The Law’s the Law—Despite Double Standards, Hypocrisy in Implementation
| WRMEA Archives 2006-2010 - 2010 January-February |
United Nations Report, Pages 16-17
The Law’s the Law—Despite Double Standards, Hypocrisy in Implementation
By Ian Williams
When Ban Ki-moon began his tenure as U.N. secretary-general he was seen by many—understandably, in the light of his behavior—as the best incumbent in the position Israel had ever had. It’s only logical that a foreign minister of South Korea would look at the world through a prism shaped by his neighbors. Ban’s country was surrounded on one side by Russia and China, who tended to back North Korea, and Japan and the U.S. on the other. For decades Moscow and Beijing supported the Arabs and Palestinians, while Seoul relied on Washington—which, to put it mildly, did not.
Ban’s predisposition, however, does not seem to have been the result of the instinctive Western social democratic attachment to Israel that, for example, Kofi Annan displayed early in his term, but was more a case of underexposure to the real thing. What Ban Ki-moon did display was an attachment to principle rather than the U.S. congressional attitude of “somebody else’s country right or wrong.” Even before his election as secretary-general he declared unequivocally his support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and for the concept of “Responsibility to Protect”—even though his major backer at the time, John Bolton, was not known for his attachment to either. Indeed, Bolton described his un-signing of the ICC court treaty as the happiest day of his life.
As he has confronted the reality of Israeli defiance of international law, which include United Nations decisions, Ban has become tougher and tougher in his statements—a stand no doubt reinforced when he actually visited Gaza, which is more than any of the 344 congressmen who signed H. Res. 867, condemning the Goldstone Report, have done. While there on Jan. 20, 2009—two days after Israel ended its assault—Ban saw the moonscape left by the IDF’s “self-defense” operations, not to mention the ruins of the U.N. premises.
The progress is remarkable. Over the last few months Ban Ki-moon has reiterated “his position that settlements are illegal, and calls on Israel to respect its commitments under the road map to cease all settlement activity, including natural growth.” He has condemned Israeli settlement building, declared East Jerusalem to be occupied territory and called for it to be the Palestinian capital. He has called for the removal of the separation wall, enjoined Israel to cease evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes and ensure the rights of children, and insisted that all allegations of torture and ill treatment should be promptly investigated and perpetrators prosecuted.
In his report to the General Assembly the secretary-general demanded that “the government of Israel should allow unimpeded access to Gaza for humanitarian aid and the non-humanitarian goods needed for the reconstruction of properties and infrastructure.”
Of course, in Congress this long recital of thoughtcrime, no matter how diplomatically expressed, would bring the wrath of AIPAC and its minions down on the perpetrator. It is not often that even, say, European Union leaders will shout this from the rooftops.
What makes this strange, of course, is that there should be any outrage about exposition of these points in the first place. Each one is a statement of U.N. decisions, international law—and, in most cases, the official positions of almost every government in the European Union, the United Nations and indeed of the U.S. But by some miracle, these governments hold policies clutched to their bosom which they seem reluctant to expose.
For example, when Sweden, as rotating president of the EU, drew up a policy report that had East Jerusalem as Palestinian, Israel had the chutzpah to demand an apology, since Sweden did not mention Israel’s claims. It’s almost as if Bernie Madoff sued the newspapers for libel for not mentioning that he really felt entitled to all the money he stole.
There are only two appropriate responses to such peremptory demands: either burst out laughing, or invite Israel to break off relations with the EU and leave the United Nations. But, as Congress demonstrates, while in reality there is only one standard of international law, there certainly are double standards in their application.
The Goldstone Report exemplifies the gold standard: the law applies to all. Judge Richard Goldstone had conducted inquiries into apartheid-era violence in South Africa, prosecuted war criminals in the Balkans and Rwanda, chaired a report on NATO intervention in Kosovo, and examined Nazis in Argentina. A self-professed friend of Israel, he accepted the U.N. Human Rights Council’s invitation to look into Gaza—as long his mandate included both sides in the conflict.
Despite his personal feelings, he produced an eminently balanced report asking for Israel and Hamas to investigate possible war crimes. As a result he has been vituperated by the mainstream media, and by people like U.S. congressmen who have not read the report but rely on their information based on what they are told by one of the parties—guess which one.
When, despite the best efforts of Israel and the U.S., the report came to the U.N. General Assembly in November, the usual sorry charade took place, with the U.S. again tying itself in knots to explain why it would vote against a resolution to endorse a report calling on Israel to investigate the allegations—when Washington had called for exactly that. Voting with the U.S. were the usual atoll subjects and some European states motivated in equal parts by guilt for World War II complicity in anti-Semitic outrages and a desire to pander to the U.S. (Countries voting no were Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States.)
Abstaining were 44, mainly EU, states, for similar reasons—although, in Russia’s case, the butchers of Chechnya are not eager to establish precedents for international scrutiny of war crimes. The resolution passed regardless, and the Goldstone Report will be referred to the Security Council. But if vetoed there, it also calls for a reconvening of the state parties to the Geneva Convention, and a report back to the General Assembly within three months on progress, opening the way to a special “Uniting for Peace” session of the Assembly. The resolution also calls upon states to use “universal jurisdiction” to bring those accused to account.
One reason for taking the report to the Security Council would be so that, if a miracle happened in Washington and the U.S. did not veto, it could refer the question to the ICC, to which neither the U.S. nor Israel has signed up.
Even in the likely event that the resolution is vetoed, however, or that the U.S. and others simply stifle the discussion, all is not lost—for Palestine has signed the ICC convention. It remains to be determined whether the Court considers Palestine a state entitled to such a signature—but it could be helped by the General Assembly making a ruling. The Holy See, for example, is not a member of the U.N. but nevertheless signs treaties and conventions, as did other states before they were admitted to U.N. membership. In that case, the alleged crimes took place on the territory of Palestine, and the ICC prosecutors could get to work.
Please note that this spiders’ web of litigation and potential prosecution was woven by a friend of Israel, outraged at the seeming breaches of international law and morality that he saw.
Contrast that with Congress, where many of the very people demanding that Goldstone be stopped were at the fore in demanding that Sudan be referred to the ICC. Many of them applaud the EU’s refusal to improve relations with Serbia until Belgrade hands over war criminals like Ratko Mladic—for whom the original indictments were drawn up by none other than Richard Goldstone. One wonders how long it will be before Karadzic, on trial in The Hague, subpoenas sundry congressmen and AIPAC flacks to prove his point: “you say Goldstone is covering for Islamic terrorists in Gaza—and that’s just what we said he was doing in Bosnia.”
The universality they display is that of the universal joint, capable of bending in any direction. These Western states then wonder why the non-aligned and other countries yawn or laugh when the U.S., Britain, France and the rest sermonize about how the universality of human rights trumps mere considerations of (other people’s) sovereignty.
Hypocrisy to Spare
Of course, there is hypocrisy to spare. Arab indignation at the separation wall and the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not really have to preclude equally justifiable indignation over the sand berm and the Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara. Indignation at human rights abuses in Gaza is not incompatible with indignation at Sudan’s complicity in mass murder in Darfur.
Myanmar, Zimbabwe and sundry kleptocracies and tyrannies around the world draw diplomatic comfort from Western double standards over Israel. Iran’s biggest weapon in the face of neighborly apprehension about its nuclear plans is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, unremarked upon, let alone condemned, by the EU and the U.S.
It is understandable that many Third World nations shelter the not-so-good and the outright evil in the face of such hypocrisy. But it is not justifiable. One crime does not excuse another.
It is at such times that one appreciates the Ban Ki-moons and Richard Goldstones, who can overcome their backgrounds and prejudices, and seek to apply the universal principles of human rights and international law.
For most of us, it is a good thing that Sudanese and Israeli politicians, Burmese and Zimbabwean officials all must check with their lawyers as well as their travel agents before they travel. Henry Kissinger travels carefully out of fear of the Pinochet example—and at current rates, as the Chilcot inquiry in London looks under the stone to see what Tony Blair was up to before the Iraq war, the former British prime minister might want to take some tips as well. And that is good.
Ian Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations and has a blog at <www.deadlinepundit.blogspot.com>.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|