UN Security Council:

The naked king

The king is being stripped in full public view. The Security Council, which Mark Malloch Brown the deputy to Kofi Annan calls the king of world governance, is naked beneath apparently useless clothes of laws regulating wars and civilian suffering.

For long, we thought the international system led by the Security Council would help us to build a better world. We learn now, after decades of being taught to hope, that any government, terrorist group or militia can start a war as it pleases. It can also visit as much destruction as it wishes while the Security Council negotiates empty threats.

The latest example is resolution 1701 aimed at ending the fighting in Lebanon. This is a plaintive call from a Security Council trying to believe it has the power to impose its will on belligerents. Other examples include the futile Security Council orders to North Korea and Iran, which disdainfully rejected the resolutions within minutes of approval.

I am not making these points to denigrate 1701 or the Security Council process. Without even these tatters, all of us would be condemned to complete loss of hope. However, we should not pretend there is a system of global governance here capable of protecting us against war and terrorism.

What 1701 achieved is just a slowdown in the widening of terrorist violence and Israel's wars. The Security Council, which comprises only governments, pretends that the Lebanese government's aye to 1701 can stop Hezbollah from trying to destroy Israel. To help, it offers 15,000 UNIFIL troops drawn from disparate countries that have never worked together and have no experience of fighting battle-hardened guerrillas like Hezbollah.

Some officials interpret 1701 to mean that UNIFIL troops can shoot to kill Hezbollah to enforce a buffer zone free of armed militias. This merits a giant pinch of salt. Yes, the troops will shoot if fired upon, but it is far from clear that they will shoot first if they see Hezbollah fighters ferrying empty tanks into the zone.

The politics of attacking Hezbollah, which 1701 does not brand as an enemy, are so complex that trying to turn this UNIFIL into an offensive force could stop it from ever being constituted.

However, miracles can happen. Israel might suddenly offer generous peace terms that do not humiliate Hezbollah while placating Syria. Then, 1701 could be the start to realizing our dream of building a better world based on values rather than violence.

Instead, Israel hopes that Shiites returning to their devastated homes will turn against Hezbollah in outrage. It hopes that Lebanese Christians and Sunnis are so angry that Hezbollah will give up its guns for the sake of Lebanon's unity.

It hopes that Hezbollah will be so busy rebuilding the south to win back Shiite favor that it will no longer wish to make war. This is hardly a coherent plan to build peace for Israel's children.

It also goes against common sense to think that UNIFIL's mere presence will stop Hezbollah from regrouping and fortifying its devastated bunkers under camouflage of rebuilding the south for civilians. Whichever way this hair is split, one trend is apparent: military might even that of terrorists still confers right regardless of Security Council resolutions. Meanwhile, the weak wonder whether to bow to the Security Council king or to join him in kissing the rings of those with trigger-happy fingers.

When will the global community, especially the silent majority of moderate voters in democracies, say enough is enough and force its leaders to defuse this dictatorship of violence?

(The Moderate Voice)