It is widely assumed that, with its U.N. Security Council veto and
its stranglehold on the so-called Middle East "peace process," the
United States can continue indefinitely to prevent not just the
achievement of peace, but any serious progress toward peace and
that the rest of the world is powerless. Understandably, this
produces a sense of hopelessness and despair. All that is lacking
is political will and the courage to pay more than lip service to
international law.
During the first half of this century, before it became the world's
sole superpower, the United States played a major and constructive
role in building the structures of international law and in
opposing the venerable principle that "Might makes right" which it
now seems to embrace. In 1956, when Britain, France and Israel,
three of America's closest friends, invaded Egypt, President
Eisenhower demanded their immediate withdrawal, threatening
sanctions. At least then, it was not a question of who was doing it
to whom, as it has more recently been when Iraq invaded Iran or
Israel invades Lebanon or Turkey invades Iraq. At least then, there
were fundamental principles of international law and conduct which
had to be respected.
In 1967, Israel conquered and occupied portions of the territory of
all of its neighbors except Lebanon (an omission which it has since
rectified), America cheered and the long, downhill slide in
America's respect for international law began. Repeatedly over the
past three decades, the United States has found itself on the short
end of 14-1 votes in the Security Council and 160-2 votes in the
General Assembly, standing alone in support of behavior which the
rest of the world recognizes as constituting gross and unequivocal
violations of the Geneva Conventions and international law
generally.
While most Americans may not notice or care, those who make
American government policy can, at the psychological and
intellectual level, have only two possible reactions to America's
choice to consistently oppose the rest of mankind on fundamental
issues of international law and human rights. First, they can
accept that America has become an "outlaw" state - or, perhaps, a
"rogue" state, to use the splendidly subjective epithet which
America now pins on those countries it doesn't like. Second, they
can tell themselves that international law is simply not to be
taken seriously in the real world, at least by those sufficiently
powerful to ignore it. The second alternative must be the
psychologically more acceptable one. In any event, it is the one
which seems to have been adopted.
By the 1980s, America was mining Nicaragua's harbors (and ignoring
the International Court of Justice's condemnation of it for doing
so), bombing Libyan cities and invading Grenada and Panama for
reasons so flimsy that it is difficult today to remember what they
were. When the U.s. Congress passed a law requiring the closing of
the Palestinian Mission to the U.N. in New York, in flagrant
violation of the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, the Legal Adviser to
the State Department even produced a legal opinion to the effect
that subsequent U.S. domestic legislation takes precedence over
prior ratified treaties - which is a very subtle nuance away from
telling the rest of the world that the United States does not
consider itself bound by the treaties to which it is a party.
The ongoing refusal of the United States to pay the massive arrears
in its U.N. dues and assessments, which constitute a legally
binding treaty obligation toward 184 other countries, is consistent
with the letter and spirit of this legal opinion and reflects a
contempt for international law so broadly absorbed into the
American world view that it barely elicits comment in the United
States. In the same spirit, the Clinton Administration has been
trying (without success) to obtain the cancellation of 50 years of
U.N. resolutions on Palestinian rights and Middle East peace on the
grounds that, with Israelis and Palestinians now talking to each
other, international law is no longer relevant or helpful. Put
simply, might makes right.
Europeans, on the other hand, still tend to view international law
as having an important role to play in making the world a better
place. When they join the rest of the world in opposing Israel and
the United States at the United Nations, it is not because they
dislike Israelis and Americans (quite the contrary), but because
they believe it is important to affirm and support basic principles
of international law and human rights, and to take a clear position
for right against wrong and for justice against injustice.
Yet, at least until now, they have seen their role as ending there.
When, in effect, Israel and America spit in their faces and do as
they please, the Europeans turn the other cheek, returning on the
next occasion to steadfastly affirm what international law requires
and to be rebuffed yet again. It is a process which ultimately
diminishes respect for the very principles of international law
which the Europeans seek to affirm.
Europe's problem is not powerlessness. It carries on substantially
more trade with Israel than does the United States, and Israel's
participation in European events as diverse as the European soccer
championships and the annual Eurovision song contest provides
significant psychological comfort to Israelis who still feel
isolated in their geographical region. Europe's problem is
political will, but, in the new post-Cold War world, European
subservience to American dictates should no longer be viewed as a
perpetual infirmity.
American Middle East policy, like American foreign policy
generally, is a function of American domestic politics and bears no
relationship to American "national interests," to the extent that,
aside from avoiding nuclear annihilation, American "national
interests" (as opposed to the specific interests of particular
American special interest groups) can even be said to exist.
American politicians, like most human beings, are motivated
principally by the desire to remain employed, which requires (or is
at least perceived as requiring) not offending any rich and
powerful special interest group. While not actively hostile toward
Middle East peace, American politicians from President Clinton on
down rank it in priority well below their personal job security and
will always do so.
After much hesitation, the U.S. government opposed apartheid in
South Africa and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia because significant
domestic constituencies opposed them and few Americans dared to
speak out in favor or them. The U.S. government continues to give
unstinting support to apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Israel and
Palestine because the most powerful of all domestic constituencies
supports them and virtually no Americans dare co speak out against
them. There is no reason to hope for a Second American Declaration
of Independence or for any constructive American role in the Middle
East.
For Europe, on the other hand, the Middle East is its "own
backyard," and peace and stability in the Middle East are
fundamental national interests. The "European Union Call for Peace
in the Middle East" issued by the Heads of State or Government of
the European Union at their June 1997 Amsterdam summit proclaimed
that "the peoples of Europe and the Middle East are linked by a
common destiny" and that "peace is possible, necessary and a matter
of urgency in the Middle East" and listed "respect for the
legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people to decide their own
future," "the exchange of land for peace" and "the
non-acceptability of the annexation of territory by force" among
the "foundations of peace." In addition, domestic political
pressures which would oppose taking positions consistent with
international law, basic principles of human rights and national
self-interest are much weaker in Europe than in the United States.
The time may soon be ripe for a principled and self-interested
European Declaration of Independence.
Imagine that the 15 nations of the European Union were to belatedly
adopt the Eisenhower Principle and to issue a joint declaration to
the effect that, if Israel has not complied with international law
and U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 425 and withdrawn to
its internationally recognized borders by a specified date (say,
six months hence), the European Union would have to consider the
imposition of economic sanctions against Israel, including the
banning of all aviation links between Israel and the European Union
countries.
America's 1997 vetoes supporting Israel's huge, new, illegal
settlement construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim/Har Homa and opposing
Israeli payment of compensation for the Qana massacre have sent the
Netanyahu government the clear message that it can do whatever it
wishes, including destroying the world's hopes for Middle East
peace, without fear of any adverse consequences. Such a European
declaration would send the opposite message with thunderous
resonance. It is unlikely that sanctions would ever have to be
imposed, since, as in 1956, Israel's politicians could honestly
recognize and convincingly explain to their electorate that such a
small country cannot refuse to comply with such an ultimatum.
While such a declaration would not make Middle East peace
inevitable, it would, overnight, make it likely. By forcing Israel
to "do the right thing" and thereby liberating Israelis from the
role (so tragic in light of Jewish history) of oppressors and
enforcers of injustice, European governments would be showing more
genuine concern for the long-term welfare of Israelis than the
unthinkingly and abjectly subservient American government. They
would also revive respect for international law generally and for
Europe as an independent force in world affairs.
Is this merely a dream? Is this unimaginable in the real world? Or
might Europe finally summon up the political will and the courage
of its convictions to utter the words which could produce peace in
the Middle East?