UNITED NATIONS, Nov 08 (IPS) – When the United Nations imposes sanctions or punishes a member state – be it the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council – the decisions are not “binding” and remain unenforceable.
But the resolutions of the Security Council are “binding” – and are still openly violated by countries like North Korea – because all these UN bodies have no means to implement these resolutions, or a standing army to enforce them by force. But they carry only moral weight.
The Council can also impose its own sanctions, especially in the economic, financial and trade sectors, on those who violate its decisions.
And last week there was a move to impose an arms embargo against Israel – and rightly so, judging by the 43,000 plus, mostly Palestinians, killed in Gaza mainly by US-supplied weapons since October of last year.
But how effective will this be since strong opposition will come from the US, Israel’s staunch supporter, which will use its veto power without hesitation if the resolution comes before the Security Council?
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former UN Secretary-General and former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS that anything short of a real, permanent end would not pave the way for an end to the ongoing genocide. the wrath of Israel.
In this context, he said, the joint letter urging all countries to stop selling arms and ammunition to Israel, signed by 52 countries and two organizations recognized by the UN, is forward-looking in a reasonable way, and contains a purposeful intention to contribute. in that “way”.
In fact, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, whose country launched the letter, asserted that “We must repeat every time that selling weapons to Israel means participating in genocide.”
“It can be rightly argued that the United Nations and its supreme body, the General Assembly do not have the power to enforce an arms embargo. weapons in conflict zones, it also loses its power if one of the P-5 uses the infamous veto”.
“However, I strongly believe that the resolution of the General Assembly following the call for an arms embargo on Israel will have a character that has its merits. Despite the politics and power play that destroys the credibility of the UN and undermines its ability to work to resolve conflicts, the arms embargo will highlight the position established by the UN ,” said Ambassador Chowdhury.
In a way, he pointed out, that would strengthen the Secretary General’s efforts to promote a much-needed ceasefire.
After Israel’s declaration of the Secretary General as persona non-grata (PNG) and the extension of UNIFIL attacks in Lebanon, the General Assembly needs to show that its moral and ethical role as proposed in the UN Charter has not been provoked by the politics of the constant threat of the veto , he said.
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “This plan reflects the opinion of the majority of governments and peoples of the world and it is not changing. with the requirements of international humanitarian law, but given that Israel’s largest arms supplier is a full veto-wielding member of the Security Council, it is unlikely to have much impact.”
Another problem, he pointed out, is that other countries sponsoring this program, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, were not only guilty of providing weapons to those who committed war crimes but were also involved in war crimes.
Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan said that last week his country submitted a letter to the United Nations, signed by 52 countries and two nongovernmental organizations, asking for a halt to the transfer of weapons to Israel.
“We wrote a joint letter urging all countries to stop selling weapons and ammunition to Israel. We submitted this letter, with 54 signatories, to the UN on November 1,” said Fidan, according to the Times of Israel.
“We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in genocide,” said Fidan, adding that the letter “is a program launched by Turkey.”
Among the signatories are Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Algeria, China, Iran and Russia, as well as the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Explaining further, Ambassador Chowdhury said that the UN should not forget that the UN International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is illegal under international law. This decision was followed by a General Assembly resolution last September, which demanded that Israel leave the occupied territories within a year.
“I am inspired by the 45 UN Human Rights Experts and Special Rapporteurs, who, driven by their conscience, insist on ‘a permanent cessation of hostilities, . . . presence in the occupied Palestinian territory under UN supervision.’ All of these well-thought-out measures will only promote dialogue and discussion about death and destruction. “
The UN Secretary-General needs to approve and accept this call through his internal experts and recommend to the General Assembly to do the same without delay, he announced.
Back in April 2024, in a resolution adopted by 28 votes in favor, six against and 13 against, the 47-member Human Rights Council supported the call to “stop the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, weapons and other weapons of war to Israel. , Powers in charge…to prevent further violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights”.
Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, delegates heard that the decision was also motivated by the need to stop “heinous” human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Sponsors of the document included Bolivia, Cuba and the State of Palestine, before the vote saw support from more than twenty countries including Brazil, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia and South Africa, according to UN News.
Unlike the UN Security Council, the decisions of the Human Rights Council are not legally binding on countries but have significant moral weight, and in this case are aimed at increasing official pressure on Israel and influencing national policy decisions.
Israel’s two largest sources of weapons, the United States and Germany, have rejected calls for an Israeli embargo, although each is accused of withholding some weapons during the war.
In an October 2024 report, the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI) said that over the past decade, Israel has significantly increased its arms imports. SIPRI estimates that in the five-year period 2019–23, Israel was the world’s 15th largest arms importer, accounting for 2.1 percent of global arms purchases during that period. In 2009-13 it was ranked only 47th.
Although only three countries supplied major weapons to Israel in the year 2019-23, the United States, Germany and Italy, many others provided military equipment, ammunition or services. The other three largest arms exporters in the world are among the top 10: the United Kingdom, France and Spain.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
