Yearning for a Seat at U.N.'s Table

By Frida Ghitis
July 16, 2004 
– HYPERLINK http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=233383&attrib_id=8745 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=233383&attrib_id=8745 

Few doubted that the World Court would rule against Israel in the case of the West Bank barrier. That's because the United Nations has grown over the years into a battering ram with which to pound Israel. 
Most democratic nations did not want the U.N.'s judicial arm to take on the highly politically charged case of Israel's construction of a barrier to separate itself from the Palestinians. But an anti-Israel bloc has grown inside the U.N. General Assembly, fusing the agendas of the Arab League, Muslim nations, and so-called nonaligned countries. The result is that when the name of Israel emerges for discussion, the outcome is preordained and often a travesty. This, of course, hurts Israel. But it also corrodes the credibility and moral standing of an institution that was supposed to stand for humankind's highest aspirations.
Israel maintains that it built the security fence, as it calls it, as a way to protect itself from suicide bombers that had killed more than 900 Israelis and wounded and maimed hundreds more. The court rejected that argument. Instead, calling the barrier a wall, as do Israel's opponents, it accepted the Palestinian contention that Israel is using the barrier to confiscate Palestinian land.
Nobody in Israel was surprised. Neither was anyone who has watched the U.N. over the years.
The barrier is a legitimate issue for discussion, as it has been in Israel. But the U.N. has proven incapable of objectivity.
Consider the inner workings of the network of U.N. organizations. Starting in 1961, U.N. members divided themselves into regional groups, which became responsible for nominating and selecting the people and countries to occupy some of the critical seats in U.N. entities. An informal system developed, whereby countries began voting together, by regional association. Powerful positions were assigned through regional rotations and allocations. This was supposed to bring some fairness in the process.
Except that Asia, the region where Israel belongs geographically, refused to allow Israel to join the group. For almost 40 years, Israel stood on its own, the only country not allowed to participate in the organization's most important decisions and committees. Israel was the only country that could not hold a seat in the all-important Security Council, for example.
Not surprisingly, Israel was not allowed to nominate any of its judges to the World Court, or even to vote on other countries' nominations. Yet at the same time, Israel became the target of more critical resolutions, verbal abuse, and slander from the General Assembly and other U.N. agencies. In May of 2000, Israel was allowed, with some limitations, to join the Western European and Others Group. But Israel, among other restrictions, agreed not to try to obtain a seat on the Security Council. Israel is still barred from participating in any U.N. meetings outside of New York. That means that while nations with proven records of severe human rights violations, such as Sudan and Libya, get seats in the Human Rights Committee, Israel is denied a place at the table - a table where criticism of Israel is routine.
To be sure, Israel's actions deserve scrutiny, as do those of other nations, particularly those involved in armed conflict. But basic justice requires a level playing field.
Anyone who wants the world body to become a true beacon of justice knows the truth. The U.N.'s treatment of Israel is evidence of the organization's need for reform.