Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2004, pages 30-31

United Nations Report

Against Backdrop of Killings in Gaza and Darfur, U.S. and France Focus on Lebanon

By Ian Williams

Faced with the continuing crisis in Darfur, where U.N. officials are reporting thousands of deaths a month, and Ariel Sharon’s murderous rampage through the refugee camps of Gaza, in October the French and the Americans promptly decided to deal with—Lebanon.

Mandated by Resolution 1559, which had scraped by with a mere nine votes for, and six abstentions, Secretary-General Kofi Annan reported that there were indeed still Syrian troops in Lebanon, and that the Lebanese parliament had indeed changed its constitution to allow President Emile Lahoud an extra half-term. The Security Council resolution had called upon all foreign troops to get out of Lebanon, without naming who they were, and opposed any changes in the constitution, without naming what they were.

Following Annan’s report, France and the U.S. had presented a draft resolution which threatened to keep tabs on the situation and suggested that the still un-named occupiers move out. After several days of bickering and haggling, they achieved a consensual presidential statement asking Annan to report back every six months.

This was outstanding because, even if only directly, it mentioned the Syrians, by “taking note” of a communication from Damascus:

“The Council notes with concern that the requirements set out in Resolution 1559 (2004) have not been met, as reported by the secretary-general. The Council urges relevant parties to implement fully all provisions of this resolution, and welcomes the secretary-general’s readiness to assist the parties in this regard.

“The Security Council appreciates the secretary-general’s intention to keep the Council updated. It requests that he continue to report on the implementation of the resolution to the Council every six months.”

Presidential statements are not decisions, and have little or no status in international law. By keeping the item on the agenda, however, it leaves space open for a new administration in Washington to start pushing again. Indeed the U.S. already is gearing up for action with calls from Congress for asset freezes on the holdings of both Syrian and Lebanese officials under the so-called “Syria Accountability Act.” Given the events of the last few years, however, any Arab official who has money in the U.S. probably deserves to lose it for stupidity.

Where were the resolutions from Washington when it was the Israelis occupying half of Lebanon?

The noises from Washington add to the perplexity about what France is up to. Cynics may also wonder if the Republican National Committee has had any recent large donations from Lebanese Americans, of the type that Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri is alleged to have made to Chirac in the past. Hariri’s resignation in October did lend some credence to current rumors that it was his discrete request to President Jacques Chirac that had moved the French to push the issue.

Even Syria’s best friends admit that its customarily maladroit diplomacy once again had let it down. “There are lots of Maronites around, why couldn’t they just get one off the street!” asked one cynical Arab ambassador, wondering at Damascus’ attachment to Lahoud.

The draft resolution did not suggest any alternatives. While many Lebanese resent the Syrians and would like them to leave, they may actually wish for some post-departure international guarantees for Lebanese security. Ordering the Lebanese government not to bend its own constitution, for example, implies that the international community does not recognize the current government in Beirut as representative of the nation. Who is, then? Where were the resolutions from Washington when it was the Israelis occupying half of Lebanon? On whose behalf are France and the U.S. asking the international community to act?

UNRWA

There was little surprise that the Israelis grudgingly withdrew their accusations that an UNRWA ambulance crew in Gaza had carried Qassim missiles. There was even less surprise that the Israeli authorities so far have not responded to UNRWA’s demands for an apology. The much heralded inquiry team that Kofi Annan sent to investigate the Israeli allegations came back at the end of October and—surprise—found that, as UNRWA director Peter Hansen said at the timeand the IDF subsequently admitted, the Israeli video showed a furled stretcher rather than a rocket being put into the back of the ambulance.

Hansen pointed out that the grainy pictures from an unmanned flying drone show someone carrying something long and thin in one hand, with no visible strain, and then throwing the object single-handed into the back of an UNRWA ambulance before driving it off. Hansen robustly pointed out that a Qassem missile would be far too heavy to carry in such a way, and that when dealing with missiles, even the foolhardy do not throw them casually into the back of a vehicle.

Indeed, an UNRWA ambulance man had said that he had actually carried a furled stretcher in just such a way and put it in the back of his ambulance, which, as Hansen pointed out, was indeed much more consonant with the video images.

“Given the technical means and military expertise at the disposal of the Israel Defense Forces to enlarge and analyze the pictures taken by the IDF drone, it is inconceivable that the IDF could have made this egregiously erroneous allegation in good faith,” Hansen charged, as he demanded a retraction and an apology.

That did not stop Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dan Gillerman from calling for Hansen’s dismissal. Hansen’s contract is up for renewal in the next few months. By then, the Israelis had another red herring to run with, which almost allowed them to forget their charges about the ambulance. In an interview with Canadian Broadcasting, Hansen admitted that some of his local staff may be supporters of Hamas, but as long as they followed U.N. rules there was not much he could do about it.

Of course, this raised howls of outrage from the usual suspects, all the more so for being true. Job application forms outside North Korea and Washington do not usually carry questions about applicants’ political allegiances.

In fact, rather than Gillerman going to Annan to present his demands, the secretary-general called him in. He had already said that he saw no reason to disbelieve Hansen’s assessment of the video—and it now seems that, tacitly at least, even Gillerman accepted it as well.

Instead, Annan raised the question of the increasing number of restrictions the Israelis have been putting on the movements of UNRWA staff at their various checkpoints. Interestingly, by the time Gillerman addressed the Security Council later, he never mentioned the ambulance incident at all—but of course did lay into Hansen’s statement about UNRWA employees, which had been made in response to Israeli allegations about the ambulance!

One wonders how many Palestinians without U.N. protection have been rocketed by the Israeli forces on the basis of similar misapprehensions by their remote control TV spies. This question, of course, did not occur to the U.S. delegation, which predictably vetoed a resolution calling on Sharon to obey previous resolutions.

The false Israeli claims and Gillerman’s intemperate calls for Hansen’s dismissal may, ironically, actually ensure the reappointment of the UNRWA director. It would be very difficult for Annan not to renew the contract of someone in whom he has just expressed the greatest confidence.

In any case, the incident will doubtless weaken Israeli defenses against the growing pressure for international action to stop violations of humanitarian law in the territories. Two current reports are threatening just what an Israeli Foreign Ministry report cautioned was likely—eventual South Africa-style sanctions against the Jewish State.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, wrote toEU Commission President Romano Prodi asking for the EU’s Association Agreement with Israel to be suspended until the food situation in the territories was improved. And, lest the message get lost in the handover, he will write to Prodi’s successor, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, when he assumes office in November. Ziegler accuses Israeli authorities of hampering the distribution of food in the territories and causing major malnutrition problems there, with 22 percent of the children suffering.

The pro-Israeli group “U.N. Watch” already has been pre-emptively attacking Ziegler for bias against Israel and the U.S., and for being “far left.”

He is not alone, however. South African jurist and former anti-apartheid campaigner John Dugard’s report on the territories is equally devastating and equally trenchant in its conclusions. He accuses Israel of “severe human rights violations” in the territories, such as “wanton destruction” of houses and infrastructure, writing, “Bulldozers have destroyed homes in a purposeless manner and have savagely dug up roads, including electricity, sewage and water lines.” He accuses Israel of destroying almost 1,500 homes affecting 15,000 Palestinians.

Dugard sees Israel’s wall on the West Bank as a grab for land and water there—and the proposed pullout from Gaza as part of the same process.

Such reports, added to the ICJ ruling on the illegality of the wall, mean pressure is slowly building up on Israel.

Sudan

With the unhappy precedent of a U.S. veto against resolutions against Sharon’s behavior in Gaza, it was perhaps sadly inevitable that there would be equal resistance to any action on Sudan. Washington would have to explain why Israeli forces killing Gazans is fine, but the Sudanese government killing Darfuris is not.

Although Louise Arbour, the new U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave an eloquent, detailed and devastating report of the situation that left no doubt that Khartoum’s insouciance to the continuing atrocities in Darfur amounted to complicity, there was still resistance to any serious international pressure.

Faced with deadlock, the Security Council happily passed a resolution at the end of October that they would meet with local parties in Nairobi, Kenya Nov. 18 and 19.

Behind the scenes, however, there is continuing pressure, and Kofi Annan is making sure that there are no Balkan-style cover-ups from the international organizations.

“The tragedy in Darfur is one of the greatest challenges the international community faces today,” he said.“ The whole world is watching this tragedy unfold, and it is watching us. No one can be allowed to sidestep or ignore their responsibility to protect the innocent civilians.

“Our urgent task is to do everything we can to help protect the people of Darfur from further humanitarian suffering, terrible violence, and human rights abuses, and to bring their agony to an end.”

Despite the paper shuffling, behind-the-scenes action has provided logistics and cash for an African Union Force, which diplomatic pressure has forced the Sudanese to accept. The Darfuris are still dying, but it is a sad commentary on the state of the world that the U.N.’s actions are almost a lightning-speed reflex compared with their tardiness over Bosnia or Rwanda.

Ian Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations. His latest book is Deserter: George Bush’s War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past.