by Sheryl Katz Elias EMUNAH MAGAZINE March 29, 2004

An organization “on life support”…

“Without the United Nations our country would walk alone, ruled by fear
instead of confidence and hope.” Such were the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, a
charter member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1947 to 1951
and a drafter of the Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt was also a staunch
supporter of Israel, threatening President Harry Truman in 1948 that if he did
not recognize and aid the new state, she would resign from the UN. Truman
complied and Roosevelt stayed on at the UN.

Israel could use Eleanor Roosevelt now. So could the UN. It has exactly not
been a source of confidence and hope of late. What would Roosevelt have thought
of the Zionism-as-racism resolution, Durban, Kurt Waldheim serving a
decade-long term as UN Secretary General, Libya chairing the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights, the UN’s failure to stop the slaughter in Bosnia in 1999,
the posters that hang in the UN girls’ school in Jenin in 2003 praising suicide
bombers, or the graffiti on the walls of the UN compound down the street from
this very same UN girls’ school, which reads, “When they kill a martyr, we
will kill 100 Jews”?

Actually, it is less important what Roosevelt would think of these recent
crises in UN history and blemishes on the UN’s record, then what the
newly-established “United Nations High Panel on Challenges, Threats and Change” thinks and
proposes, and what ultimately the UN General Assembly chooses to do with such
proposals. The Panel was speedily created in response to criticism of the UN
following the US-led, non-UN-approved attack upon Iraq, a crisis of a
different magnitude than all the previous political conflagrations the UN has had to
put out in order to save face.

The recent invasion of Iraq represented a double whammy for the UN. Not only
did the action of the US-led coalition create a possible future precedent for
non-UN approved actions in “pre-emptive war” situations, but it underscored
the ability of a tyrannical dictator to flout 17 UN resolutions. To say the
least, the UN appeared impotent. Two days after the US-led coalition invaded Iraq,
Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the
Pentagon, openly predicted that Saddam Hussein “will go quickly, but not
alone: In a parting irony he will take the United Nations down with him.”

Six months after the invasion of Iraq, when the 58th Session of the United
Nations General Assembly opened in September 2003, The New York Times published
an editorial calling for the United Nations to implement reforms necessary for
it to join the 21st Century. While stating the case that “global policing can
acquire legitimacy only through multinational endorsement,” The New York
Times added that “the General Assembly and the Security Council have little to
show that this is the place to find that sort of legitimacy in the 21st Century.”
An organization “on life support,” was the characterization of the UN offered
by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Organizations to the political left were no more complimentary of recent
developments at the United Nations, specifically the failure of the UN Human
Rights Commission to act against flagrant human rights violations in China, Cuba
and the Sudan. The organization’s Human Rights Watch characterized the United
Nations Human Rights Commission as “An ‘abusers club’ of governments hostile to
human rights (that) has further consolidated its position and blocked several
important country initiatives.” One problem, of course, is that the very same
countries that are committing these blatant human rights abuses have seats on
the Commission. As conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg recently wrote of
the United Nations, “…you can’t have a global organization dedicated to the
spread of human rights and democracy with nearly half the members representing
barbaric, corrupt regimes.”

The countdown to reform has begun, and none other than the UN Secretary
General has gone out stumping to boost morale for the UN and support for the High
Panel. Kofi Annan, a man who seems to believe that his position at the United
Nations entitles him to speak for “the whole world”, conceded in an interview
with the BBC that “… everybody agrees that the membership structure of the
(Security) Council is a bit anachronistic–it reflects the geo-political
realities of 1945, and here we are in 2003 stuck with this structure.” Annan has been
quoted as saying that the UN is at “the greatest crossroads since 1945.”

Reflecting on 2003 and its events in an interview last December with Fox
News, Annan asserted that the divisions in the UN arising from Iraq were beginning
to heal, but admitted candidly “its taken a toll.” Looking back, Annan said
that “….from a professional and personal view, it was painful, it was
tiring–exhausting. And the world was a pretty depressing place.” Of course, in
addition to the politics of Iraq, the UN also had to deal with the very real loss
of life when its headquarters in Iraq was bombed, or as Annan put it “the (UN)
blue flag was so viciously attacked.”

So now the world waits to see if the High Panel can undo some of the damage
inflicted this past year, bring the UN up to date, restore its credibility, and
save the organization from an internal takeover by the very rogue nations it
is supposed to, by mandate of its charter, keep in line. If these types of
real reform can be accomplished, no nation is better placed to benefit from them
than Israel.

In a string of ugly years at the UN, 2003 will go down as one of the uglier
ones in terms of UN-Israel relations. The non-aligned nations, many of which
are Muslim or consistently vote with the Arab bloc, so blatantly used Israel as
a punching bag that they actually caused further damage to the UN’s
credibility.

Last December, a draft resolution on anti-Semitism– which would have been
the first in the UN’s 58-year-history– was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Mus
lim opposition. Based upon the withdrawal of this resolution and a similar
plight faced by an Israeli draft resolution intended to protect Israeli
children, Prof. Anne Bayefsky in an opinion piece she had published in The Wall Street
Journal accused the United Nations of “encouraging the proliferation” of
anti-Semitism. Wrote Bayefsky, “The UN is an organization founded on the ashes of
the Jewish people…The inability of the organization to address seriously one
of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global
proportions.”

Israel withdrew its draft resolution to protect Israeli children only after
various Arab delegates inserted enough hostile amendments to pervert its focus
and intent. The gouging of Israel’s draft resolution by Egyptian and other
Arab delegates spotlighted the UN at its nadir. Resolutions come and go at the
United Nations, but Israel’s resolution to protect its children was going to be
the first it sponsored in 30 years. There was advance publicity and, against
all odds, even a little optimism. It was quickly dashed. In fact, Israel was
spurred to submit its resolution only after a mirror version relating to
Palestinian children passed the General Assembly. As Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman
stated, Israel would have preferred that no one group of children be singled
out, but once the Palestinian resolution passed, it was necessary for Israel
to respond, because “Israeli children certainly deserve no less.” In offering
the draft resolution, Gillerman challenged the Assembly “to avoid the selective
treatment of Israel that so often plagues the United Nations.” Predictably,
the Assembly failed, revealing, once again, through its actions its true
nature. Gillerman, nonetheless, thanked those same delegates because, as he put it,
their actions “demonstrated more eloquently than any statement I could give,
the shameless double standard that animates their conduct at the UN.”

It would be one thing if UN attacks upon Israel were limited to verbal
assaults within the General Assembly. But they are not. Israel’s most vexing social
and political problems are linked to the issue of the millions of Palestinians
living within its borders, for whom the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency (UNRWA) provides on- the- ground services. Either through intentional policy
or because it has merely lost control of the situation, UNRWA has permitted
terrorists to take control of the facilities it operates.

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) has established a campaign to reform UNRWA
and the refugee camps it operates. WJC Secretary General Avi Becker has accused
the UN and its Secretary General of applying a cynical double standard,
declaring that refugee camps in Africa not be used for military purposes, but
ignoring such usage in the Middle East. UNRWA’s performance has also caught the
attentions of Congressman Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House
International Relations Committee, who in a letter to the UN Secretary General requested
a formal probe into UNRWA. Noted Lantos, “It is difficult to escape the
painful conclusion that UNRWA directly or indirectly is complicit in terrorism.”

And then there is the Security Fence. First, the General Assembly adopted a
resolution demanding that Israel halt construction of it, and when that was not
heeded, it voted to send the matter to the International Court of Justice at
the Hague. Of course, had the General Assembly called for the halt to
terrorism against Israel and had such a resolution been observed, there would not be a
need for a fence.

Given its stake in any reform outcome, Israel is no doubt as eager as any
other nation to see what the High Panel comes up with. Although the High Panel is
not scheduled to release its report until late next year, a number of
proposals for reform have been offered by observers to and participants in the UN
process in the interim. At a minimum, the U.S. State Department has proposed that
countries which flagrantly violate the United Nations charter or that are
under UN sanctions “should not be elected to limited membership bodies such as
the UN Security Council or the UN Commission on Human Rights.” This would avoid
embarrassing situations such as Syria chairing the UN Security Council, or
having Libya or the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission.

Others have proposed the concept of a League of Democracies open only to
those who are governed by democratic principles. If the United Nations merely
enforced its charter, which restricts membership to “peace-loving nations” which
accept the obligations and are willing to carry them out, instant reform would
be accomplished US Representative to the Human Rights Commission Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick has gone on record as stating that if the Human Rights Commission
“wants to be taken seriously” it will have to establish clear standards for
membership, hinting that the United States may withdraw it membership on the
Commission if the trend to preferring dictatorships to democracies persists. On the
other hand, China–to no-one’s surprise– has gone on record as favoring less
confrontational rebukes of nations accused of human rights abuses.

The Security Council is a favorite reform target, particularly in light of
the developments related to the invasion of Iraq. Japan and Germany would like
permanent seats on it, and Kofi Annan would like to increase Africa and South
America’s role on it. Even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has offered
his advice, suggesting that India should replace France as a permanent member
of the Council. Years ago, the Finnish diplomat Max Jakobson offered a
scaled-down model of the UN, proposing that the UN should concentrate on what it
does best: serving as a diplomatic marketplace, a catalyst for international
codes of conduct and a provider of basic services.

There are no shortages of ideas for reform but whether any will come to
fruition remains to be seen. Reform can only take place if certain member states to
cede or dilute their own power in the UN. As The New York Times pointed out:
“Just imagine asking France to cede its veto to Germany, or Pakistan to allow
a permanent seat for India,”

The High Panel has its work cut out for it, and its report will no doubt make
for interesting reading. If it succeeds, Israel will surely benefit. If it
does not, who knows, there may be one less arena out there where Israel is used
as a punching bag.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 30th, 2004 and is filed under opinion.