The United Nations in Rima Khalaf's Balance

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

It is known, from the United Nations Charter itself, that this international organization does not respect democracy, and is largely a private institution for the five permanent members of the Security Council. Adherence to democratic principles requires equality among states, and justice in the distribution of tasks and responsibilities, and the United Nations is about as far as one can get from the scale of justice and equality. Only five states can object to draft resolutions and prevent them from becoming resolutions, according to these states’ own subjective moods. The remaining states, numbering up to 189, can only contribute to marginal resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, which often never find their way toward implementation. Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are not implemented unless the five permanent members consent and are willing to see them implemented. The General Assembly adopts resolutions, some of which obtain the approval of the five states, but which never find a path toward implementation because the will of these states, or some of them, is lacking.

If we track the mood of the Security Council, we find that the five states’ approval is not a condition for implementing certain resolutions, nor is it a condition, at times, for a resolution to even be adopted at all. For example, America acted militarily against Iraq without there being any international resolution authorizing the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein. The other four states could not stop the United States, and some of them, Britain and France, even participated in the war. Russia, which had inherited a heavy legacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, contented itself with expressing displeasure. In the Arab case, America worked diligently and hard to secure a General Assembly resolution partitioning Palestine. It maneuvered extensively and pressured many states forcefully to vote in favor of partition. America did not agree to put the matter to a vote until it had secured a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, while the other states played a marginal role. The General Assembly adopted a watered-down resolution regarding the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, but it was never implemented, because a state like America has no interest in it — indeed, opposes the refugees’ return. The Security Council adopted Resolution 425, calling for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from South Lebanon, but the Council failed at implementation, and America took no action against Israel to force it to withdraw. This means the stronger power has the greater share in how the United Nations is directed. Russia has some role, though not equal to the United States’ role, and China holds the same standing.

We in the Arab region are fully aware of the poisonous role the United Nations, and the League of Nations before it, played against the Arabs, and we are aware of the United States’ absolute bias in favor of Zionist aggression and occupation, and we are also aware that we ourselves have not risen to the level of responsibility in defending ourselves within the international organization. The General Assembly once adopted a resolution including Zionism on the list of racist organizations, but this inclusion was struck out after Arab states decided to recognize Israel and establish relations with it. The decision to strike it out came at Israeli-American request, and Arabs did not challenge the matter.

The United Nations’ treatment of the ESCWA organization, led by Ms. Rima Khalaf, did not contradict its hideous record against Arabs generally and the Palestinian people specifically. Ms. Rima prepared a scholarly report, meticulously documented according to modern scholarly standards and requirements, with the research and verification carried out by two professionals in scientific research and adherence to scholarly methodology. Despite this, the report did not please the UN Secretary-General, who requested it be withdrawn — but Rima stood by her work, respected herself, and decided to resign as ESCWA’s executive director. The Secretary-General fell under Zionist and American pressure, and the United States threatened to stop paying its dues to the United Nations. The Secretary-General did not defend the truth, nor scholarly research, preferring to remain a tool in the hands of the United States. He sided with the racists, disregarding moral principles and values, and gave no consideration to the universal values the world now claims to embrace, such as opposing racism, defending the rights of indigenous peoples, working to eliminate poverty and ignorance, and holding to democratic principles. He turned his back on human values in order to remain Secretary-General, with the privileges and high salary that come with it.

The UN Secretary-General’s conduct was not strange, because he cannot even assume the position in the first place except through the permanent member states, the United States foremost among them. He accepts for himself, from the very start, being nothing but a tool, remaining under the pressure of these states’ interests, and consequently has no willingness to sacrifice their interests for the sake of humanity. The current Secretary-General is no different from other secretaries-general who deliberately ignored international law out of fear of angering the violators. This is why the UN Secretary-General will not act according to his own humanitarian convictions and universal humanitarian principles unless the UN Charter is amended in a way that guarantees equality and justice on the international stage.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الأمم المتحدة في ميزان ريما خلف” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.