prevent real violation of international
humanitarian law, unquestionably contradicting specific UN Security
Council resolutions. The US vetoed many Security Council resolutions that
the rest of the world, including America's best ally, the United Kingdom,
voted in favour of. These pundits didn't fear then the irrelevance of the
UN nor did they blame the US for abdicating its collective security
responsibilities. Even in cases in which, by virtue of being signatories
to the Fourth Geneva Convention, countries are required by law to enforce
its clauses in defence of people under occupation, the US refused to allow
the world body to impose on Israel respect for these international
conventions.
When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990,
the world body moved, sanctioning the use of force to reverse the
occupation. That was followed by the longest period of sanctions imposed
on a member country. Yet Israel, which came into being as a result of a UN
resolution, has been allowed to get away with murder and occupation. It
has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, yet no resolution has
been passed with the kind of teeth that the anti-Iraqi resolutions have.
If there is any party responsible for
making the UN an irrelevant body, it is the US. And if there is any cause
where the international community has failed, it is the cause of
Palestine.
Instead of waging a war against Iraq,
the US and the international community should be striving for a peaceful
settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Removing Saddam Hussein from
power will not cause a dent on the root of the problems in the Middle
East. Those who argue that having a politically moderate regime in Iraq
will suddenly produce a different Palestinian position are wrong. The
possible loss of Iraqi financial aid to Palestinians killed in the
Intifada is unlikely to make Palestinians change their long-held demands
for a free democratic and independent state in areas occupied since June
1967.
Those who think France and others
should join in beating the drums of war because the US is asking for it
are wrong. The voice of conscience of the world, as represented presently
by these countries, and not American unilateralism, should be heard. If
simply to be consistent, those who are unhappy with permanent members
using the veto power should apply the same stick to the US when it uses it
to sanction Israel's acts of occupation and settlement in Palestinian
territories.
Friday-Saturday, March
14-15, 2003 |