Aidan Hehir Published November 10, 2024
THE CONVERSATION
Tanzanian Ambassador to the UN Salim A Salim announces that South Africa has been suspended from the UN General Assembly on November 12, 1974
| United Nations
"Where is the UN?” is a question that has often been asked since the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. As the death toll rises and the conflict spreads, the UN appears woefully unable to fulfil its mandate to save humanity “from the scourge of war” — as it was set up to do.
While the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned Israel — and been banned from the country for his pains — his pleas have been ignored. Attempts by the UN to sanction Israel have also failed. UN sanctions require the UN Security Council’s consent. The US has used its power as a permanent member to veto draft resolutions seeking to do so.
There have also been calls to suspend Israel from the UN. On October 30, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, called on the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel’s membership because, as he said: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, is reported to have told a news conference the same day that the UN should “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ends violating international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”
Given the US’s veto power in the Security Council, it may be politically very difficult, but it is legally possible. And there’s a precedent
But suspending a member is more complicated and politically fraught than many appreciate.
Israel and the UN
For decades, Israel’s relationship with the UN has been fractious. This is primarily because of the UN’s stance on what it refers to as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in what it defines as “occupied territories” in Palestine. In the past 12 months of the latest conflict in Gaza, this relationship has deteriorated further.
Many have argued that Israel has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and treaties, including the genocide convention during its campaign in Gaza. Some UN officials have accused Israel — and certain Palestinian groups — of committing war crimes. Israel has also come into direct conflict with UN agencies — some 230 UN personnel have been killed during the offensive, and many governments and UN officials have alleged that Israel deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
But the enmity between Israel and the UN came to a head on October 28, when the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, banned the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating inside Israel, sparking a wave of condemnation.
The UN’s powers
Given this open hostility towards the UN, it is not surprising that some are now calling for Israel’s membership to be suspended.
But can the UN legally suspend a member? The answer is yes. Under articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter, a member state may be suspended or expelled if it is found to have “persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter.”
But articles 5 and 6 both state that suspension and expulsion require the consent of the General Assembly as well as “the recommendation of the Security Council.” As such, suspending Israel requires the consent of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, UK, China, Russia and France.
And, given the US’s past record and current president Joe Biden’s affirmation of his “ironclad support” for Israel, this is effectively inconceivable. But while it is, therefore, highly unlikely that articles 5 or 6 will be invoked against Israel, there remains a potentially feasible option.
The South Africa precedent
At the start of each annual General Assembly session, the credentials committee reviews submissions from each member state before they are formally admitted. Usually, this is a formality, but on September 27, 1974, the credentials of South Africa — which was then operating an apartheid system — were rejected.
Three days later, the General Assembly passed resolution 3207, which called on the Security Council to “review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter.”
A draft resolution calling for South Africa’s expulsion was eventually put to the security council at the end of October, but it was vetoed by the US, the UK and France.
However, on November 12, the president of the General Assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ruled that given the credentials committee’s decision and the passing of resolution 3207, “the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.” South Africa remained suspended from the General Assembly until June 1994, following the ending of apartheid.
It is important to note that South Africa was not formally suspended from the UN, only the General Assembly. Nonetheless, it was a hugely significant move.
A viable solution?
Could the same measure be applied against Israel and would it be effective? The South Africa case shows it is legally possible. It would also undoubtedly send a powerful message, simultaneously increasing Israel’s international isolation and restoring some much-needed faith in the UN.
The 79th session of the UN General Assembly began in September, so it’s too late for the credentials committee to reject Israel. But this could conceivably happen prior to the 80th session next year, if there was sufficient political will. But this is a big “if”.
Though a majority of states in the General Assembly are highly critical of Israel, many do not want the credentials committee to become more politically selective, because they fear this could be used against them in the future. Likewise, few want to incur the wrath of the US by suspending its ally.
As ever, what is legally possible and what is politically likely are two very different things.
The writer is Reader in International Relations at the University of Westminster in UK
Republished from The Conversation
Published in Dawn, EOS, November 10th, 2024
"Where is the UN?” is a question that has often been asked since the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. As the death toll rises and the conflict spreads, the UN appears woefully unable to fulfil its mandate to save humanity “from the scourge of war” — as it was set up to do.
While the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned Israel — and been banned from the country for his pains — his pleas have been ignored. Attempts by the UN to sanction Israel have also failed. UN sanctions require the UN Security Council’s consent. The US has used its power as a permanent member to veto draft resolutions seeking to do so.
There have also been calls to suspend Israel from the UN. On October 30, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, called on the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel’s membership because, as he said: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, is reported to have told a news conference the same day that the UN should “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ends violating international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”
Given the US’s veto power in the Security Council, it may be politically very difficult, but it is legally possible. And there’s a precedent
But suspending a member is more complicated and politically fraught than many appreciate.
Israel and the UN
For decades, Israel’s relationship with the UN has been fractious. This is primarily because of the UN’s stance on what it refers to as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in what it defines as “occupied territories” in Palestine. In the past 12 months of the latest conflict in Gaza, this relationship has deteriorated further.
Many have argued that Israel has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and treaties, including the genocide convention during its campaign in Gaza. Some UN officials have accused Israel — and certain Palestinian groups — of committing war crimes. Israel has also come into direct conflict with UN agencies — some 230 UN personnel have been killed during the offensive, and many governments and UN officials have alleged that Israel deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
But the enmity between Israel and the UN came to a head on October 28, when the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, banned the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating inside Israel, sparking a wave of condemnation.
The UN’s powers
Given this open hostility towards the UN, it is not surprising that some are now calling for Israel’s membership to be suspended.
But can the UN legally suspend a member? The answer is yes. Under articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter, a member state may be suspended or expelled if it is found to have “persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter.”
But articles 5 and 6 both state that suspension and expulsion require the consent of the General Assembly as well as “the recommendation of the Security Council.” As such, suspending Israel requires the consent of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, UK, China, Russia and France.
And, given the US’s past record and current president Joe Biden’s affirmation of his “ironclad support” for Israel, this is effectively inconceivable. But while it is, therefore, highly unlikely that articles 5 or 6 will be invoked against Israel, there remains a potentially feasible option.
The South Africa precedent
At the start of each annual General Assembly session, the credentials committee reviews submissions from each member state before they are formally admitted. Usually, this is a formality, but on September 27, 1974, the credentials of South Africa — which was then operating an apartheid system — were rejected.
Three days later, the General Assembly passed resolution 3207, which called on the Security Council to “review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter.”
A draft resolution calling for South Africa’s expulsion was eventually put to the security council at the end of October, but it was vetoed by the US, the UK and France.
However, on November 12, the president of the General Assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ruled that given the credentials committee’s decision and the passing of resolution 3207, “the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.” South Africa remained suspended from the General Assembly until June 1994, following the ending of apartheid.
It is important to note that South Africa was not formally suspended from the UN, only the General Assembly. Nonetheless, it was a hugely significant move.
A viable solution?
Could the same measure be applied against Israel and would it be effective? The South Africa case shows it is legally possible. It would also undoubtedly send a powerful message, simultaneously increasing Israel’s international isolation and restoring some much-needed faith in the UN.
The 79th session of the UN General Assembly began in September, so it’s too late for the credentials committee to reject Israel. But this could conceivably happen prior to the 80th session next year, if there was sufficient political will. But this is a big “if”.
Though a majority of states in the General Assembly are highly critical of Israel, many do not want the credentials committee to become more politically selective, because they fear this could be used against them in the future. Likewise, few want to incur the wrath of the US by suspending its ally.
As ever, what is legally possible and what is politically likely are two very different things.
The writer is Reader in International Relations at the University of Westminster in UK
Republished from The Conversation
Published in Dawn, EOS, November 10th, 2024
A summit to nowhere
November 13, 2024
DAWN
AFTER silently watching Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza for the past one year, the leaders of the Arab and Muslim countries have once more met in Riyadh to discuss the escalating conflict.
The so-called international alliance conceived by Saudi Arabia, with its aim of pressing for the establishment of a Palestinian state, failed to formulate a concrete plan of action to stop the Israeli invasion that has been extended to Lebanon.
Interestingly, the resolution issued at the conclusion of the joint summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Arab League is restricted to the usual condemnation of Israeli aggression. It doesn’t even plainly describe the ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 people, mostly women and children, as a genocide.
There is no suggestion to sever the diplomatic and trade ties with Israel that some of these countries continue to have, despite the war crimes being committed by the Zionist forces. With the complete blockade of the Gaza Strip, more than a million people face death by starvation and disease. Mere condemnation cannot stop Israel’s genocidal war. It is nothing short of a betrayal of the hapless people of Palestine.
In fact, the inaction of the Muslim world has given impunity to the Zionist state, which is now threatening to annihilate the entire occupied territory. The latest summit was held a year after a similar gathering in Riyadh. Then, too, the leaders had merely condemned the Israeli military action in Gaza. They could not agree on even a minimum plan of action to stop Israeli atrocities.
The OIC-Arab League resolution does not go beyond the usual condemnation of Israel.
They did not even leverage their oil and economic capabilities to apply pressure on countries supplying arms to Israel to stop the war. One year of war crimes doesn’t seem to have brought any change in their position, which can be described as capitulation. The resolution is as toothless as the previous one.
The most shocking part of the resolution is the decision “to affirm support and express appreciation for the tireless efforts made by the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Qatar in cooperation with the United States of America to achieve an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip… “. It couldn’t get more outrageous given that the ongoing genocide in Gaza is essentially supported by the US. It is massive American military aid that has helped Israel sustain its war.
Notwithstanding the occasional rebuke by US officials, there has never been any real American pressure on Israel to implement a ceasefire. In fact, the Biden administration has repeatedly vetoed resolutions in the UN calling for one. Some of the Arab rulers are believed to have tacitly supported what Israel has described as its war against Hamas. Moreover, America has its bases in Arab countries, and concerns have been raised that they could have supplied Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians. These countries have not prohibited the use of these bases.
Significantly, the latest summit took place soon after Donald Trump’s victory, which has been hailed by some member countries, prompting observers to conclude that it was meant to send a message to the incoming US administration. It seems that the ‘international alliance’ is now pinning its hopes on the incoming Trump administration to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire and accept the creation of a Palestinian state.
For instance, while addressing a Council of Foreign Ministers preparatory meeting a day before the summit, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar expressed the hope that the incoming US administration would “lend its weight to reinvigorate efforts for peace in the Middle East”. His remarks show his utter ignorance about Trump’s hard-line approach to the Middle East conflict.
Such expectations from the president-elect, who is considered even more pro-Israel than the outgoing Biden administration, are unrealistic. During his election campaign, Trump had called on Israel to finish the offensive and “get the job done”. He has stated that he would “defend our friend and ally in the State of Israel like nobody has ever”.
How can one forget that in his previous term he shifted the American embassy to occupied Jerusalem? The move defied Washington’s earlier position of not recognising one of the most sacred of Islam’s holy places as Israel’s capital. In his previous term, Trump had also endorsed Israeli settlements in occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law. Under the so-called Abraham Accords, he oversaw the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.
Although Saudi Arabia did not enter into such an agreement, it did indicate its willingness to recognise Israel in return for security and economic benefits, though insisting there would be no diplomatic ties without a Palestinian state. Some analysts believe that the Riyadh summit has sent a clear signal to the incoming Trump administration that it can rely on the kingdom as a strong partner in extending American interests in the region. The summit has pushed for greater American leverage in bringing the war to an end.
But it is very clear that the incoming Trump administration will not push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as envisaged by the ‘international alliance’. There has been no mention of the two-state solution in his recent statements on the Middle East conflict.
Since winning the election, Trump has spoken to the Israeli prime minister more than once. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the right-wing Israeli government harden its position after Trump’s election.
In a recent statement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, saying it was “unrealistic”. Surely the inaction of the Arab and Muslim countries has made things worse for the Palestinians. The joint resolution indicates that these countries do not have any intention of using their leverage to put pressure on Israel and its allies to end the war.
The writer is an author and journalist.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
X: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment