Self-defence as an instrument for pax Americana

[Neo]

Wednesday, August 02, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\08\02\story_2-8-2006_pg3_2
Self-defence as an instrument for pax Americana —Ijaz Hussain


According to modern law, a state is internationally responsible for acts of its own organs and not for those of non-state actors because the latter do not act on its behalf. When these organs fail to exercise due diligence, the state’s responsibility is engaged

The Bush administration has repeatedly justified the relentless Israeli pounding of Lebanon as an exercise of its right to self-defence. It has stubbornly rejected the call for a ceasefire until it becomes, in the words of Condoleezza Rice, “ sustainable”. Even the enormous death and destruction inflicted by Israel on Lebanon has failed to bring about a change in its attitude beyond lip service (cautioning Israel against disproportionate use of force). Israel, for its part, is determined to stay the course despite the international community’s outrage in the wake of the Qana carnage where more than 50 people including 37 children perished.

Self-defence is a right inherent to all states — based at once in customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, this does not signify an unbridled right to do whatever a state wishes to do on the pretext. Those invoking it are under legal obligation to see to it that the measures they undertake are proportionate to the threat and necessity. It was clearly laid down in the Caroline Case, the benchmark in the matter, that these should not be “excessive or unreasonable”.

According to modern law, a state is internationally responsible for acts of its own organs and not for those of non-state actors because the latter do not act on its behalf. When these organs fail to exercise due diligence, the state’s responsibility is engaged. The World Court brought out this point in the 1980 Hostages case where it held Iran responsible for its failure to protect the US embassy and consulate. However, it did not attribute to Iran the actions of students and protestors involved.

The genesis of the present crisis can be traced to kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and killing of eight by Hezbollah. It is generally accepted that the Lebanese army was not involved — even in the sense of extending passive support. The Lebanese government failed to prevent the incident because it had no means to control Hezbollah. It has tried over the years to extend its sovereignty over all of its territory but to no avail, principally thanks to the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon for almost two decades that strengthened Hezbollah at the expense of the Lebanese army. Israel certainly did not help the matters during the present crisis either when it destroyed the infrastructure that did not belong to Hezbollah. This further weakened the authority of the Lebanese government.

The right of self-defence that Israel claims is available only against Hezbollah and not against Lebanon. In the exercise of this right there is bound to be a violation of the latter’s sovereignty. However, it is imperative that the criteria of threat and necessity not be exceeded. The havoc wreaked on Lebanon shows that the Israeli “self-defence” is directed more against Lebanon than Hezbollah. It is noteworthy that the Israeli prime minister Olmert at the start of hostilities declared that, “Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions”. Clearly, the Israeli campaign violates the legal conditions for legitimate actions in self-defence.

While Article 51 of the UN Charter accords the right of self-defence to member states, it is available only till such time that, “the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. So when does the Security Council come into the picture in a situation of armed conflict? Can a state claiming the right to self-defence continue to exercise it while an ally keeps the Security Council from acting? While there is an international outcry for stopping the hostilities, the Security Council — fearing the American veto — cannot act. The US claims that an immediate it ceasefire would not be “sustainable”. However, it seems obvious that it wants Israel to continue its military operation till the disarmament of Hezbollah, irrespective of the cost to civilians and the Lebanese infrastructure or threat to regional peace. It is highly doubtful that this objective can be justified in terms of self-defence.

Can the Israeli action in Lebanon be justified on the ground that it is meant to help Lebanon extend its sovereignty over all its territory under Resolution 1559 of the Security Council by disarming Hezbollah? The argument is not available to Israel because the UN has not mandated it to undertake this task. Nor can it be justified as an exercise of the right of self-defence. At the present stage, the Israeli action looks more like reprisal than self-defence. But reprisal and retaliation by states are prohibited in international law. Israel is clearly in violation of the Charter provision both on the use of force and international humanitarian law that prohibits collective punishment.

The present conflict has also brought home, like Iraq, the irrelevance of the United Nations. In the case of Iraqi, the US, under the influence of its neo-cons, simply ignored the UN knowing that it would not get authorisation for its military operation from the Security Council. Instead it opted for a “coalition of the willing” to mount a pre-emptive attack to dislodge Saddam Hussein. In the present case, the modus operandi is different but the perspective remains the same. The US has not bypassed the Organisation as such. The Hezbollah folly has provided an excuse to Israel to attack. The US is aware that after the cessation of hostilities it will need the UN for putting in place a multinational force to disarm what is left of Hezbollah.

The credibility of the United Nations has also suffered in another way. The extraordinary UN summit last year accepted the concept of “responsibility to protect” into the corpus of international law on the premise that in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, etc, the international community would intervene to help the victims. The present situation of death and destruction — described by the Amnesty International as a crime against humanity and by the UN humanitarian coordinator as a violation of humanitarian law — is an ideal case for the application of the concept. However the US that was on the forefront for adoption of the concept and has hankered for intervention in Darfur is totally impervious to any such idea. On the contrary, it wants Israel to continue with its attacks irrespective of the cost in terms of human lives and infrastructure. The present case vindicates the Chinese fear that the concept will be no more than an instrument of intervention in the internal affairs of weak nations.

We conclude that the explanation for the total disregard of international norms relating to the use of force and humanitarian law lies in the fact that under the garb of “war on terror” the US wants to dominate the world. In 2002 President Bush propounded the doctrine of pre-emption and applied it to Iraq. Not long ago it sought an amendment to the Charter to incorporate the doctrine of pre-emption. However, the UN members rejected it last year. What US is achieving through its protégé Israel in Lebanon is imposition of ‘Pax Americana’ in the Middle East. For the world to be rid of American imperialism the political defeat of Israel in Lebanon is essential.

Correction: North Korea left the NPT in 2003 and not in 1993 as stated in my last piece. The error is regretted. The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\08\02\story_2-8-2006_pg3_2

 

[Neo]

Interesting read!

I'd like our American members to share their pov's.

Thanks!