Might the UN also “borrow” the U.S. and other Western militaries in future to impose its will on member states it feels are not living up to the UN’s nebulous idea of state responsibilities?
In this article we will examine the implications for future UN action against Israel given the dangerous precedent has now been set of the UN sending in NATO / US forces to settle an internal dispute in a sovereign nation.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was formed in September 2000 and issued a document titled “The Responsibility to Protect” that encapsulated “the Commissioners’ views on intervention and state sovereignty and their recommendations for practical action.” The ICISS was chaired by Gareth Evans, former foreign minister for Australia, and sought to turn the debate on sovereignty “on its head” by “characterizing it not as an argument about the ‘right’ of states to anything, but rather about their ‘responsibility’ — one to protect people at grave risk.”
That “responsibility” is to be defined by the United Nations. Mr. Evans envisions a world where sovereign nations are hardly “sovereign” as we understand the term. Indeed, Evans is seeking nothing less than a brand new definition of sovereignty — what he calls “a new way of talking about sovereignty itself”. And now in March 2011 we see the UN acting on their new R2P doctrine.
In direct violation of its own charter, the UN has set itself up as the arbiter of where sovereignty begins and ends, tossing aside Article 51′s “inherent right to self-defence” clause.
On 1st March, the United Nations General Assembly suspended Libya’s membership in the Human Rights Council, the Organization’s pre-eminent human rights body, expressing its deep concern about the situation in that country in the wake of Muammar Al-Qadhafi’s violent crackdown on anti-Government protestors. Adopting a consensus resolution, the Assembly acted on the 25 February recommendation by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, which had urged the suspension in a resolution of its own. The Assembly, which created the Council five years ago, was charged with taking that action, and this afternoon’s decision marked the first time a sitting member was removed from the body. The Assembly also agreed that it would “review the matter as appropriate”.
But you have to ask the question “How did Libya come to be on the Human Rights Council in the first place?” And how did Nigeria or Pakistan make it to the Human Rights Council?
Or for that matter, how did any OIC country make it when Islam condones inequalities, enshrines the practice of slavery and discriminates against women?
Listen to a diplomat explaining about Libya, Israel and the Human Rights Council.
A Possible Future Scenario
With the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah in the Middle East, it is quite possible that Israel’s neighbours would provoke Israel into defending itself by attacking strategic sites in Lebanon, Gaza and possibly even Egypt and Jordan. If this were the case, the UN could mobilize NATO forces against Israel under the doctrine of R2P claiming they are “protecting” the citizens of these Muslim nations.
It is incredible that Israel is the only country with a standing order against it in the UNHRC while countries like Sudan, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia escape any serious scrutiny.
The world is entering a very dangerous stage where Muslim countries dominate decisions within the UN and even have their own version of Human Rights in the Cairo Declaration. The possibility of future uses of NATO forces to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations could have terrible implications for Israel and by extension the whole world.