U.S. and Israel Seek to Forestall General Assembly Condemnation

By Ian Williams

As readers open this issue of the Washington Report, the United Nations General Assembly will be opening its 48th session in New York. Many of the resolutions will be the old and predictable ones, but if the Clinton administration has its way, there will be fewer resolutions concerning Israel. The American and Israeli missions to the U.N. have drawn up a joint list of issues upon which they hope to defer discussion or block General Assembly resolutions in this session. On the list are Israeli nuclear weapons, the intifada, the Golan Heights, relations between Israel and South Africa, and Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories.

It is likely that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's declared intention of making a quarter of a million Lebanese and Palestinians quit their homes during the recent attack on south Lebanon also will be placed on the U.S.-Israeli list for nondiscussion in the General Assembly. But, then, it was not discussed in the Security Council either.

The only resolution passed that was remotely relevant to Lebanon was to renew the mandate for the UNIFIL peacekeeping forces. Lebanon asked for a Security Council meeting to discuss the Israeli attack, but then backed off under pressure from the U.S. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright told the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in July, the U.S. would "continue to stand by Israel."

So, instead of condemning a clear breach of international law, the Security Council simply issued a presidential statement, attached to the UNIFIL renewal, which asserted that "any state shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Partially redeeming the U.N.'s reputation, secretary-general Boutros Ghali himself named the perpetrator when he condemned the "incessant Israeli attacks despite previous appeals for restraint" and insisted that the "policy of forcing people to abandon their homes must be stopped forthwith."

The Washington Report spoke to Lebanese Ambassador to the U.N. Dr. Khalil Makkawi about the tragic events and found him at least as forthright as the secretary-general. Ambassador Makkawi explained that he had suspended his call for a Security Council meeting on instructions from Beirut, "because we knew from past experience that it is one thing to ask for a council meeting, and another thing to come out with a resolution or a statement from it. So we thought from the good offices of certain major powers we could get a result."

However, he still thinks that the Israeli attack on his small country was indeed a U.N. responsibility. Comparing the assault with the 1982 invasion, he said, "It is unbelievable, the audacity of the Israeli prime minister telling our people to leave, threatening otherwise that they might be killed. In effect, he executed a scorched-earth policy. "

He also put the lack of an Arab League resolution in context. "You know the Americans always, when you bring any issue concerning Israel to the Security Council, object on the pretext that this will hinder or obstruct the peace process—which is not true," he complained. "They have done it many times, but it has increased Israel's appetite for more aggression. On the contrary, if the Security Council were to pronounce itself in the strongest manner against the behavior of Israel it might make Israel think twice before embarking on such steps."

Turning from American evasions to Israeli invasions, the Lebanese envoy was scathing. "It has been proven futile, counterproductive and does not help the peace process. They pretend that they were waging this war on Hezbollah, when the facts prove that this was war on Lebanon and the civilian population. This will strengthen Hezbollah by putting the whole people on its side against Israel."

Makkawi also pointed out that "Hezbollah was not attacking Israel proper. Just like the Europeans during the Nazi occupation, Lebanese have the right to resist occupation. The Israeli soldiers who were killed when this started were killed on Lebanese national soil. What are they doing here? They are occupiers! So what should they expect?

"It was only after the Israelis began the onslaught that the Hezbollah began the Katyusha raids on Israel itself. The Israelis have created this security zone, they claim, to secure their northern borders. For the last 15 years, it has not secured those borders at all, and it is the source of more violence and attacks against them. The only thing for Israel to do is get out of Lebanon and allow the Lebanese army to go in with UNIFIL to take over the area."

The Lebanese envoy now is coordinating the U.N. end of the massive relief and rehabilitation process to restore the 70 villages ruined by the Israeli onslaught and rehouse the quarter of a million expellees. He took time out, however, to remind the Washington Report that "There is, of course, already a Security Council Resolution which covers the situation—UNSC 425 calls upon Israel to leave Lebanon."

It's just one of many allegedly "mandatory" U.N. Security Council resolutions Israel continues to ignore. Resolution 799, passed nine months ago, called for the "immediate return" of the 400 Palestinian expellees from Lebanon, but most of them are still there. In August, Middle East Watch issued a statement pointing out that their situation was unlikely to be improved by the Israeli attack on Lebanon. It is good to know someone still remembers them six months after Warren Christopher declared their predicament settled.

Meanwhile, Back in Bosnia. . .

In Sarajevo, the Bosnians doubtlessshare with the Arabs a feeling that Security Council resolutions have been somewhat devalued. Last October, the Security Council passed Resolution 781 banning all military flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Serbs flew on. In November, Resolution 786 reaffirmed the ban. By March, the Security Council restored its wounded dignity by passing 816, which provided for NATO planes to shoot down offending aircraft.

Serbian warlord Ratko Mladic took this so seriously that he used a helicopter to fly to meetings with U.N. staff, while in August helicopters transported his troops for a successful assault, in violation of a U.N.-brokered cease-fire, on Bosnia positions overlooking Sarajevo. To make sure the assault was successful, Serb helicopter gunships apparently first softened up the defenders with wire-guided missiles fired into Bosnian trenches from above. Even before that air-borne attack by the Serbs at the end of July, the secretary-general reported to the Security Council that there had been 732 violations of the no-fly zone over Bosnia, and that the U.N./NATO air forces had not shot at or in any way interfered with a single one.

British newspapers reported than an RAF pilot was refused permission to intercept one such intruding aircraft when he asked. This, of course, was on a par with U.N.-declared safe havens where the U.N. role was to count the shells landing on the "protected" people, but under no circumstances fire back.

After the months of Bosnian agony, it may take a massive outbreak of amnesia for the world ever again to give credibility to the United Nations as an effective arbiter of world affairs. But perhaps this is unfair. The much-maligned General Assembly, which includes all member nations and where resolutions cannot be vetoed (but also are not binding on U.N. members), has consistently supported the Palestinians and the Bosnians. In fact, the Assembly passed a resolution calling for the ending of the arms embargo on Bosnia at the end of last year.

Up until now, and the U.S.-Israeli "no discussion" list, it was only in the Security Council that condemnation resolutions, and sanctions for non-compliance, were thwarted. There action has been stymied by a combination of European intransigence and American indolence in the case of Bosnia, and U.S. intransigence and European indolence in the case of Israeli assaults on their Arab neighbors.

Ian Williams is a British journalist based at the United Nations.