Rescinding U.N. Resolutions on Israel Won't Solve Mideast Problems

By Ian Williams

Happy the land without United Nations resolutions about it. Or at least one might assume so from the statistics. The Balkans have now been the subject of more than 50 Security Council resolutions in two years, in addition to some 40 presidential statements. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon reminded the General Assembly this September that between 1968 and 1993 more than 80 U.N. resolutions and statements about his country were adopted. Naturally, Palestine has been the subject of more resolutions than any other country.

However, some national leaders want resolutions. In a provocative (because it was honest) speech, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki complained that "Not once in 41 years did Eritrea, scene of the longest war in Africa, and victim of some of the grossest violations of human rights, figure in the agenda of the United Nations." He reminded delegates that it was in 1950 that the U.N. decided to hand over his countrymen to Ethiopia, and then abandoned them to their fate for decades.

A similar thing happened to the Palestinians in 1947, and of course now history repeats itself with monotonous regularity as the Bosnians are sold down the River Drina. But the United Nations can serve as the memory and conscience of the world community, which is why President Afwerki is so indignant at its silence.

So while the headline writers announced peace in our time in the Middle East it fell to Prime Minister Hariri to speak for some of the people who saw no reason to celebrate too loudly. "The responsibility for the return of the Palestinians to their homeland, and finding a satisfactory solution to their status," Hariri said, "remains within the competence of the international community. If, indeed, we would like to see an end once and for all to chapters of pain and anguish in the Middle East, then the status of the Palestinians should be resolved in a way that ensures a decent living for them commensurate with their legitimate aspirations, rights and dignity."

Although the confessional balance of population in Lebanon may have motivated that speech, it nonetheless remains true. This is why the joint Israeli-U.S. effort to rescind or rewrite the 32 General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East is unlikely to produce the effects the U.S. and Israel want.

One of the resolutions they consider "outdated" concerns Israeli nuclear weapons. Unless someone noticed Yitzhak Rabin handing over some 200 nuclear warheads on the White House lawn, it is difficult to see why the Assembly would reconsider. Israel's sensitivity about these resolutions means that it would be foolish of those who negotiate against them to practice unilateral diplomatic disarmament by rescinding resolutions stating generally accepted principles of international law. Ignoring International Law in Bosnia

Looking at what is happening in Bosnia gives an awesome example to those who think that it is enough to have international law or U.N. resolutions on one's side. Many people have foreseen the Bosnians joining the Palestinians in their bitterness. And they would be justified, since, if possible, the international community has been more actively complicit in the bitter fate of the Bosnians with its enforcement of the arms embargo.

It would be satisfying to assume that, although the peace settlement being forced on the Bosnians flies in the face of every known principle of international law, those guilty of genocide, rape and similar war crimes will be brought to justice. Well, just like those who massacred the Palestinian men. women and children of Deir Yassin, the perpetrators of Balkan crimes are more likely to get the amnesty of victory.

The Security Council set up the War Crimes Commission last October to gather evidence on the Balkans. Then in May it established the International War Crimes Tribunal.

This August the Security Council agreed to a short list of 23 judges to submit to the General Assembly. In the middle of September, 11 of them were elected by the General Assembly after an exhaustive two day balloting process. Not a single Muslim was elected among the eleven. Four predominantly Muslim countries, Nigeria, Malaysia, Pakistan and Egypt, were represented by a Christian, a Hindu, a Parsee and a Copt.

Nonetheless, although it was clear that no Muslims need apply, some of the judges have a track record on human rights that suggests that, if the Tribunal ever met, it might seek that justice be done.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the judges' services will be called upon, since the Europeans on the Security Council had already fought a furious and successful battle to thwart the appointment of the American and Non-Aligned candidate for prosecutor, Cherif Bassiouni. An Egyptian born American professor at Chicago's De Paul University, he had been the Special Reporter of the War Crimes Commission. In private, European diplomats made it plain that their objection was that the expertise he had gained in that position would enable him to start work much sooner than any other contender. That would embarrass the peace talks in Geneva, where European governments are urging the Bosnians to accept terms dictated by the prime suspects in any investigation.

The War Crimes Commission to which Secretary Boutros-Ghali appointed Bassiouni was starved of resources and personnel precisely so that it would not embarrass anyone's diplomatic agenda. The U.S. delegation supported Bassiouni, but with the same milk-and-water support that was seen on the issue of lifting the arms embargo. In the end, the president of the Security Council simply communicated to Bassiouni that the nomination was objected to by several permanent members, so there was no point in having a vote.

In a year or so, there may be a court, judges and a prosecutor. But who is going to bring the criminals to justice? Will anyone commit ground troops to go after the guilty victors? Or will the U.S. and Europe be racing to sign most-favored-nation trading treaties with them?

The U.N. is breeding cynicism as well as resolutions. The eagerness of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to sign loan deals with the World Bank puzzles many in view of the disastrous record of the Bank's lending policies in the Third World. One semi-humorous suggestion is that the West will look after its debtors, so Palestine needs their guarantee to ensure its survival.

Was that Bosnia's mistake? Not to borrow enough money in time?