Questions
With No Answers
By Ali Abunimah
09 June 2004
The Electronic
Intifada
Does
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan think that Palestinians have a right
to defend themselves against the kinds of violent attacks and destruction
Israel is carrying out in Rafah refugee camp? This is a straightforward
question, but despite my best efforts, it is impossible to get a straightforward
answer.
Annan recently termed
Israel's massive lethal campaign of house destruction in Gaza "acts
of collective punishment" and "grave violations of international
law." Israeli tactics included bulldozing homes with their residents
inside or fleeing only moments before. It ought to follow that any person
or group of people subjected to an illegal, life-threatening attack
have an inherent right to self-defence using force if necessary. Every
legal system in the world recognizes this, including international law.
Annan has often
been very explicit in affirming this when it comes to Israel. Most recently,
in a communique following the May 4 meeting of the "Quartet,"
Annan stated, "While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to self-defence
in the face of terrorist attacks against its citizens, within the parameters
of international humanitarian law, we call on the Government of Israel
to exert maximum efforts to avoid civilian casualties."
This concept underlies
all of Annan's statements about Israeli actions: the Secretary-General
will often criticize Israel for using "excessive force," but
almost never questions Israel's inherent right to achieve its goals
through the use of violence. Since Israel always describes its actions
as "self-defence," this is effectively carte blanche. But
when it comes to Palestinians, I could not find a single statement from
Annan positively affirming their right to self-defence against Israeli
aggression. By contrast, Annan has made countless statements critcizing,
condemning and calling for a halt to Palestinian acts of violence, even
when they are directed at Israeli military targets within occupied territory.
I decided I wanted
clarity, so I called up Annan's office and got a call back from Associate
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric. I asked Mr. Dujarric why the Secretary
General never affirms the Palestinian right to self-defense. Dujarric
said he thought that Annan had publicly made such statements and promised
to find them for me. I reiterated my query to Dujarric by email, in
these terms:
"The Secretary-General
has affirmed on several occasions that Israel has a right to defend
itself with force, provided it observes international law when doing
so. Does the Secretary-General believe that Palestinians also have a
right to defend themselves using force, especially against the kinds
of grave breaches of international law being carried out by Israel in
Rafah as I write, and which the Secretary-General has specifically condemned?"
I also asked, "Other
than issuing statements, what concrete steps has the SG taken, or will
he take to end Israel's attack on Palestinian refugee camps in the occupied
Gaza Strip? When will he report to the Security Council as is his Charter
duty?"
It took almost two
weeks for Mr. Dujarric to email his response. He wasn't able to reference
any previous statements by Annan matching Israel's "right to self-defence"
with a similar Palestinian right. But Dujarric offered this formula:
"International law defines the parameters within which acts of
resistance and the responsibilities of the occupying power take place
and it's clear, from international law, that action from both sides
should spare civilians."
What this statement
indicates is that the UN Secretary-General is fully aware that Palestinians
have an inherent right to resist occupation using force, provided they
do not target civilians, but neither he nor his staff are willing to
state that in any direct way.
Dujarric was defensive
about my second question too, responding, "You accuse [Annan] of
doing nothing 'practical.' The Secretary-General's daily concern is
focused on finding a political solution to this conflict. In order for
that to happen there must be a cessation of violence, thus his repeated
calls for this to happen. More importantly, the Secretary-General is,
by definition, a diplomat. His practical activities are in the diplomatic
field. Although they may appear as 'just words,' they remain 'practical.'"
Dujarric added,
"The Secretary-General was the catalyst in the formation of the
Quartet which is recognized by both parties as being representative
of the international community's efforts in the peace process."
But this answer
only amplifies the perceived criticism in my question: the so-called
Quartet, made up of US, EU, UN and Russian representatives was inspired
by the United States and invented for the sole purpose of sidelining
the UN Security Council and General Assembly, while giving the "peace
process" a veneer of international legitimacy and participation.
Israel recognized the Quartet (though not without a lot of conditions)
because it knows that the body is a fig leaf for American control of
the process. The Palestinian Authority accepted the Quartet because
it is feeble and has no alternative.
The reality is that
the US has called all the shots and the Quartet has been a total failure.
Its continued existence serves no other purpose than to provide a cover
for its members' unwillingness to confront Israel and hold it accountable
for its flagrant violations of international law.
Despite launching
the Quartet's "road map" with much fanfare a year ago, the
US abandoned the plan and replaced it with Sharon's rapidly vanishing
scheme for Gaza withdrawal. Annan's recent efforts have focussed on
trying to square the road map with Sharon's plan, even though Sharon's
stated goal keeping most of the West Bank fundamentally
contradicts it. The road map was worth a try, but when a policy has
failed totally, and it is clear that a voluntary process will not work,
there is no use persisting in it, let alone trumpeting it as an achievement.
Rather than persisting
in failure and dressing it as a restless search for peace as Annan seems
determined to do, he would be much more useful if he used his position
to speak the truth. In pursuit of that, I wrote Mr. Dujarric that his
responses to me had deftly avoided a direct answer to my original question.
I have yet to hear back.
Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada. This article
first appeared in The Jordan Times on 8 June 2004.