Where can one get a baseball cap emblemized with Nasrallah? That's a must have if there ever was one.I recently did a bit of reading of this ceasefire resolution passed by the Security Council that was drafted with the intent to end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Keep in mind that a similar resolution was negotiated in 2000 that premised the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon at that time also.
1701 calls for, among other elements:
Security arrangements to prevent a resumption of hostilities, including no armed forces other than the state of Lebanon or UNIFIL south of the Litani river (read: No Hezbollah near the Israeli border)
No sales or resupply of arms and related materials to Lebanon except as authorized by its government (read: no re-supply of rockets to Hezbollah from Iran or Syria) (“If a real will exists to introduce illegal weapons (into Lebanon), neither UN resolutions nor military deployment will be able to stop their entry" --Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Sept. 2006)
The disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon (read: Hezbollah)
Since the passing of the resolution, Hezbollah has repeatedly stated that it will not be disarmed. Lebanon has also stated that it will not disarm Hezbollah, and the UN too has indicated that UNIFIL forces will not have the role of disarming Hezbollah. Ironically, Israel was the only force committed to disarming this terrorist group in order to prevent rocket attacks against its citizens or the unprovoked kidnapping and killing of its soldiers within Israel. Yet, it has now relinquished that goal and withdrawn –foolishly, in my opinion— so that the UN and Lebanon can undertake the cause with pledged vacancy.
Kofi Annan stated back in August his staggeringly unrealistic feelings on the matter of the disarmament:
“I think the disarmament of Hezbollah cannot be done by force. It has to be a political disagreement between the Lebanese; there has to be a Lebanese agreement among them to disarm.”
Israel has indicated that if Hezbollah is not disarmed (as the resolution calls for, and as was the basis for Israeli acceptance of the ceasefire and withdrawal), it will resume operations in Lebanon to protect its citizens from cross-border rocket attacks.
The UN, in my opinion, is an utter failure in these matters, there’s no two ways about it. In fact, by failing to live up to its obligations both in 2000 and with the current crisis, it has assured that Israel will be drawn into conflict again with an enemy that has called for its very destruction. By becoming involved in conflict resolution without any commitment to employing the means to enforce such resolution, it has guaranteed that the conflict will be perpetuated.
12 comments:
Still don't got Bin Laden!
nyah nyah!!!
Historically speaking, international "unions" have had a hard time or fail to disarm anybody. A famous example would be when League of Nations failed to disarm Japan or Germany even though they had broken agreements. Why this is so, i don't know. This is Tbone, I forgot my password
Welcome back T-bone.
“Historically speaking, international "unions" have had a hard time or fail to disarm anybody.”
Very true, but in the case of Lebanon, the UN doesn’t see it as its role to even to try to live up to the mandate it articulated in Resolution 1701. If anything, it has forsaken that responsibility, and this will have consequences that run counter to the reason why the UN came into existence in the first place.
I think the answer as to why the UN is ineffectual at policing international norms is partly rooted in post-war European pacifism and an erroneous belief that peace is the natural state of things. The modern European mind –-having experienced continental devastation by two world wars and the 50 year threat of a third- holds enormous abhorrence for the notion of war. They have confused, though, a healthy revulsion to war with a belief that all war is immoral and will be rendered historically obsolete by a progressive evolution of a “new man”. They essentially think of themselves as being so civilized as to have transcended war, but in many cases they have abandoned the will for the only thing (the use of force) that can confront tyranny or terrorism.
And, as much as they complain about United States foreign policy, most Europeans are comfortable to be free of burdensome military expenditures, a luxury provided to them by the umbrella of American military power. Think back to the 90’s when Europe was unwilling or unable to act in the Balkans unless the US took a leadership role and committed forces. This happened in their own back yard, and yet for the most part they lacked the will and resources to do anything about it.
I think the League of Nations is a great example of this loss of will. WWII was not inevitable, and yet in every instance where intervention with force would have prevented a wider war (defiance of Versailles, troops into the Rhineland, Sudetenland, the remainder of Czechoslovakia) Europeans failed to act because another bloodbath during times of economic depression was just too much to fathom. How tragically ironic considering the cost by 1945.
I think another reason world bodies are ineffectual is that, as in the current case of the UN, there is among its members many illiberal states. Many of these oppressive regimes vote their interest, which often, surprise-surprise, is in opposition to western liberalism. This makes a principled, multilateral response to a crisis sometimes impossible.
Here’s the problem as I see it: the UN is not the benevolent institution people believe or want it to be.
It is inadequate at the least and corrupt at its worst in the realm of enforcing international norms, but is popularly seen as the only legitimate source for the authorization for the use of force. If action is needed but will not be authorized, does this not embolden our enemies? And if so, doesn’t the UN greatly hinder rather than help with conflict resolution?
Since we're on the topic ineffectiveness, a recent headline:
Negotiator says no progress with Iran
By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium - A top European Union negotiator said Wednesday that "endless hours" of talks with Iran about its nuclear program have failed to make any progress, while the Iranian president said U.N. sanctions would not stop Tehran from enriching uranium.
Might be time for the UN to write the Iranians yet another letter telling them how hurt this enriching uranium business makes them feel.
Assad just looks like he needs a smack.
Frickin' Baath-hole.
"If a real will exists by Mr. Dhun to introduce illegal and offensive language onto the internet, neither UN resolutions nor military deployment will be able to stop their entry"
--Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Sept. 2006
An update:
October 6, 2006: Turkey has begun deploying peacekeeping troops, 260 combat engineers, in south Lebanon. No more than a thousand Turkish troops will go to Lebanon. This is a major disappointment for the United States, which had hoped for at least a brigade of soldiers (approximately 4000 to 5000 troops) from Turkey. The Turkish government has also said that the troops will be withdrawn from Lebanon if they are asked to disarm Hezbollah fighters.
More of this will follow....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEbp3ym3O3U
The Korean Central News Agency reports the country's first nuclear weapons test was a success. At the UN, the people who work in the following have been ordered to come to work early tomorrow:
Department of Dirty Looks
Strongly-Worded Letter Writing Group
and
The Committee of Grave Concern
Meanwhile, rock group "Rage against the Margarine" are wondering what happened to their Revolutionary hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz8wU9DdbqU#_SYPUrANArc
Elsewhere... Communist Troglodytes join the nuk-u-lar club. The world just got a little darker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100801169.html
Post a Comment