The debate about whether or not the United Nations (UN) is biased against Israel is on. It began when Ben Moscovitch of the FPA Israel blog wrote that the UN is biased against Israel. I wrote a post arguing the opposite. And Ben wrote a second post, in which he focused on two things: the Goldstone Report and the structure of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Let’s look at both.
The Goldstone Report
Though the Goldstone Report discusses Hamas’ human rights violations, Ben wrote, “it did so in a very one-sided manner,” which he described in his first post as giving:
…only a passing reference to the terrorist activities orchestrated by Hamas and the Palestinians themselves, not to mention the oppressive freedom-stripping regimes imposed on the Palestinians by their own elected leaders, such as the Hamas government and even the Palestinian Authority.
But the Goldstone Report gives more than “passing reference” to these subjects. The report spends 25 pages (p. 449-474) on attacks on civilians committed by armed groups in Gaza and sharply condemns Hamas for not doing enough to stop them:
The Mission found no evidence of any system of public monitoring or accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law set by the Gaza authorities. The Mission is concerned with the consistent disregard of international humanitarian law with which armed groups in the Gaza Strip conduct their armed activities, through rocket and mortar fire, directed against Israel. Despite some media reports, the Mission remains unconvinced that any genuine and effective initiatives have been taken by the authorities to address the serious issues of violation of IHL in the conduct of armed activities by militant groups in the Gaza Strip.
Also, Chapter III, which describes the events that occurred between the June 2008 ceasefire and Operation Cast Lead, outlines in detail each attack on Israel that originated from Gaza. Chapter XIX is devoted almost entirely to investigating and criticizing Hamas for targeting Fatah affiliates, once again reaching a sharply critical conclusion:
From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission finds that the actions by members of the security services described above constitute serious violations of human rights and are nots consistent with either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Palestinian Basic Law. In particular, regarding the Universal Declaration – which has become part of international customary law – they are in violation of article 3 in relation to everyone’s right to life, liberty and security of the person; article 5 in relation to the freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; article 9 stating that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention; articles 10 and 11 regarding the right to fair and impartial legal proceedings; and article 19 regarding the freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference.
Chapter XVIII is devoted entirely to examining the capture and detention of Gilad Shalit, and, as I noted in my previous post, the report recommends that Shalit’s captors release him and until they do so, recognize him as a Prisoner Of War and grant him ICRC visits. Chapter XXIII is devoted entirely to investigating the Palestinian Authorities for targeting Hamas supporters and restricting freedom of assembly and expression in the West Bank, and at the conclusion of this 12 page examination, criticizes the Palestinian Authority’s entire structure of governance:
It is a serious concern to the Mission that the normal system of checks and balances between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches in the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority appears to be flawed. There seems to be little evidence of a functioning accountability system to counter instances of torture and other forms of abuse of power. It is also of serious that, in the absence of governmental oversight, civil society organizations are receiving threats and being harassed and seeing their operations impeded by administrative obstacles.
Perhaps Ben would concede that were an alien to read the Goldstone Report, that alien would be unlikely to describe the report’s fairly substantial investigations and criticisms of human rights violations committed by Hamas, other armed groups in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, in some cases encompassing entire chapters, as constituting nothing more than a “passing reference.”
The Security Council
On the UNSC, Ben doesn’t seem to argue that the organ is biased toward Israel. Rather, he criticizes it because, since the UNSC’s five permanent members (P5) have veto power, the human rights abuses of P5 members and their allies are shielded from accountability. Ben actually finds himself aligned with a strange bedfellow, Ahmadinejad, who reiterated, in his recent UN address, his long-standing plea for UN reform, citing the same concern:
The cause of the United Nation’s ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege… In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security Council has always been a party to the disputes… how could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?
As a solution, Ben would like, it seems, to restructure the UN so that countries with superior human rights records hold a disproportionate share of power. It’s a purely academic debate, though. Since the UN Charter cannot be amended without P5 approval, such a shift will never happen. However, as a rough gauge of what this might look like, using the UN’s Human Development index as a guide, this could mean replacing the current P5 with Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, and Ireland, who occupy the top five slots in the UN’s ranking.
But, of course, this isn’t what Ben has in mind. Instead, he approaches the subject with the assumption that the United States is “the world’s leader in fighting for freedom” and thus should wield more power than its fellow UN members. But the United States has actually historically opposed efforts to hold countries accountable for human rights violations. For example, the United States fought for and succeeded, at least initially, in ensuring that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would have no legal binding force. As Eleanor Roosevelt stated in the debate leading to the Declaration’s adoption:
The new article proposed by the Soviet delegation is but a restatement of State obligation, which the Soviet delegation attempted to introduce into practically every article in the Declaration. It would convert the Declaration into a document stating obligations on states, thereby changing completely its character as a statement of principles to serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations…
In giving our approval to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.
The United States also has many allies that are serious human rights violators. In his first post, Ben criticized the UN for not being more forceful in investigating and condemning Saudi Arabia for human rights violations. In fact, Saudi Arabia was investigated in 2009 as part of the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review. As a result, the UNHRC advocated that Saudi Arabia undertake significant legal reform, including bringing about gender equality, ending torture, and enacting legislation to protect religious minorities. The United States, rather than push for further investigation and condemnation, as Ben would like, rewarded the country with a $60 billion arms deal. Additionally, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey is rife with U.S. allies identified as “Not Free,” including Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain.
Though Ben paints a portrait in which the United States stands for freedom and Russia and China, as fellow P5 members, stand for the opposite, this contrast is false. While I agree with Ben, and Ahmadinejad, that P5 veto power is a problem, I disagree with Ben’s proposed solution. I also don’t agree that the structure of the UNSC results in a UN that, as a whole, has an anti-Israel bias. As I noted in my first post, since the United States frequently uses its veto power to kill anti-Israel UNSC resolutions, and since the UNSC is the most powerful body in the UN, the organization as a whole is actually biased in favor of Israel.
