WordType Designs
Driven To Distractions©
The Sound of One Hand Clapping©


A rchive Date
[ 31-08-2006 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Lebanon ]

      [http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2006/08/04/1718417.html

      International law broken
      By MICHAEL HARRIS
      Fri, August 4, 2006

      As razor jobs go, the Globe's recent caricature of Louise Arbour was a solid effort.

      The Human Rights Commissioner of the United Nations and former Supreme Court of Canada justice looked like a witch there on Page 13, right down to the pointy hat -- or was that a dunce cap? I still don't understand why the letter K straddled the top of her dubious chapeau. Any ideas?

      The accompanying article by Toronto criminal lawyer Eddie Greenspan argued that Ms. Arbour, also a former war crimes prosecutor, had exceeded her mandate by having the audacity to suggest that war crimes may be being committed in southern Lebanon by Israel.

      For the record, Louise Arbour never mentioned which party to this ugly and unnecessary slaughter she was talking about. Mr. Greenspan presumes it was Israel and he may be right. On the other hand, Ms. Arbour could well have been referring not just to potential war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces, but also to those committed by Hezbollah.

      The Toronto criminal lawyer goes on to argue that one of Canada's preeminent international jurists doesn't know her international law, declaring that Article 51 of the UN charter says that there is an inherent right to defend itself against an armed attack. In the case of the war in Lebanon, the triggering event was a raid and ambush by Hezbollah in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two taken hostage back on July 12.

      After three weeks of all-out war against its neighbour, Israel's "self-defence" has left 900 dead, 3,000 injured, 1 million homeless and a country in ruins. The dead include hundreds of children, eight Canadians, and four unarmed UN observers who begged a dozen times not to be killed before they were blown to bits by a "precision" bomb dropped on their well-known post by the Israeli air force.

      Mr. Greenspan is entitled to call that self-defence if he wants to, just as Louise Arbour can conclude it might rise to the level of war crimes. But what no one can successfully pull off, including the learned criminal lawyer, is to make that argument by an appeal to international law. Here's the skinny folks: There is no international law on this dear, dirty planet. Everyone is too busy violating it whenever it suits their interests.

      For example, Mr. Greenspan rightly notes that Article 58 of Protocol One of the Geneva Convention stipulates that parties to a conflict must not locate military objectives in populated areas. Hezbollah has done that and is therefore in breach of international law. Agreed.

      But Protocol One also says this: "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operation only against military objectives."

      Both sides are clearly in breach.

      Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention equally prohibits "collective punishment and likewise all measures of intimidation" against a civilian population. Article 147 forbids "extensive destruction not justified by military necessity." It is difficult to see how bombing Beirut Airport, blowing up bridges, roads, and ambulances and killing hundreds of civilians does not leave Israel in breach as well -- just as Hezbollah is in breach for rocket attacks on civilian targets in northern Israel.

      Mr. Greenspan notes that Hezbollah crossed an internationally recognized border to attack an Israeli patrol in Israel. That is a clear violation of international law, which was why back in 1985 the UN passed a resolution "vigorously" condemning Israel for violating Tunisian sovereignty to attack the then headquarters of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Did that act justify Tunisia bombing Tel Aviv Airport?

      Mr. Greenspan had nothing to say about a lot of international law being breached by Israel, from deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories and building settlements on other people's land to failing to protect innocent civilians from slaughter in Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.

      Israel is by no means alone in embracing only those parts of international law that support its actions while rejecting all others. In addition to the usual suspects, Iraq, Iran, China, and North Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia have many a dark smudge on the resume when it comes to breaking international law at will or supporting those who do because they are allies of the moment.

      While no citizen is above the domestic law of his country, powerful states routinely place themselves above international law. I think Louise Arbour may understand a deeper truth than Eddie Greenspan's one-sided advocacy. We will never subdue the Muslim world by force, only radicalize it.

      As the body count climbs in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's evil star continues to rise.

      Author, broadcaster and investigative journalist Michael Harris can be heard weekdays 1-3 p.m. on 580 CFRA. His e-mail address is mharris@cfra.com

      Letters to the editor should be sent to feedback@ott.sunpub.com
      Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved


      World Fact Book (CIA)]


Some pages may require Adobe Acrobat Reader



Copyright and Fair Use Information: The contents of this web site is protected by international copyright laws and may not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever, if for the purpose of resale or solicitation of a donation. The essays included here, may be reproduced only if: 1)They are not altered in any way; 2) reproductions must be accompanied by this copyright page ; and 3) it is given freely and without charge.
Fair use: The fair use of copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in above sections, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use the factors to be considered include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market value of the copyrighted work.

Home | About Narrative? |Contact
Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved
HAG122125 (1998 -2026)