Is this the beginning of the end of international law?.

galway | anti-war / imperialism | other press Thursday July 27, 2006 22:37 by Jack - IPSC

Michael D. lays it on the line

The European Union has handed the Middle East to the militarists, writes Michael D Higgins TD in todays Irish Times.

The protection of and respect for the welfare of civilians and civilian infrastructure in times of occupation are two of the fundamental principles of international law in recent history. These principles are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. The response to the atrocities of concentration camps, the destructive consequences of war, and the threat of nuclear annihilation were a powerful impetus in driving the movement for human rights forward.

Recent events in Lebanon represent such a significant departure from these principles as to suggest that this is the beginning of the end of international law and its protections.

Those of us on the left who have condemned the Hizbullah action as one which, given experiences to date, would draw a reaction as unlawful as it would be indiscriminate, and impact disastrously on the civilian population of Lebanon, are clear in our support for the international legal protections for all civilians. This has been the basis for our demand for an immediate ceasefire as well as calls for respect for the sovereignty of Lebanon, a commitment to the political process and sustained realistic involvement by the international community.

The destruction of the lives of civilians, be it in Israel or Lebanon, must be condemned unequivocally.

Parties of the left have consistently rejected terrorist actions not only because of their impact on civilians, but also because of the response they call forth from the powerful who abuse their position and are unlikely to be restrained by norms of law or basic decency.

The response of Israel, supported by the most powerful country in the world, is outrageous both in terms of the killing and injuring of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, which is occurring in such fashion as to even make impossible the delivery of humanitarian relief by the United Nations and its agencies.

Such destruction is something which should not surprise the international community. Israel has followed this policy for decades in Gaza and the occupied territories of the West Bank. At the heart of the policy lies the principle of collective punishment of civilians, the denial of human rights and the destruction of a way of life. In full knowledge of this, the European Union has remained silent, refusing to implement the human rights clauses of its own agreement with Israel despite being called on by the European Parliament to do so.

The quartet comprising the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia has consistently neglected the issue of expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, the absorption of Palestinians into a new ghetto in east Jerusalem, the illegality of the wall and sustained breaches of human rights by Israel.

Neither have the parties to the roadmap for peace recognised the distinction between the Hamas voice coming from Syria, and the evolving views of the Palestinian Hamas movement which has formed a government after free elections. These elections were monitored by observers from the countries comprising the quartet, and indeed by President Carter's institute, all of whom described them as free and fair.

Tragically, in its failure to respond to the 18-point proposal by prisoners representing four factions - a plan that had the support of Mahmoud Abbas, and likely to have the support of the vast majority of Palestinians - the EU carries a large responsibility for what has taken place in recent weeks in Gaza. It has handed the Middle East to the militarists.

If the Irish Government is to recover anything of its credibility, it should use its influence to call for a return to talks on a comprehensive settlement within the framework of international law.

Such talks must deal with all of the issues of illegal settlement and their expansion, deprivation of human rights, the expansion of east Jerusalem, the release of prisoners, and meaningful security. It must examine all the issues, rather than calling for a version of security predicated on the simple demand for demilitarisation on the part of those who can point to the neglect by the international community, and the EU in particular, of all of the abuses that flow from illegal occupation.

The EU must talk to the Palestinian government. It should recognise also that its cutting off of aid to that government was a disastrous decision that has visited suffering on the Palestinian people.

The refusal of the US to agree to talks with Syria, or to an immediate ceasefire, is reprehensible.

Its policy in supporting the continuing loss of life and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon by Israel as a collective punishment of the Lebanese people for having Hizbullah in their midst is such a breach of international law as merits bringing it before the international courts.

Tragically, the stance of the US is more likely to be the beginning of the end of the disciplines of international law itself. At such a moment practitioners and supporters of a genuine global security based on such universal principles as the Geneva Conventions must speak out and call on their governments to state where they stand on the basic protection of civilians in international law and on such a basic principle as the sovereignty of Lebanon.

Alright Michael D. We hear ya!