Rogue nation
What is the behaviour of the US and Britain, the so-called advocates of freedom, peace and democracy across the world?
Since July 12, the Bush administration and the British Prime Minister have been saying that Israel had the right to defend itself. But the right of self-defence must be in accordance with the UN Charter and the position taken by the two major powers is totally misconceived, in terms of the UN Charter.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. It is surprising that two veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council are playing a role that is against the UN Charter and the International Humanitarian Law of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
It was only after 31 days, on August 11, that the UN Security Council, chaired by Ghana, unanimously adopted a cease-fire resolution. Israel was allowed to bomb places in Lebanon after the resolution was adopted.
The Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, was right when he expressed his deep disappointment that the Security Council did not call for a cease-fire much earlier.
Why the Israeli aggression is illegal?
The concept of self-defence, in the event of military aggression, has been incorporated in Article 51 of the Charter and runs as follows:
"Nothing in this Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual, or collective, defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
The Article further adds: "Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council."
It is a fact that Lebanon, or Hezbollah, did not attack with arms on July 12 so Israel cannot invoke Article 51 of the Charter, the right of self-defence. There are several ways to resolve such disputes between Israel and Lebanon.
Even assuming that Article 51 is applicable, Israel has to report to the Security Council drawing attention to the situation. Has Israel done it? It did not. Instead it ridiculed the role of the UN Security Council.
Israel's naked aggression is illegal because the UN Charter prohibits war among member-states unless a member-state is attacked militarily. The fact is that on July 12 two Israelis were abducted by Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon. The Hezbollah argue that they were found in the disputed Israeli-Lebanon border. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, it kept Shebaa farms, claimed by Lebanon.
The abduction is part of a border dispute that is not uncommon among neighbouring states. It does not, and should not, lead to an armed attack. An armed attack is not permissible and is contrary to the UN Charter.
UN Charter
Chapter VI of the UN Charter (Articles 33 to 38) deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 33 of the UN Charter enjoins a member state to go through the process of peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 35 states that "any member of the UN may bring any dispute or any situation" that may lead to international friction, or give rise to disputes, to the Security Council for investigation. Article 36 empowers the Council to recommend appropriate procedures, or methods, for settlement of disputes.
Israel did not care to go through the above process of the UN Charter, because it is fully aware that its chief ally, the US, itself, was in serious breach of this peaceful procedure when it attacked Iraq in March 2003. If the "captain" of the team grossly violates the UN Charter, what will its followers do? They follow the "captain."
It is ironic that in 1945 America led in the establishment of the UN, and through it the system of international relations, aiming to prevent military aggression. The system operated until March 2003.
In February of that year, the Bush administration invented the doctrine of pre-emptive war and was not prepared to accept the constraints of the multilateral system (the UN) of treaties and institutions. The Bush doctrine is a danger to the maintenance of international peace and security as it can be invoked at any time, on a flimsy excuse, by a superior military power against a weak state.
Another aspect of the Israeli aggression is that it has grossly violated the 1949 Geneva Conventions on armed conflicts. The Conventions lay down a civilized way of conducting warfare, if it arises. Their purpose is to eliminate the brutal consequences of war.
One of the cardinal principles of the Geneva Conventions is not to use disproportionate force, and to ensure the safety of civilians caught in the armed conflict. Israel has egregiously violated both these principles of the Geneva Conventions.
Meanwhile, on August 11, Islamic states, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia tabled a draft resolution in the UN Human Rights Council calling for a "high commission" of inquiry into "systematic" Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon.
One may strongly argue that Israeli leaders could be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for their crimes against humanity. It is no wonder that both, the US and Israel, did not become parties to the Statute of Rome of 1998 that had set up the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Why did Israel do it?
It is reported that such incidents of abduction of Israeli citizens had occurred before. For example, an Israeli businessman, and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, were held by Hezbollah for more than three years in Lebanon, and in January 2004, both Lebanon and Israel agreed to swap prisoners in Germany to resolve the dispute.
Political observers believe that the powers behind Israel want to "test the waters" of the Middle East in re-shaping the balance of power there, with reference to the emerging power of Iran and the growing influence of Russia in the region. That is the main reason for the war.
The armed attack on Lebanon was a calculated move with the idea that Israel would walk over Hezbollah. Israel's attack on Hezbollah was intended to show Iran what was in store for them, if they tried to influence events in the Middle East.
The Israeli and American intelligence agencies again miserably failed to assess the popularity, and military power, of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Their purpose seems to have back fired as dissent against the hasty war mounts in Israel.
What does Israeli aggression mean?
It means the rejection of multilateral norms, and rule of law, laid down by the UN Charter. It means that Israel does not want to be limited by the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions, in conducting its brutal warfare.
Furthermore it raises another question: Do other countries have the right to attack another on such grounds as Israel did? Have international relations reverted to the laws of the jungle, and to the pre-UN order?
Much of the security of militarily weak countries in the past century, or more, has been derived from a firm belief that if any state is attacked, the UN Security Council, through its collective security system, will protect the state from aggression as if it was the UN's own war against the aggressor. That belief has been seriously undermined.
The diminishing authority of the UN, and non-compliance with international law, pose great risks to international peace and security. It is damaging for peaceful international order. It is damaging to the UN's viability.
The fragility of post-war Iraq confirms that it is easier to wage war without UN blessing than it is to win peace. Victory in war is pointless without its resulting in securing peace.
The UN member states have the obligation to address the real challenge of how to institute, and operate, a workable collective security within the UN system. We should not expect the UN system to collapse as the League of Nations did in the 30s.
We live in an inter-connected world. The new era is "global" rather than "international". The global era recognizes that there are other actors on the world stage and that nation-states no longer have a monopoly over power.
The multilateral system is easiest to define in economic affairs (World Bank, IMF and WTO) and in other social global issues such as environmental protection, prevention of AIDS, bird-flu and drug trafficking through the activities of ECOSOC of the UN. We have to ensure that the multilateral system works in the political sphere. The sooner the big powers realize this fact, the better it will be for the people of the world.