A
Road To Peace In Lebanon?
By Jeremy Brecher
& Brendan Smith
27 July 2006
Brussels
Tribunal
Israel,
the U.S., and the yet-again submissive Britain are now totally isolated
in their collusive attack on Lebanon. As the emergency meeting on Lebanon
in Rome collapsed Wednesday, a U.S. official described Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice as being "under siege" for her position
that a ceasefire must include a permanent disarming of Hezbollah militants.[1]
As Israel rains U.S. bombs
on civilians, ambulances, and even the United Nations monitoring force,
the world’s states and world public opinion appear impotent to
affect this situation. The obvious venue for action – the UN Security
Council – is stymied by the U.S. veto.
There is a possible way forward.
Under a procedure called "Uniting for Peace," the UN General
Assembly can demand an immediate unconditional ceasefire and withdrawal.
When Egypt nationalized the
Suez Canal in 1956, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt and began
advancing on the Suez Canal. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded
that the invasion stop. Resolutions in the UN Security Council called
for a cease-fire--but Britain and France vetoed them. Then the United
States appealed to the General Assembly and proposed a resolution calling
for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. The General Assembly held
an emergency session and passed the resolution. Britain and France withdrew
from Egypt within a week.
The appeal to the General
Assembly was made under a procedure called "Uniting for Peace."
This procedure was adopted by the Security Council so that the UN can
act even if the Security Council is stalemated by vetoes. Resolution
377 provides that, if there is a "threat to peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression" and the permanent members of the Security
Council do not agree on action, the General Assembly can meet immediately
and recommend collective measures to U.N. members to "maintain
or restore international peace and security." The "Uniting
for Peace" mechanism has been used ten times, most frequently on
the initiative of the United States.
There was a significant global
effort to use the Uniting for Peace procedure to head off the U.S. invasion
of Iraq. Lawyers at the Center
for Constitutional Rights drafted a proposed "Uniting
for Peace" declaring military action without a Security Council
resolution authorizing such action is contrary to the UN Charter and
international law. In April, 2003, the Non-Aligned Movement and the
Arab League announced they would take the impending attack to the General
Assembly. Then-Assembly President Jan Kavan said he was expecting a
request for such a meeting momentarily.
Support for a General Assembly
emergency session on Iraq based on Uniting for Peace became the focus
of a multi-level global campaign. A few examples: The Russian Duma passed
a resolution calling for General Assembly intervention in Iraq. So did
the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of Thailand.
A Greenpeace web petition
at www.greenpeace.org calling
for a General Assembly session has received 60,000 signatures worldwide
within a few days.[2]
Many of the huge demonstrations around the world against the Iraq war
called for the General Assembly to meet under “Uniting for Peace.”
A demonstration in Santiago, Chile urged Chile’s President to
back a call for the United Nations General Assembly to hold a special
session to “adopt moral sanctions against Bush.”[3]
A group of Italian Catholic associations (Azione Cattoica, Acli, Agesci,
Pax Christi, Mcl, Forum Terzo Settore), allied in the organization “Sentinelle
del mattino,” petitioned the Italian government demanding that
“the UN General Assembly be called to block, based on resolution
337 [Uniting for Peace], any action which does not comply with the UN
Charter so as to bring peace.” They appealed for “a ceasefire
which will put an end to the useless massacre in Iraq.”[4]
International women’s organizations, including MADRE, Women of
Color Resource Center, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, and
the International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic joined other
women’s organizations worldwide to call for an emergency General
Assembly meeting. “The resolve of many UN member states to stand
firm against the US, reinforced by the call to enact Uniting for Peace,
offer hope for a revitalized international system.”[5]
The effort was scuttled by
the U.S., which began “aggressively lobbying governments around
the world” to “help head off an emergency assembly session
on Iraq.”[6]
Greenpeace released the text of a communication from the United States
to UN representatives around the world leaked by an “incensed”
UN delegate. It stated, “Given the highly charged atmosphere,
the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as
unhelpful and as directed against the United States. Please know that
this question as well as your position on it is important to the US.”
It warned/threatened that “the staging of such a divisive session
could do additional harm to the UN.”[7]
Virtually all the governments
of the world publicly support an end to the Israeli attacks on Lebanon
– a.k.a. an immediate ceasefire. The demand that they immediately
initiate a Uniting for Peace resolution in the U.N. General Assembly
could serve as a very concrete way for their citizens to pressure them
to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
Any country can start the
ball rolling simply by asking the president of the General Assembly
to convene an emergency session. The question is, will anyone have learned
the lesson that appeasing aggression will only lead to more aggression.
A near-unanimous General
Assembly vote would have a major effect on the U.S. public, policymakers,
and elites, all of whom are seriously worried about the consequences
of America’s global isolation. And it would reposition the U.S.
peace movement as a spokesperson for what the whole rest of the world
believes.
Legal scholar Brendan
Smith and historian Jeremy Brecher are the editors, with Jill
Cutler, of "In
the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond"
(Metropolitan/Holt, 2005) (www.americanempireproject.com).
Brendan Smith is a member of the BRussells
Tribunal Advisory Committee .
[1] Mideast talks 'fail to
reach agreement' CNN, 7/26/06
[2] www.greepeace.org/news
[3] Mario Osava, “Brazil
Leads Weekend of Anti-War Protests,” Inter Press Service, March
30, 2003.
[4] “Catholics, Berelusconi
Must Stop War,” AGI, March 29, 2003.
[5] Press release from MADRE,
March 28, 2003.
[6] Arieff.
[7] “Us to UN: Butt
out,” www.greenpeace.org/news
April 1, 2003.