Unanimous UN Security Council vote for "cessation of hostilities"

A cartoon in a U.S. news magazine many moons ago showed a Palestinian family huddled together in a refugee camp, as U.S.-supplied Israeli fighter jets kept bombarding the makeshift shelters in an orgy of destruction.

As she looks at the skies raining death and devastation, the hapless Palestinian mother tells her children: "I am sure the U.N. has just adopted a resolution against Israel."

Perhaps the comment was a politically realistic view of Israel's longstanding contempt both for the United Nations and its litany of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, ever since the creation of the Jewish state in 1948.

Israel has succeeded in defying the United Nations primarily because of the umbrella of protection provided by successive U.S. administrations cowed down by the powerful pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. But will it do it again?

On Friday, the 15-member Security Council unanimously adopted another resolution -- this time calling for a "cessation of hostilities" between Israel and Hezbollah in a brutal four-week-old war in which the Israelis failed to gain victory, perhaps for the first time in history.

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco who has closely monitored violations of Security Council resolutions over several decades, is pessimistic about the enforcement power of the United Nations: an institution where Washington rules supreme because of its abuse of veto powers.

Zunes pointed out that Israel is currently in violation of a number of Security Council resolutions, such as: 446, 452, 465 and 471, which call on Israel to withdraw from its settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem; 497, calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of the Golan Heights; 252, 267, 298, 476 and 478, calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem; 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency; among others.

"Furthermore, given that Israel's Arab neighbours have offered full security guarantees in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, one could make a case that Israel is also violating 242 and 338, long held up as the basis for Arab-Israeli peace," Zunes told IPS.

On the contrary, the U.S. and Israeli governments last month insisted on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 adopted last year -- and which is apparently favourable to Israel -- mandating the disarming and disbanding of Hezbollah.

But Zunes says that "it is noteworthy that 1559 also calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon, which would mean that Israel -- like Hezbollah -- is also in violation of 1559."

One Arab diplomat told IPS that the focus of the international community should not be on just a single resolution: "You cannot be selective on which resolution should be implemented and which shouldn't."

Asked about cherry-picking U.N. resolutions, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters last month: "All U.N. resolutions must be implemented. I'm not promoting selective implementation of U.N. resolutions. They are all important, and as secretary-general of the United Nations, I seek to promote implementation of all U.N. resolutions."

Friday's Security Council resolution, after weeks of dilly-dallying, calls for "a full cessation of hostilities, based upon in particular, the immediate cessatiom by Hizbollah of all attacks, and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." The resolution, co-sponsored by the United States and France, underwent several changes last week before it was put to a vote.

The Security Council also decided to enhance the existing 1,990-strong U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) into a larger 15,000-strong force to act as a buffer between the warring parties and assist the Lebanese military in monitoring the cessation of hostilities.

The Lebanese government is expected to deploy 15,000 of its own troops to monitor the south, in close liaison with U.N. forces, bringing the total to 30,000 troops.

Ambassador Jean-March de La Sabliere of France told reporters Friday's resolution does not invoke Chapter VII of the U.N. charter which calls for the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. "We have a lot of diplomatic work to do. We have to be confident," he said.

Asked about the lukewarm responses from the battlefield, he said: "We very much hope they will cooperate." He said the resolution may not satisfy both warring parties but it was the best under difficult circumstances.

The French envoy also said the new U.N. force is expected to be deployed fast primarily because the resolution calls for the "enhancing" of the existing UNIFIL, not the creation of a new U.N. force, which traditionally takes months to deploy.

Addressing the Security Council Friday, Annan said: "I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the Council did not reach this point much, much earlier."

"And I am convinced that my disappointment and sense of frustration are shared by hundreds of millions of people around the world," he added.

For weeks now, he said, "I and many others have been calling repeatedly for an immediate cessation of hostilities, for the sake of the civilian population on both sides who have suffered such terrible, unnecessary pain and loss."

All members of this Council must be aware that its inability to act sooner has badly shaken the world's faith in its authority and integrity, Annan said taking passing shot at the five permanent members of the Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, who were painfully slow to respond.

Samir Sanbar, a national of Lebanon and a former U.N. assistant secretary-general, told IPS that a resolution perceived by the Lebanese consensus to be unfair will make matters worse and cause more bloodshed on all sides -- with innocent civilians as the main victims, as always.

"A general feeling among Lebanese is that all parties are fighting their proxy wars on Lebanese territory," he said.

A key element, he pointed out, is to stress the sovereignty of Lebanon and the welfare of its people, particularly in reconstruction support; stop others from destroying Lebanon; and give the Lebanese people the chance to rebuild their country.

Zunes said that the current draft resolution is unlikely to succeed as it is seen as so one-sided.

For example, while requiring Hezbollah for an "immediate cessation of all attacks," it only requires "immediate cessation" by Israel of "all offensive military operations."

But the resolution does not define what "offensive military operations" are -- giving Israel the right to make its own interpretation, according to one Arab diplomat.

Given that Israel, backed by the United States and Britain, has justified its attacks on Lebanon as acts of "self-defence," this appears to give Israel license to continue fighting, said Zunes.

Asked whether Israel should be called upon to compensate to the damage done to Lebanon -- both in terms of human lives and infrastructure -- Zunes said: "Unfortunately, with the exception of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91, I'm not aware of any other case where the United Nations has demanded compensation for the destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure and, with the threat of a U.S. veto, they are unlikely to do so this time either."

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34327