WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

February 24, 2003

It May Not Be About Israel, But Israel Is A Pretty Darn Good Example Of What Is Wrong In The World

Even before France's recent Security Council mischief, there was talk of replacing them with India on the ailing world body. One point I haven't heard mentioned in this dialogue is the near-impossible legislative procedure that is required to ammend the UN Charter.

As I understand it, essentially France would have to voluntarily relinquish their seat, which I can't see them doing.

Note the UN Charter refers to such outdated and defunct concepts as enemy states defined as "any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter" (art. 53.2) - being the most obvious. It also continues to refer to a "trusteeship" to aid in decolonization.

The truly sad part of what is no doubt a well-intentioned document is that it clearly creates a "set of teeth" so to speak, comprising military contributions from all member states to respond to situations where measures taken by the Security Council "have proved to be inadequate". (arts. 42-3). This has never been the case.

Sadly, history shows that one of the first failures to implement this mechanism was the gross violation of UN General Assembly resolution 181 -the 1947 "Partition Plan", whereupon the Arab States rejected the will of the international community (it is not racist when its true, and I wish this wasn't the case), while the nascent Jewish State accepted it. The Security Council has NEVER effectively "seized" itself of the matter, even over fifty years later.

While we're at it the whole "enforcement equivalency" argument regarding UN resolutions against Iraq and Israel are nothing but a lie or an embarassingly basic unfamiliarity with the laws of the UN.

Iraq resolutions have been taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter "Action with Respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of Aggression", of which art. 42 is a part.

Anti-Israel resolutions are most often passed (and the most ridiculous and agregious among them) by the General Assembly which are not binding (and for good reason - as in the words of the late Abba Eban the GA would pass a resolution saying "Israel is bad and the Earth is flat").

The anti-Israel resolutions which are passed by the Security Council (after a well-justified and frighteningly necessary "vetoing-down" by the US), are always under Chapter 6 of the same UN Charter, titled "Pacific Settlement of Disputes". Where the Security council may, at best, "recommend apropriate procedures or methods or adjustment" in any stage of a dispute (art. 36). Not to mention that if the Security Council was in any way legitimate in the Mid-East peace process, maybe they would think about being "seized" of the corrupt and terrorist Palestinian regime or the over 50 years of collusion in a humanitarian disaster (War Crime/Crime Against Humanity in leftist, finger-pointing speak) by the Arab states in failing to resettle the refugees stemming from Arab agression against Israel.

Of course putting India on the Security Council would for a thousand reasons (with her pro-Israel/anti-terror and generally healthy, democratic and progressive attitude) bring a more balanced world view -something that Europe wants nothing to do with. It would also go at least some ways in vindicating the extremely flawed and stagnant UN system, which may indeed be fatally wounded.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to "reboot" the whole system, demand a strict adherence to the original and very, ahem, "beautiful" purposes of the UN (with a few minor adjustments regarding accountability of Non-State Actors of course) and make it "work" this time around.