& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Israel's defiance of UN decision: Ominous implications
***The UN is the most visible element in securing a stable world order. Its success depends on cooperative interaction among states including respect and observance of its decisions. If a state, such as Israel, can flout its decision, it not only undermines the confidence on the UN but also may lead to the "law of the jungle" in the post-cold war era. The UN stands as a symbol of hope and peace for international community and regrettably Israel seems to attack its very edifice on which it stands.***
ISRAEL has been successful in derailing the UN Fact-Finding Mission to the Middle East. The
UN Secretary General failed to receive Israel's co-operation to the UN Fact-Finding Mission led by former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari. The Mission and its members were stuck in Geneva for days and were not able to proceed to the Middle East.
The UN Security Council in its unanimous decision of 15-members approved the Fact-Finding Mission (not investigative mission) to uncover truth as to what occurred in the Palestine refugee camps in Jenin in the West Bank. Israel first agreed to the visit of the UN Mission and its Foreign Minister Peres said that there was nothing to hide. Now Israel has refused to let the Mission to do the job. There is a growing speculation that Israel has realised that the UN Mission would be able to uncover truth which Israel is trying to hide from the world.
Amnesty International in its preliminary report suggested gross violations of humanitarian law by Israel in Jenin. The other observers from Europe have expressed deep shock at what happened to the civilian population by Israel's military intervention. Palestinians called it a massacre of civilians. No civilians should be killed under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and if any state does, its leaders may be liable to charge of war crimes.
Under international law the leaders are responsible for war crimes as was manifested in the 1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunal for Nazi leaders.
Let us examine Israel's conduct in relation to the UN Fact-Finding Mission. First, Israel set out conditions on the mandate and composition of the Mission. The UN Secretary General was reported to have met the conditions.
Second, Israel was believed to have objected to meet witnesses as the Mission deemed appropriate.
Israel wanted to pick and choose the witnesses before the team.
Third, Israel wanted the acts of Palestinian suicide bombers to be a part of the mandate of the UN Mission. Israel is fully aware that the mandate of the Council was very specific as to what occurred in the refugee camp in Jenin.
What does Israel's conduct signify?
The UN Secretary General did what he could do to implement the
resolution of the Council. The UN has been frustrated in its every move because Israel comes up with new conditions which the UN will not be able to comply with.
Israel's action to defy the UN Security Council resolution is contrary to the specific obligations of Israel under the UN Charter. Article 34 of the Charter states that the Security Council "may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction.." Under Article 4 a member state is obliged to carry out the obligations
under the Charter including the decision of the Security Council. Article 6 states that a member of the UN which has persistently violated the international co-operation (in breaches of peace) contained in the Charter may be expelled from the UN. South Africa was debarred in attending the UN General Assembly during apartheid era for its violation of UN resolutions.
Israel appears to have set a very dangerous precedent under inter-
national law. When the NATO attacked Yugoslavia for genocidal and harsh treatment of Kosovar-Albanians, no one would listen to Yugoslavia's views. In the case of Palestinians, it appears that international community has abandoned them and kowtow Israel.. There are however a few remarks of unacceptability of Israel's attitude from European leaders (European Commission President Romano Prodi and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw). It is believed no other state could have flouted the Coun-
cil's resolution in the way as Israel did.
Israel's defiance to the UN will have significant implications. It is likely to alienate the Arab people because of practice of doublestandard policy towards Israel by big powers. It will put to severe tests the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait to contain the seething sentiment at what ordinary people in the Arab world will perceive half-hearted attempt of the
international community to do justice to Palestinians.
During the recent visit of the Crown Prince to the US, it is reported that Saudi Arabian de-facto ruler warned the US President Bush that Israel's conduct may result in "grave consequences" in the region.
Iraqi case of not allowing UN inspectors in the country is likely to be stronger. Iraq may argue that if Israel violates resolution of the Security Council without any consequences, why it should be treated
differently from Israel. Furthermore former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's arguments before The Hague Tribunal of double-standard of international community towards his regime will appear to be buttressed by Israel's defiance to the UN.
The motive of war on terrorism is likely to be questioned in the Arab world by Israel's conduct. Israel has demonstrated that it cares less of the views of international community because it has possessed superior arms including nuclear weapons in the region. Israel is behaving like a "spoilt child" without fear of international punishment or sanctions. The orientation of greater co-operation in a global society is likely to be replaced by international anarchy if Israel's conduct is followed by other states.
The UN is the most visible element in securing a stable world order. Its success depends on cooperative interaction among states including respect and observance of its decisions. If a state, such as Israel, can flout its decision, it not only undermines the confidence on the UN but also may lead to the "law of the jungle" in the post-cold war era. The UN stands as a symbol of hope and peace for international community and regrettably Israel seems to attack its very edifice on which it stands.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva