Vetoing the American Veto

 Roy Tov

Veto | Vetoing the American Veto

On April 3, 2009 The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was created by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to investigate possible Israeli violations of international law against the Palestinian people. The mission's final report was released on September 15, and accused the Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes, crimes against humanity and of inflicting terror on civilians. Palestinians were accused of committing lesser faults. On October 16, The UN Human Rights Council endorsed the report by 25 votes for, 6 against and 16 abstentions/failures to vote. The UK and France abstained, the US voted against.

I reviewed extensively the report in other articles and would like to focus the attention in what is going to happen. Next, the report would reach the United Nations General Assembly; the assembly would probably accept it and make recommendations in the form of General Assembly Resolutions. Israel will claim “they are all anti-Semites.” 

David Ben Gurion – Israel’s first Prime Minister and the person that declared Israel’s independence after the last was granted by the UN – referred to the UN more than once as “UM-Shmum,” (pronounce “oom-schmoom”) a term that could be translated into bad English as “UN-schmocks.” Israelis have stayed in the same infantilism level since those days.

Afterwards, a meeting on the report and the accompanying General Assembly resolution would be held at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Technically, any international military action against the terror inflicting State of Israel must be approved here, though the American attack on Iraq in 2003 was never allowed by the UNSC, its Resolution 1441 did not allow such invasion.

Yet, the situation at the council is complex. There are 15 members of the Security Council, five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and ten elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, the Security Council decisions require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. The United States have used the veto over eighty times, more than any other country except for the now non-existing Soviet Union. Since the 1970’s, the US has become the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticizing Israel, and this is the crux of the matter.

De facto, the United Nations is not a democratic body. Not even close to that. There are five countries which create an unbalanced reality in which certain societies – or their leaders to be more exact – have the power to enforce their capricious will on the rest of the world, without the last having any capabilities to appeal. In the case of the US we are talking about less than 5% of the world’s population.

In this case, if the US would use its veto against any resolution resulting from the Goldstone Report it would mean the clear endorsement of the US of Israeli intentional bombing of hospitals and all the other horrific crimes described in the report. 

Can the US justify that on “Democratic Values?” Is the American society ready to accept the full implications of its endorsing a terror inflicting entity? Would the American society accept the same verdict once it is pointed at her? Will we hear at least once a honest statement from that entity, or we will continue to hear mumbling justifications of unjustifiable double morality standards?

I wonder.