
Hypocrisy is probably the accusation leveled most frequently at the U.S. by friends and enemies alike in the Arab world, when we ask the question that has bothered us since 9/11: Why do “they” hate us? The most egregious – or at least the most visible and oft-cited example of that hypocrisy - is of course the repeated use of our veto to protect Israel from the demands of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, even when the world community is overwhelmingly supportive of such resolutions and even when the resolution in question is consistent with our own Administration’s declared goals and policies in the Middle East. One recent example of this is our vetoing on 16 September 2003 of the UNSC resolution condemning Israel’s threat to kill or exile Yasir Arafat, despite our Secretary of State's insistence that U.S. policy too was opposed to the “elimination of Mr. Arafat or his forced exile."
Additionally, our veto power ensures that the Israelis face no effective sanction for ignoring existing UNSC resolutions (they have defied more than sixty) despite the fact that all such resolutions, once passed, become mandatory international law, binding upon all the nations of the U.N. If the U.S. were equally laid back in its attitude to everybody's (non-)compliance with international law, then its attitude would be regrettable, but at least not hypocritical and therefore inflammatory. Unfortunately of course, our policy is selective: we demand that unfriendly regimes comply with international law or face the consequences of our military might, but turn a blind eye when the offending regime is friendly to us.
Throughout the winter of 2002/3, the U.S. justified its threatened invasion of Iraq by arguing that Saddam Hussein’s regime had failed to disarm and allow international inspections of its weapons programs, as required by UNSC Res 687, passed on 3 April 1991, at the conclusion of Gulf War I. Indeed, the alleged failure to comply with Res 687 was one of the official reasons for the passage on 8 November 2002 of UNSC Res 1441, which set the stage for Gulf War II by threatening that Iraq “will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”.
One interesting feature of UNSC Res 687 is that it not only requires Iraq to renounce Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chemical and Biological Weapons, but also calls for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. Well, we all know that there is only one country in the Middle East that actually has WMDs and CBWs: not “Programs”, or “Intentions” or “Amazon wish lists” of Mass Destruction, but real-live chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including as many as 200 nuclear weapons pointing right now at its Arab neighbours. We all know equally well of course that the U.S. is never going to demand U.N. or I.A.E.A. inspections of Israel’s nukes at Dimona, as it demanded for Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs (and is currently demanding for Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program at Bushehr). We also know that downtown Tel Aviv is never going to face the “Shock and Awe” treatment over its actual WMDs that Baghdad faced over its imaginary ones. This is a double standard that might not get much of a mention in the Western media, but did not go unnoticed in the Arab and wider Muslim world in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq.
A more recent – and more breathtaking - example of our selective application of international law is The Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (which we might more accurately, if less formally, call the “Syria Next” Act). The Bill, which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the U.S. House of Representatives on 15 October 2003, calls for strict sanctions against Syria in punishment for, among other things, its ongoing military presence in Lebanon. Noting that UNSC Resolution 520 calls for "strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon”, the Bill demands that “the Government of Syria should immediately declare its commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal”.
Which all sounds reasonable enough. Until you actually read the full text of UNSC Res 520, and realise that it doesn’t really refer to Syria at all:
RESOLUTION 520 (1982)
The Security Council…
1. Reaffirms its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 516 (1982) in all their components;
2. Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions;
3. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolution;
4. Calls again for the strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon;
Fancy that. UNSC Resolution 520 actually refers not to Syria but, explicitly, to Israel! Which isn’t surprising when you bear in mind that when the resolution was passed, in September 1982, Israeli forces under then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon had just launched a major invasion of Lebanon, and were occupying almost half of that country, including its capital, Beirut. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon cost as many as 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian lives (including the 1,000 - 2,000 Palestinian civilians slaughtered by the Phalange at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps), and its military occupation of the southern part of the country did not end until May 2000. So, for eighteen years, Israeli military forces remained in Lebanon, in defiance of UNSC Res 520, and nine subsequent UNSC resolutions that demanded their immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
In a devastating dissection of The Syrian Accountability Act for Foreign Policy in Focus, Professor Stephen Zunes argues that
[I]t would be naïve to think that most sponsors of the bill actually care about Lebanese sovereignty. If they did care about Lebanese sovereignty they would have demanded that Israel abide by UN Security Council resolution 520 and nine other resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon prior to Israel's long-overdue pullout in May 2000. They did not, however.
… [N]one of the supporters of the Syrian Accountability Act – the vast majority of whom were in office during at least some of the nearly eighteen years that Israel was in violation of this resolution -- ever called on Israel to abide by UN Security Council resolution 520, much less called for sanctions against Israel in order to enforce it. Indeed, virtually all of the backers of this resolution then in office were supporters of unconditional military and economic aid to the Israeli government during this period when Israel was in violation of this very same resolution for which they have now voted to impose sanctions on Syria for violating.
It is also worth noting that there are currently over 90 UN Security Council resolutions being violated by countries other than Syria, the vast majority of which are by governments for which this same Congress has allocated billions of dollars worth of unconditional military and economic aid.
Professor Zunes concludes that the resolution imposing the sanctions is so filled with hyperbole and double-standards that it undermines its own credibility. In fact, its real purpose may be to simply demonize a government whose main offense appears to be its refusal to support the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda in the Middle East.
This.Is.Why.They.Hate.Us. Our foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle East is based on arrogance, military coercion and a Through The Looking Glass logic which dictates that international law means only what we want it to mean and only what suits our narrow, short-term, self-interest. “They” don’t hate the rule of law; but they do wonder why its protections apply only to those who have the military muscle to demand it. “They” don’t hate us for our freedom; but they do wonder why we proclaim the virtues of freedom while installing or propping up authoritarian regimes in their countries, which suppress in their societies the very freedoms we cherish in ours. “They” don’t hate us for our democracy; but they do wonder how our President can praise our utterly totalitarian Saudi allies for their progress towards democracy, while demonizing Iran’s far from perfect but much more developed democratic system, and seeking the overthrow of the Arab world’s only democratically elected leader, Yasir Arafat.
It’s not the freedom. It’s not the democracy. It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
Recent Comments