Using the UN to undermine Palestinian rights

Hasan Abu Nimah, The Electronic Intifada, 29 July 2009

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana surprised observers on 11 July when he called, during a speech in London, for the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain date even if no agreement had been reached between Israelis and Palestinians.

On its face, this proposal sounds dramatic. There must be some who still believe that a Security Council decision would result in real and drastic action. The reality, however, is that the Security Council is not the powerful executive organ it was created to be.

Yet Solana clearly angered Israel by daring to make such a proposal. Israel is not used to being surprised, and normally the big powers consult it before making any major statements about the Middle East situation. This time it seems Solana did not seek the proper Israeli permission. Yet the Israeli anger itself seemed to give added credence to the idea that Solana must have said something significant.

Solana praised the new peace initiative of US President Barack Obama and suggested that if that fails to bring about a binding agreement between the parties, then the "international community" should intervene through the Security Council. Specifically, Solana proposed:

"After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution. This should include all the parameters of borders, refugees, Jerusalem and security arrangements. It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims."

What this seemingly bold statement boils down to is that Solana wants the Security Council to join the chorus of those who have been singing the two-state solution song for decades. Instead of suggesting concrete measures to enforce previous and long-ignored UN resolutions, or to check Israel's violations which made a Palestinian state impossible, Solana simply wants the UN to recognize an imaginary Palestinian state as a full member of the UN.

If we try to put a positive spin on it, we could say that the "two-state solution" is already half way to being achieved. After all, one of the two states -- Israel -- has been in existence for more than 60 years, and moreover has been expanding its territory for all that time.

The problem, however, is that this "success" means that there is nowhere left for a second state. Solana, like many others, finds it easy to parrot the two-state solution, but does not have the courage to demand a complete end even to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip which began on 4 June 1967.

Having himself been such a key part of the failed peace process, Solana now wants the Security Council to "mandate" a resolution of central issues -- borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security arrangements. He does not say how the UN would do this but merely throws it to them as if these matters are minor details.

Indeed, Solana could have recognized that the UN -- the Security Council in particular -- has already dealt with these matters. Hasn't the Security Council decided repeatedly that all of Israel's settlements beyond the line of 4 June 1967 are illegal and should be removed? Hasn't it declared that Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is null and void as are all legal and administrative changes made in these territories by Israel? Hasn't the Security Council declared clearly and repeatedly that Israel's efforts to change the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are totally illegal and invalid?

Given that all this is the case, and the Security Council never once moved to enforce its own resolutions violated by Israel, why should its intervention matter now? If anything -- and this is likely why Solana is shy to say exactly what the Security Council should do -- he wants it to endorse fake solutions which legitimize illegality. For example, a UN resolution canceling the right of return, recognizing existing settlements, imposing on Palestinians a bantustan instead of state, and probably also mandating NATO or other international forces to occupy the state, as is the case in several Balkan countries created under Solana's stewardship.

There is no guarantee that Israel would comply with even such a resolution that endorses most of its demands. What would happen then? Is Solana proposing that the Security Council develop a backbone, that it enforce its own resolutions with sanctions against Israel? If so, that would be welcome of course, but the test is to enforce the existing resolutions which Israel and Solana, along with the rest of the peace process industry have ignored and undermined for so long.

It might have made some sense if Solana suggested that the Security Council recognize a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, on the borders exactly as they were on 4 June 1967. That would have signaled an intent to reinforce existing international law and bring an end to the illegal colonial occupation which the EU has subsidized and politically covered for so long.

Instead, Solana seems to be calling for the UN to endorse vague ideas and start again an entire process that has proven totally misguided and fruitless. The real worry, however, is that Solana, who has always taken his political cues from Washington, is launching a trial balloon. He may be proposing a course of action to save the Obama administration from the failure of the process being conducted by US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.

It is not far-fetched to imagine the United States, which effectively controls the Security Council, proposing a resolution embodying Solana-like ideas, and packaging this as being part of a new US commitment to international joint action and legitimacy. The Palestinians will be presented with a fait accompli where they will be told that any demands for the their legitimate and inalienable rights beyond what the resolution contains are now invalid.

Passing such a resolution, and calling it Middle East "peace" would mark a new low in the UN's abdication of its responsibilities. It would be the diplomatic equivalent of hanging up a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" at the beginning of a long and disastrous war.

Hasan Abu Nimah is the former permanent representative of Jordan at the United Nations. This essay first appeared in The Jordan Times and is republished with the author's permission.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10683.shtml

Latest articles on EI:

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial : Why Obama's peace process is still going nowhere (30 July 2009)

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial : Using the UN to undermine Palestinian rights (29 July 2009)

Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine : Homeward bound: Gaza in 24 hours (28 July 2009)

Palestine : Development : Palestinians in Israel forced to study Zionist anthem (28 July 2009)

Palestine : Role of the Media : Lies and Israel's war crimes (28 July 2009)

Palestine : Human Rights : Fatah, Hamas rule increasingly authoritarian (28 July 2009)

Palestine : Art, Music & Culture : Book review: "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide" (27 July 2009)

Palestine : Human Rights : Israel's "open" Jerusalem closed to Palestinians (27 July 2009)

Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine : Families celebrate academic excellence amidst the siege (24 July 2009)

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial : "The best place one could be on Earth" (24 July 2009)

＜外資系企業＞「ロックアウト」型の退職強要相次ぐ

　「もう会社には入れません」－－。外資系企業で働く労働者が、身分証などを取り上げられ、職場から閉め出される形で退職を強要されるケースが相次いでいる。かつて、労働組合が会社の偽装倒産などに反対し「ロックアウト」で職場を占拠したこともあったが、逆のケースだ。外資系社員の組合員が急増しているユニオンは、「外資系でも当然日本の労働法は適用される。勝手な解雇は許さない」と話している。

　ロックアウト型退職強要の相談が増えているのは、個人加盟の労働組合の「東京管理職ユニオン」（橋本忠治郎委員長）。昨年のリーマン・ショック以降、解雇や退職強要の相談が増え始め、今年に入り特に外資系の相談が増えた。６月までに同労組が取り組んだ団体交渉は約１００件に上るが、このうち約５０件が外資系の金融や生保、証券、ＩＴ関連企業が占める。これまで外資系で１０件以上、ロックアウト型の相談があったという。

　ロックアウト型の退職強要は、人事部が労働者を呼び出し、「雇用は終了します。仕事はなく明日から出社する必要はありません」などと告げられる。書面へのサインを拒否すると、その間にＩＤカードやセキュリティーカードの返却を求められ、拒否してもカードを使えなくして、会社に入れない状態になる。その後、会社で使っていたノートや文具などの私物を自宅に送りつけてくる。

　都内在住でインド資本のＩＴ関連会社で働いていた３０代の女性は、理由も明らかにされず退職を強要された。身分証を取りあげられ、数日後に名刺やノートなどの私物が自宅に送りつけられた。組合に加入し、解雇理由を聞いても「能力不足、世界経済の悪化」など具体的な理由はなかった。ロックアウトされると会社がどういう状態にあるのかも分からず、同僚とも連絡が取れず心理的な圧迫が高まるという。この女性も精神的ダメージを受けたという。

　同労組の鈴木剛執行委員は「日本では整理解雇には解雇回避の努力や十分な説明などの要件が求められる。外資の乱暴な解雇に泣き寝入りする必要はない」と話している。同労組では２５、２６の両日、午前１０時から、日本、外資に限らずロックアウトや正社員の退職強要などへの緊急電話相談を実施する。相談電話は（０３・５３７１・５１７０）へ。【東海林智】

外資は基本的に植民地支配の論理から抜けていない
又解雇を言い渡す外人も本国から2年おきの契約で
日本に来ている場合が多いので解雇を特別なこととは考えていない
女性が外資に憧れて働くのは構わないけど
男はあまり勧めない　結婚して子供ができての浮草暮しはつらい
女性の場合も旦那は日本の手堅い会社もしくは公務員を見つけるべきだね
外資で働く場合は入社した瞬間から新たな経歴書書いておくこと
次の会社に自分を売り込むためにこの会社でどんなキャリア増やしておくかという意味で
ちなみに外資でもボスによる部下の好き嫌いはあるし
ごますりも大変有効
よって評価もそうなる
日本の会社と違ってドライにビジネスに専念できるなんてことはないよ

Why is South Africa.....

Why is South Africa still helping apartheid Israel?

"Due to their support of South Africans struggling against apartheid, Palestinians likewise expect the same level of support from the now free and democratic South Africa." (Tess Scheflan/ActiveStills )

A few weeks ago I departed from South Africa for the Gaza Strip in order to take up a short-term voluntary post with a humanitarian organization there. As the Rafah border crossing with Egypt is effectively the only passage in and out of the besieged territory, flying to Cairo was my only option in gaining access to Gaza.

The Egyptian border authorities controlling the Rafah crossing have varying and often arbitrary requirements that must be fulfilled by anyone wishing to enter Gaza, which change regularly and without notice. The latest requirement is that any non-Palestinian wishing to visit Gaza needs to obtain prior written permission from their embassy in Cairo. This is ostensibly to ensure that foreigners have received the relevant travel warnings from their respective embassies and to absolve the Egyptian government of any responsibility for their health or safety once in Gaza.

While this appears reasonable, as I learned over the next few days, it is actually designed to prevent the entry of foreigners into the Gaza Strip. At the South African Embassy in Cairo, I quickly realized that my government was conspiring with the Egyptian and Israeli siege of the tiny coastal territory. After repeated requests with various representatives, my embassy refused to provide the necessary permission for me to enter Gaza. Indeed, I was told that the embassy was under "strict orders directly from the South African government not to facilitate the travel of any South African citizen to Gaza via Rafah." Even when I contacted the South African Ambassador, Ms. Santo Kudjoe directly, my request for assistance was denied without any credible reasons. After this, the embassy simply began ignoring my telephone calls.

What enraged me further was that the embassies of every other country, except Sweden, were cooperating with their citizens and providing them with the necessary letters of consent. I personally saw American, French and Polish aid workers entering because they had the dreaded letter.

I had expected to encounter difficulty from Egyptian and Israeli authorities upon attempting to enter Gaza. But neither had interfered. After traveling thousands of kilometers, and now literally standing a few hundred meters away from Gaza, the sad irony was that it was my own government that was preventing me from entering. I couldn't understand why South Africa, which claims to be sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, had adopted this policy.

Since the beginning of the Israeli-led siege on Gaza over two years ago, the territory has been plunged into socioeconomic chaos. According to the UN, 80 percent of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants are directly dependent on aid for their basic staple foods. Local trade and industry has collapsed due to virtually all imports and exports being unable to bypass the almost-permanently sealed borders.

The list of 3,000 to 4,000 basic items that were permitted to enter the area prior to the blockade has now been reduced to between 30 to 40 items, with basic household necessities such as light bulbs, candles, matches, books, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner prohibited from entering.

Almost no gasoline or diesel has been allowed in since November 2008, forcing people to run their vehicles and ambulances on cooking gas. Gaza's only power plant has shut down several times after running out of fuel because the crossing used to import the fuel has been closed. Oxfam research shows that houses across Gaza are without electricity between 4 percent and 33 percent of the time.

In addition, the ban on import of pipes, pumps and other spare parts has caused the collapse of Gaza's water and sewage network. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, Gaza residents receive only half of their required water needs, with 80 percent of that deemed unfit for consumption by international standards. WHO estimates that between 50-70 million liters of raw or poorly-treated sewage is released into the sea from Gaza daily, due to the collapsing sewage network. Some of Gaza's sewage is stored in huge lagoons, one of which burst in 2007 causing at least five deaths.

The UN recorded that over 52,000 houses, 800 industrial sites, 204 schools, 39 mosques and two churches were partially or completely destroyed during Israel's winter assault on Gaza. While international donors have pledged over $3 billion to help rebuild the devastated area, reconstruction efforts have been rendered impossible due to the blockade. As at June 2009, not a single pane of glass had entered Gaza from Israel, while only two truckloads of cement have been granted entry thus far.

Bearing this and our own recent struggle against oppression and apartheid in this country in mind, I find it utterly inconceivable that the South African government would stand in the way of aid workers attempting to render their time and skills in an area so desperately in need of assistance. I have heard several prominent political figures vociferously swearing their loyal support and admiration for the Palestinians on so many occasions, some even going as far as saying that "South Africa is not free until Palestine is free." This however, unfortunately, appears to be nothing but lip service.

A recently published report conducted by the Palestinian grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign and endorsed by a broad range of humanitarian organizations, accused the South African government of "complicity in Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid." The report highlights a striking inconsistency between South Africa's constitution, its obligations under international law, and stated foreign policy on the one hand, and the government's trade relations with Israeli companies that are directly linked to settlements, checkpoints and the "separation wall" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories -- all deemed illegal under international law -- on the other.

South Africa's main power utility, Eskom, for example is accused of having close ties to the Israel Electric Company. According to a speech given at the Israeli Knesset by a South African government representative earlier this year, the Israel Electric Company will participate in the design of new power stations in South Africa. According to the report, the Israel Electric Company is the sole provider of power to all of the occupied West Bank's illegal settlements.

In addition, Eskom has signed many large contracts with Alstom, a global giant in the transport and energy infrastructure industry, to upgrade its existing plants, as well as build new power stations. Alstom is the same company that is currently being sued in a French court for its involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project built on Palestinian land illegally, and threatening the destruction of many more homes.

Transnet, the South African government's owner and operator of all national rail and port infrastructure, is also linked to the Israeli video surveillance company NICE Systems. In several multi-million dollar projects, NICE Systems is supplying Transnet with thousands of video surveillance cameras and ancillary equipment throughout the country. According to the report, NICE Systems is heavily involved in wiretapping and surveillance for the Israeli government, with close ties to Israeli intelligence.

South Africa's state diamond trader Alexkor, is involved primarily in the mining and sale of rough, gem-quality diamonds on the South African Diamond Exchange. Being the world's largest importer of rough diamonds, Israel is known to buy up a large percentage of South Africa's rough diamonds. Alexkor is accused of doing business with Israeli diamond magnate Lev Leviev. Leviev, a Ukrainian-born billionaire is heavily involved in the construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Due to his extensive role in illegal settlement construction, Leviev has been boycotted by the British government, who refuse to rent property from him for the British embassy in Tel Aviv.

It is well-known that the former South African apartheid regime had close military ties with Israel. But according to the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign's report, there are still extensive military ties between the two countries. These include the sale of explosive detonators, military aircraft, satellites, as well as spare parts and components for other military vehicles to Israel. In 2005, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that a high level delegation of South African defense ministry officials visited Israel in order to discuss military cooperation.

The report goes on to detail the involvement of numerous other South African State organs, including Telkom, in large-scale transactions and business deals with companies directly involved in the occupation, settlement construction as well as the separation wall.

In a written submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004, the Republic of South Africa clearly stated that it considers the separation wall and settlements illegal. It has therefore acknowledged the applicability of international humanitarian law to the case of Palestine, and thus implicitly accepted the obligations which flow from these laws. Furthermore, the Department of Foreign Affairs has affirmed that "respect for and adherence to international law underpins [South Africa's] foreign policy." In South Africa's case as a third party, the most important obligation is thus to ensure that these laws are enforced.

Why then, do the South African government's actions and trade relations conflict so drastically with their stated foreign policy and legal and moral obligations? It appears that the government is playing a double game by appeasing the public with lofty rhetoric on the one hand, while violating its own founding ideals as enshrined in the constitution on the other.

Due to their support of South Africans struggling against apartheid, Palestinians likewise expect the same level of support from the now free and democratic South Africa. It was largely because of the pressure exerted by the international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that the apartheid regime was forced to abolish its racist policies. The least we can do is to return the favor and avoid short-term financial gain from blurring our moral responsibilities.

Having only recently broken free of the humiliation and degradation of apartheid, South Africa should be at the forefront of ending similar injustices wherever else they are found. And if our government is truly a peace loving democracy as it claims to be, then its economic policies should reflect its stated ideals accordingly.

Sayed Dhansay is a South African writer and political activist who volunteered for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2006-2007.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10669.shtml