Wednesday, April 30, 2014

UN Irrelevance



by Zalman Shoval


U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was unfazed by the reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas and urged Israel to continue with the peace talks as if nothing had happened. U.N. special envoy to the Middle East Robert Serry even issued a statement suggesting he welcomed the reconciliation.
 
In 1955, when then-Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion suggested to Prime Minister Moshe Sharett that Israel should take the Gaza Strip over the near-nightly terror attacks launched by the Palestinian fedayeen, Sharett refused, warning of the U.N.'s backlash against Israel.
 
Ben-Gurion dismissed Sharett's concerns with the now-iconic dismissive "Um-Shmum" ("U.N., Shmu-N"). Ben-Gurion was not truly dismissive of the importance of the international community's support -- or at least its non-opposition -- to military moves by Israel, but he had no illusions when it came to the U.N., both over its ineffectiveness and its innate bias against Israel.
 
When Sharett reminded Ben-Gurion that the U.N. had formed the State of Israel, Ben-Gurion admonished him, saying it was the Jews' own courage -- not the U.N.'s -- that had formed the State of Israel.
 
The majority of U.S. presidents were also not convinced that the U.N. -- other than holding symbolic value and being a convenient international platform for public diplomacy -- was the best institution to promote the free world and America's agenda. That is, until U.S. President Barack Obama came along, touting the international body's institutions, and especially the Security Council, as the foundations upon which his policies should be based.
 
This reflected Obama's worldview and his intention to diminish U.S. involvement in global affairs as well as its role as "the world's policeman," opting instead to expand U.S. ties with the nations that make up the majority in the U.N. General Assembly, namely the Islamic states and African and Asian states.
 
The U.S. is no longer a distinct, leading member of the U.N. It is now and equal, loyal partner in the family of nations, one that prefers leading from behind or, as it seems, not leading at all.
 
Reality, however, proved different from these idealistic and utopian theories, as events such as the bloody civil wars in Syria and south Sudan, the Ukraine crisis, and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, served as a rude awakening for Washington, making it clear to the president that the U.N., as an instrument of American diplomacy, has little sway over matters of international importance.
 
Is there really any chance that the Security Council would approve military action against Iran's nuclear program should it become necessary? It is unclear whether Obama has come to his senses, but American diplomats and analysts have suggested that the administration "has grown tired" of the U.N. and that there are growing doubts as to whether the U.N. is an asset or a liability.
 
As for the potential repercussions of Israel -- it has never had too many illusions regarding the U.N., despite the positive role it played in 1947 and despite the fact that talented and eloquent Israeli ambassadors have known how to make extraordinary use of its platform in service of Israel's public diplomacy.
 
Nevertheless, based on past experience extending beyond our region, no one could ever convince Israel that the U.N. and its "soldiers" could ever serve as a substitute for the ironclad principle that Israel is the only one that could and should defend its own security.
 
In 1956, when Russia invaded Hungary to crush the uprising against the communist regime, the masses expected U.N. troops to swoop in and save the day, but all the U.N. did was send a lone emissary -- who was denied entry to Hungary. One could only hope that as Washington regains a more balanced and realistic view of the U.N. it would work in Israel's favor, and that it would include countering the Palestinians' unilateral moves for international recognition in the U.N.
 
This further mandates responsible and wise diplomacy on Israel's part, to minimize as much as possible any political gaps between Jerusalem and Washington. The U.N.'s status may be precarious, but one should not interpret another saying by Ben-Gurion, that Israel's "future does not depend on what the goyim say, but what the Jews do," to mean that what the Americans say is not important.


Zalman Shoval

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8231

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment