Well, that’s the talking point from Mr. James Woolsey last night on MsNBC’s Hardball program, where the former head of the CIA attempted to make light of the British concerns revealed in the Downing Street Minutes that war on Iraq might not be strictly legal. And you know, I can see his point. We can’t have countries running around willy-nilly and stomping all over the authority of the UN. That would be bad. So, I decided to compile a list of other countries who need invading due to their failure to comply with UN resolutions.
Go take a look. It’s just after the fold . . .
First up is Israel. They’ve violated a number of UN resolutions in their time, but Resolution 242 is perhaps the most significant. They still haven’t withdrawn from all of the territories they occupied during their 1967 war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Guess we better get on that one right away. At least we have armed forces already in the region with which to enforce the UN’s will, thank God.
Then there are the resolutions dealing with the disputed provinces of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian sub-continent. Now admittedly this is a bit of a sticky wicket since Pakistan blames India and India blames Pakistan for their collective failure to comply with these resolutions, but I say just cut that old Gordian knot and invade both of them. I mean, it’s been over fifty years the UN has been waiting on these two malingerers to take action. I think they’ve waited long enough, don’t you?
And what about all those violations of UN resolutions on human rights by Burma, or (as they call themselves) Mynamar. For example, I don’t think they’ve don jack about any of these demands by the UN
Text: U.N. Resolution on Human Rights Violations in Burma
United Nations Economic and Social Council
12 April 2001
QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD
Recalling previous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on the subject, most recently Assembly resolution 55/112 of 4 December 2000 and Commission resolution 2000/23 of 18 April 2000, . . .
6. Strongly urges the Government of Myanmar:
(a) To implement fully the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur;
(b) To ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including economic, social and cultural rights;
(c) In particular to ensure full respect for the freedoms of expression, association, movement and assembly, the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary and the protection of the rights of persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities, and to put an end to violations of the right to life and integrity of the human being and to the practices of torture, abuse of women, forced labour and forced relocations and to enforced disappearances and summary executions;
(a) To take urgent and concrete measures to ensure the establishment of democracy in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the democratic elections held in 1990 and, to this end, to extend the talks initiated with Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary-General of the National League for Democracy, to a genuine and substantive dialogue with all the leaders of political parties and of ethnic minorities, with the aim of achieving national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy, and to ensure that political parties and non-governmental organizations can function freely;
(e) To take all appropriate measures to allow all citizens to participate freely in the political process, in accordance with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to accelerate the process of transition to democracy, in particular through the transfer of power to democratically elected representatives, the prevention of intimidation and repression of political opponents and enabling the building up of a pluralistic civil society with the active participation of its members;
(f) To release immediately and unconditionally those detained or imprisoned for political reasons, including those in “government guest houses”, as well as journalists, and to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in a meaningful process of national reconciliation;
(g) To improve conditions of detention, in particular in the field of health protection, and to eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on the detainees;
(h) To ensure the safety and well-being and freedom of movement of all political leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to permit unrestricted communication with and physical access to Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders;
(i) To fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by bringing national legislation and practice into conformity with these conventions, and to consider signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts;
(j) To implement fully the recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in particular the request to prosecute and punish those who violate the human rights of women and to carry out human rights education and gender-sensitization training, in particular for military personnel;
Violating fundamental freedoms and failing to bring Democracy to their people sure makes me want to go blow some stuff up over there. I figure maybe just some cruise missiles and stealth bomber attacks ought to do the trick, don’t you?
Of course, no list would be complete without mentioning this bad actor, would it? That’s right, number 3 on the Axis of evil itself, North Korea. They’ve pretty much said they will just keep on ignoring UN resolutions in the future and why not? We’ve definitely been sparing the rod and spoiling this child far too long. May have to use some nukes, obviously, but UN resolutions are serious stuff, so we should be prepared to enforce them seriously.
Well, there’s lots more countries that need some tough love, but you have to prioritze these matters. We only have so many troops. Maybe Bolton is right: we do need to reform the UN. Or at least get them to stop passing so many resolutions.
Of course, maybe it would help if we paid up on our past due dues.
the UN’s will, my children.
And of course the assertion that Saddam didn’t comply with UN resolutions is pretty much a bald faced lie, since he’d come into compliance (he had disarmed and let the inspectors back in) before we invaded. As Digby points out here:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111931070175688214
this lie was repeated without challenge throughout the 2004 campaign, and obviously is still in use today.
You can add Lebanon to the list of countries where Israel still occupies land illegally (I seem to remember the area of high ground is called the “Sabbah Farms” but I could be wrong) Neither have they signed up for the International Criminal Court – for the very good reason that one General Rabin is accused of crimes against humanity during the occupation and just happens to be the Prime Minister at the moment.
In any event you should b careful over the resolutions against Israel which are almost all resolutions of the General Asembly. These cannot be used to authorise military action unlike Security Council resolutions which could be vetoed by any one of the permanent members (step forward the United States of America)
Actually, Saddam was in violation but that didn’t mean that the US could go to war. All the previous resolution called for was for the Security Council to consider what to do if Saddam was not in full compliance. That could mean war, it could mean doing nothing, or anything in between.
As for resolution 242 – pretty much every country in the region is in violation of 242 except for Egypt and Jordan. Since those are the only two regional states which recognize Israel. Also the idiot lawyers/diplomats who came up with this gem decided to deliberately fudge whether or not Israel was required to withdraw from all the occupied territories or just from some of them. Note that the English version you link to simply says ‘withdrawal from territories’ while the French version says withdrawal from the territories. Also 242 was not enacted under the part of the Charter that allows for enforcement by member states, as opposed to the Iraq resolution which was enacted under a chapter that does allow enforcement though that is not a decision that the US gets to make on its own. See it as the difference between a sense of the Senate resolution and one which says the President can do something if he decides to, with the SC taking the role of the president here.
Finally two other observations
Not quite, if you look further at the articles the retroactivity only applies to crimes committed before the ICC came into operation. Crimes of aggression were defined underthe Nuremburg principles and the ICC articles can be read as permitting prosecutions once the agreement on the formal definition for the ICC has been agreed.
In any case, the ICC is a court of last resort and would only take a case if a case were not taken out in the home country. In the UK the seperate crime of Conspiracy could be used to prosecute Blair and other individuals. Also possible, though less likely to suceed at a vote, is Impeachement.