American Jewish International Relations Institute AJIRI Report #12 May 2007 THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL’S FAILURE TO CONFRONT IRAN’S CONVENTIONAL TERRORIST THREAT TO ISRAEL Summary Given the increasing flow of Iranian arms and funding to Hezbollah in Lebanon (in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701) and to Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, the UN Security Council should, under the provisions of the UN Charter, take appropriate action to prevent these threats to international peace and security. Regrettably, its record in recent years suggests that the Council will not discharge that responsibility. If it were not for the U.S. veto, the Council would (in 2006) have adopted resolutions designed to restrain Israel from defending itself. A U.S. veto would not be needed to defeat such resolutions, however, if six other Council members withheld their support, at least by preparing to abstain. The proposed text would thus lack the nine affirmative votes required by the Charter for adoption of a Security Council resolution. A review of Council members’ voting records and recent statements suggests that it might be possible to achieve that result. Discussion The Role of the UN Security Council Under the provisions of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” In keeping with that mandate, the UNSC adopted (August 1, 2006) Res. 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbollah. Res. 1701 contained a critical set of provisions designed to prevent the re-arming of Hizbollah: “The Security Council … Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL [the UN’s peacekeeping force in Lebanon] … to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request; Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft: (a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and (b) The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above; except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL …” No similar UNSC resolution exists regarding Gaza, because Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza area in August and September 2005 was a unilateral act, undertaken without reference to the United Nations. Iran’s Role in Fostering Breaches of International Peace and Security There has been a great deal of discussion during recent months of the “Arab Peace Initiative,” which, it is hoped, could lead to the renewal of negotiations leading to an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement. Hope has also been expressed that U.S. Government engagement in fostering direct contacts between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas would have the same result. Throughout this period of talk of peace, Iran has continued to strengthen the offensive capabilities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Brigade in the Gaza area and of Hizbollah in Lebanon. Because there have been continuing rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza directed at nearby Israeli cities, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces issued a warning, on April 30, 2007, that if the attacks on Israel continued, a major Israeli ground operation would be necessary to halt the rocket fire. Further, there has been a continuing flow of Iranian arms across the Syrian border to re-supply Hizbollah in Lebanon, in violation of UNSC Res. 1701. Israeli has sought to monitor these violations with unmanned aircraft that have over-flown Lebanese territory. UN Response to Breaches of International Peace and Security in Gaza and Lebanon In 2006, attacks on Israeli cities initiated from Gaza and an incursion into Israel by terrorists who killed two Israeli soldiers and captured one, and Israel’s response thereto, caused the United Nations Security Council to consider two draft resolutions on Gaza. Rather than calling for effective action against the initiators of the attacks, both resolutions were designed to restrain Israel’s ability to defend itself against them. Each of the resolutions was supported by ten members of the UNSC but neither was adopted, s a result of “no” votes cast by the United States. These were the 40th and 41st vetoes cast by the United States in the UN Security Council on Israel-related resolutions. In response to the gross violations by Iran and Syria of the Hizbollah arms embargo provisions of UNSC Res. 1701, the Council approved, on April 17, 2007, an extraordinarily cautiously worded statement by its President. It called on Syria “to take further measures [sic!] to reinforce controls at the border.” The Council also welcomed “the Secretary General’s intention to evaluate the situation along the entire [Syrian-Lebanese] border and invites him to dispatch at the earliest, in close liaison with the Lebanese Government, an independent mission to fully assess the monitoring of the border and … to report back to the Council … on its findings and recommendations in this regard.” This refusal to criticize the violators of Res. 1701 was rounded out by a denunciation of Israel for “the continuing Israeli violations of Lebanese air space,” a reference to the flights to inspect the areas in which the arms smuggling takes place. The UN Security Council Meeting of April 25, 2007 The Council’s failure to make an impartial effort to bring peace and security to Israelis and Palestinians is well illustrated by its proceedings on April 25, 2007, when it held a meeting to discuss the threats to the peace in Gaza and Lebanon, but took no action. The “discussion” consisted of the reading of prepared statements. Although no action was taken and there was no real debate, the statements made for the record do shed light on the positions of at least some UNSC members. The U.S. Position Not surprisingly, the clearest statement was made by the United States. On Gaza, the U.S. Representative observed: “The posture of the Palestinian Authority Unity Government makes peace difficult. The United States supports the Quartet’s principles of peace, the renunciation of violence and recognition of the existence of Israel. The Palestinians must be committed to those principles. Only a Palestinian Authority Government that accepts those principles can fulfill Palestinian aspirations for a State of their own. It is the responsibility of the Hamas-led Palestinian Government to prevent terror and take the necessary steps to stop attacks from within Gaza. The latest rocket attacks and breach of ceasefire by Hamas send the wrong message.” Regarding Lebanon, the United States drew attention to previous Security Council Resolutions which have called for disarming Hizbollah and, specifically, for an end to arms shipments to Hizbollah. The U.S. emphasized that “the parties must abide by their commitments” and expressed concern “over the mounting evidence of shipments of arms by Hizbollah.” Statements of the Other Permanent Members Of the other four Permanent Members of the Council, only the United Kingdom came close to the United States position in expressing its concerns regarding the attacks against Israel from Gaza: “The United Kingdom condemns the Hamas military wing’s violation of the ceasefire in Gaza and calls on the National Unity Government to take the necessary measures to prevent such attacks. To provide some “balance,” the UK representative added: “All sides must immediately cease violence, so that the political process, through dialogue, can continue.” Regarding violations of the Security Council’s arms embargo against Hizbollah, the UK noted that the recent Council “authorization for a United Nations mission to assess the security of the Lebanese border with Syria was an important step towards enhancing Lebanese sovereignty and improving compliance with the arms embargo established under resolution 1701.” Two of the other three Permanent Members of the Council mentioned the rocket attacks, but only after criticizing Israel. China declared that “Israel should stop building the wall and the Palestinian side should do its utmost to end rocket attacks into Israel.” Before mentioning the Gaza rocket attacks, France condemned the “Israel Defense Force operations that had left nine people dead over the weekend in the West Bank” and only then “likewise, condemned the rocket fire that continued to be aimed at Israeli territory on an almost daily basis.” (The reference to the IDF operations on the West Bank refereed to an armed clash which erupted when the IDF sought to arrest Palestinians suspected of engaging in terrorist acts.) China made a vague reference to Lebanon. France, surprisingly, said nothing on that subject. Russia had nothing to say on either the rocket attacks or the violations of the Hizbollah arms embargo. Its anodyne comment was: “Both the Palestinian and Israeli sides must take care not to exacerbate tensions and to build on the progress that has already been made.” Statements of the Nonpermanent Members Among the statements of the Nonpermanent Members, that of Italy came closest to the U.S. position. “[T]he Palestinian Government” the Italian representative said, “must strongly commit to ending any violent attacks, as well as the launches of Qassam rockets, weapons smuggling in Gaza and the detention of Corporal Shalit.” He went on to urge Israel to “loosen restrictions on the freedom of movement and rapidly resume the transfers of customs revenue to the Palestinian Government.” Italy made a similar strongly-worded statement on Lebanon: “Reports that weapons continue to be smuggled into Lebanon remain a matter of concern. It is fundamental that all the neighboring countries commit themselves to prevent an increase in the destructive potential in the hands of the opposing Lebanese factions.” Panama also showed concern regarding terrorist attacks on Israel: “Continued attacks from Gaza by Palestinian militants threaten Israeli civilians on a daily basis. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldier and the BBC reporter, whose fate was still unknown, created a climate of insecurity and showed that some Palestinian factions had very little desire to achieve peace.” Panama went on, however, to express disapproval of Israel’s “near-daily violations of Lebanese airspace’ without reference to the gross violations of the embargo provisions of Res. 1701. Peru called for effective administration “in the Palestinian Occupied Territory… [t]hat included the ability to end rocket attacks into Israel and arms trafficking inside Gaza that were preventing the necessary mobilization of international assistance to the Palestinians.” Peru went on to express concern about new Israeli settlements and “the wall of separation.” It said nothing about the violations of the Hizbollah arms embargo. Congo (Brazzaville) urged that “[b]oth sides should seriously consider a number of measures that would push the peace process forward, including stopping rocket fire from Gaza into Israel and ending construction of the separation wall.” Again, nothing was said about violations of the Hizbollah arms embargo. Ghana “called for immediately restoring the truce between Hamas and Israel” and noted “reported breaches of resolution 1701 by both sides and other provocative acts.” Belgium’s statement was limited to generalities. It made no reference, even by implication, to the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel or the breaches of the Hizbollah arms embargo. Slovakia’s statement, similarly, made no reference to the rocket attacks. It did, however, state that Res. 1701 “must be fully respected and implemented.” Indonesia, Qatar, and South Africa delivered statements strongly antagonistic to Israel. Indonesia called for Israel to “cease its incursions [into Gaza and the West Bank] and immediately end its door-to-door searches.” It expressed concern over “continued Israeli overflights in southern Lebanon, which was contrary to the letter and spirit of resolution 1701,” without referring to the suspected violations of the arms embargo. Qatar noted that “[s]ome believed that Palestinian violence was the reason for ongoing crisis and that ending it was the way to achieving peace, [b]ut that approach … could not be farther from reality. The root causes of the violence should be dealt with … [by restoring] rights to their legal owners.” On Lebanon, Qatar “called for an end to the near-daily violations of Lebanese airspace.” South Africa said that “it was incumbent … for Israel and other countries to lift the economic and political siege on the Palestinians.” It “expressed grave concern at the lack of progress in arranging an exchange of prisoners between Israel and Palestine,” noting “that thousands of Palestinian political [sic!] prisoners remained in Israeli jails and an Israeli soldier was being held hostage by a Palestinian faction.” (The Palestinian prisoners are, in fact, charged with acts of violence.) South Africa also urged “Israel to immediately and unconditionally end all military incursions, acts of collective punishment and settlement expansion and halt construction of the separation wall.” Regarding Lebanon, South Africa said that “all parties must abide by the commitments under resolution 1701 (2006) without selectivity” and complained that “Israel continued to violate Lebanese airspace and did so with impunity.” Assessment of the April 25 Statements This brief review of the April 25 Security Council proceedings reveals that two members (the UK and Italy) expressed themselves in a manner that came close to the position of the United States. Three members (Indonesia, Qatar, and South Africa) took the opposite position. The remaining nine members expressed views that lie somewhere between these opposing positions or expressed no precise views. Given the aggressive positions taken by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbollah, we can expect that the issue of international peace and security as it affects Israelis, Lebanese, and Palestinians will continue to be under consideration by the UN Security Council and that, from time to time, resolutions or Presidential statements will be considered. In such cases the Council may, on rare occasions achieve unanimity, but only if the United States accepts questionable wording in some paragraphs in order to achieve agreement on other paragraphs that are important from the U.S. point of view. If unanimity cannot be achieved and the United States is in a minority, it is, of course, always able to exercise its veto. However, it would certainly be preferable if draft resolutions unacceptable to the United States can be defeated without the exercise of the United States veto. Under the United Nations Charter, a Security Council resolution can be adopted only if nine affirmative votes are cast and no Permanent Member votes “no.” This means that if six other members of the Council were to, at least, abstain on a draft resolution opposed by the United States, the resolution would fail to meet the UN Charter requirement of nine affirmative votes for adoption of a UNSC resolution, rather than on the basis of the U.S. veto. In that case, the draft resolution’s sponsor might not even ask for a vote, since its defeat would be predictable. The Challenge The challenge for the United States is to identify at least six members of the Council whose governmental leadership’s outlook on international affairs is such that it would not support anti-Israel resolutions at the UNSC that the United States opposes and would instruct its UN mission accordingly. AJIRI Board of Directors: Hon. Richard Schifter (Chair), Norman Gelman (Vice Chair), Marjorie Sonnenfeldt (Vice Chair), Michael Alter (Secretary), Benjamin Schlesinger (Treasurer), Prof. Yonah Alexander, Maurice Atkin, Irwin Baskind, Dottie Bennett, Paul Berger, Gerald Charnoff, Rabbi George Driesen, Hon. Stuart Eizenstat, Edith U. Fierst, Allan Gerson, Hon. Joseph Gildenhorn, Hon. Benjamin Gilman, Norman Goldstein, Prof. Oscar Gray, Eric Greenberg, Stephen Horblitt, Hon. Max M. Kampelman, Luis Landau, Wendy Matheson, Prof. Joseph Mendels, Walter Nathan, Hon. Nicholas Rostow, Richard P. Schifter, Harris Schoenberg, Henry Sherman, Stuart Sloame, Saul I. Stern, Leon Weintraub, Russell Wilson, Beverly Zweiben   7