August 25, 2006

The Illusion of International Law

The West constantly preaches to the Muslim World about adhering to the rule of law. But, on the international stage, does the West really practice what it preaches?
The 61st Session of the UN General Assembly will be held in New York from September 12, 2006. Sixty-one years ago, the bigwigs of the world gathered in San Francisco to form an organization which would supposedly foster global peace and work toward the resolution of conflicts through cooperation and dialogue. As noted historian Paul Kennedy observes in his new book, “The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations”, to the victors of World War II, who formed the core of the UN, it represented “a new world order.”
Fanciful optimists in the wake of the Axis debacle in World War II heralded what they proclaimed to be a new era of international law. The reality was somewhat different.
In November 1947, the UN General Assembly, through Resolution 181, called for the partition of Palestine, without reference to the wishes of the indigenous Arab majority. This Resolution provided pro-Israeli supporters with the veneer of juridical legitimacy to justify the subsequent formation of the state of Israel in May 1948. This Resolution is a key source and cause of the Middle East conflict. The endless mayhem in the Middle East is substantially derivative from it.
In 1950, the United States fought in Korea with UN blessings and under the umbrella of the blue-helmeted UN force comprised of several nations. The UN was enthusiastically paraded as a pillar of world strength and stability.
And then came de-colonization, bringing in its wake fresh realities, evinced by the pre-dominance of Third World nations in the UN General Assembly. The re-activation of the Palestinian question during the early 1970s enabled the newly emergent nations to flex their muscles. The rise of Third World activism was matched by the belittling of the UN in Western circles. The world now witnessed the spectacle of the regular flouting of international law.
Israel held on to the West Bank and Gaza, in brazen violation of accepted legal norms and applicable UN resolutions. The US invaded Grenada in the Caribbean in 1983, and conducted a covert war against the Nicaraguan government, which the International Court of Justice ruled in June 1986 was illegal. South Africa continued to cling to Namibia, while concurrently making its apartheid system even more repressive. The former USSR, for its part, was not far behind. Czechoslovakia fell victim to the Brezhnev Doctrine in 1968, to be followed by Afghanistan in 1979. India committed similar transgressions, including but not limited to, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir, Goa, Sikkim, and not to forget, of course, the “liberation” of our Bengali brethren.
Because of the ethical tergiversation, it is no wonder that one man’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. Seen through that prism, the issue of self-determination has been viewed either as a problem of terrorism or as a humanitarian imperative. First, policies are formed, and then, to serve the pragmatic interests of power, the law then follows as a backup, to furnish the necessary rationale. International lawyers are sought out to act as guns for hire to help enforce and justify the foreign policies of the big powers, under the rubric of international law. The dynamic between politics and international law further highlights the age-old tension between law and justice – two concepts not necessarily symmetrical with each another.
For example, slavery was upheld as legal by the United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case in 1857. President Franklin Roosevelt, who through his New Deal introduced social change of enormous import in the United States, did not introduce or allow civil rights legislation during his 12-year tenure. He also refused to outlaw the lynching of blacks in the US South. Similarly, the system of apartheid -- a crime against humanity – was for many years the legal system of South Africa and those defying it were viewed as terrorists, and subjected to torture and custodial deaths at the hands of Pretoria.
History will establish Israel’s current invasion of Lebanon and its deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure as a war crime. It also will recall the shameful specter of a US President more concerned about placating Israel than in protecting his own citizenry caught in the crossfire in Lebanon. Israeli actions were in clear violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against a Member State, and also violative of international humanitarian law codified under the Geneva Conventions. If Hitler was seeking a “Final Solution” regarding European Jewry, with little UK and US opposition then, Israel today is also seeking a final solution of its Hamas and Hezbollah “problem”, with approval of the Bush and Blair Administrations. Bombing them into submission seems to be the prevailing policy – a policy which has failed. It may yet succeed in the merger of the US and Israel – in Muslim minds at least – as one single entity.
The glaring delay in the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 on the ceasefire, which came into effect on August 14, 2006, was unconscionable and shall remain a dark stain on the international community. This slowness to act gave a virtual green light to Israel for the destruction of Lebanon and the wiping out of entire villages and towns, displacing many thousands and killing hundreds of civilians, many of them women and children. Its blowback consequences shall unfold during the coming years. In military parlance, Kofi Annan was reduced to the role of an orderly of the West.
The flouting of the rule of international law bodes ill for US influence, the future of the UN, and for world peace.