washingtonpost.com
U.N. Chief Adopting Harsh Stance on Israel
Rebukes Underscore Nation’s Isolation
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, April 15, 2002; Page A16
UNITED NATIONS — In a March 1998 speech in Jerusalem, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan embarked on a quest to “usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the United Nations” by ending decades of Israeli isolation and by placing the Jewish state on an equal footing with other members.
Through a series of symbolic and substantive gestures, from the defense of Israeli positions in the Security Council to the placement of a 4th-century stone from a Galillean synagogue in a corridor between the Security Council and General Assembly chambers, Annan offered himself as a diplomatic buffer between Israel and its Arab rivals at the United Nations.
The strategy had borne fruit until a resurgence of violence in the Middle East prompted Annan to issue uncharacteristically harsh rebukes against the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that diplomats say underscore the fact that Israel is becoming as politically isolated as it has ever been.
Annan warned Israel last month that its “illegal occupation” of Palestinian lands was inflicting “daily humiliation” on the Palestinian civilians and eroding its own international standing. “I am, frankly, appalled by the humanitarian situation,” Annan added in Madrid on Wednesday.
While Annan continues to denounce the Palestinian suicide bombings as “morally repugnant” acts that are harming the Palestinian cause, he has reserved his toughest criticism for Sharon. Aides to Annan say he believes Sharon’s West Bank offensive is crushing hopes for a resumption of the Oslo peace process.
U.N. officials said Annan has been moved to abandon the diplomatic niceties because of the worsening humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Israel’s refusal to address U.N. complaints that Israeli forces have targeted and harassed international relief workers and U.N. employees, including a U.N. staff member who was killed by Israeli forces on March 7. The Palestinian death toll in the U.N.-administered Jenin refugee camp over the past week alone ranges from 100 to as many as 500, according to Israeli and Palestinian estimates.
“Our field office director had guns pointed at him at least seven times” Thursday, said Maher Nasser, a spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which employs more than 11,000 relief workers in the West Bank and Gaza. “We have only four ambulances in the West Bank, and each one has been hit by gunfire more than once.”
Nasser said Israel has yet to answer U.N. demands to provide more than $250,000 in compensation for the destruction of U.N. facilities. An Israeli official said the government will have to “thoroughly study the issue” before it can respond.
Speaking to reporters on March 13 at a news conference in New York, Annan said that Israel’s actions had made it impossible for him to stand back. “I do not think one can watch the tragedy that we all see on our televisions and not be moved to try to do whatever you can to help the situation,” he said.
On Friday, Annan exhibited a new willingness to use the prestige of his office to press Israel to accept the Palestinians’ long-standing demand for an international peacekeeping force. He said theinternational community “must now assemble the will” to send armed peacekeepers to the Middle East to guarantee a cease-fire and help restart the peace process.
“He’s hoping that the council will keep in mind the experience of Bosnia, where the carnage was allowed to carry on for years before a meaningful international fighting force was put in place,” spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Yehuda Lancry, has raised concern with some of Annan’s most critical remarks, particularly his characterization of Israel’s “illegal occupation” of Palestinian lands. But he said that he still “admires” Annan and “trusts” him to be evenhanded.
Israel’s relations with the United Nations were at their best under Annan’s tenure in 2000. With the support of former U.S. ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and Annan, Israel became a member of the Western European and Others Group, one of the most powerful U.N. regional groups that selects candidates for influential U.N. posts.
Annan also endorsed Israel’s claim that it had completed its withdrawal from South Lebanon, fulfilling a 1978 Security Council demand that it end its military occupation there. Syria and Lebanon struggled to convince Annan that the presence of Israeli forces in the disputed Sheba Farms region violated the council’s demand.
“The U.N. endorsement would not have happened” without Annan’s personal support, said Nancy Soderberg, who was the U.S. representative for political affairs to the United Nations during the Clinton administration. “It was masterfully pushed through the council by Kofi [Annan and other senior U.N. officials]. They would not put up with the antics of the Syrians and the Lebanese.”
An Israeli diplomatic source said that the United Nations took a “sharp turn toward its old anti-Israeli roots” nearly 18 months ago, after the resurgence of the Palestinian uprising. Since then, the Palestinians have enlisted the support of the Security Council and General Assembly in passing resolutions condemning Israel, while ignoring Palestinian suicide bombings, said the source. At the U.N. World Conference Against Racism in September, Arab governments mounted an unsuccessful campaign to include language in a U.N. resolution that would have compared the Israeli government to South Africa’s former apartheid regime.
Soderberg, who now heads the New York office of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit think tank, said Annan has had no choice but to promote initiatives because of the Bush administration’s reluctance to offer new ideas. She said his tough demands for Israeli restraint may be driven in part by lingering memories of U.N. inaction in Rwanda and Bosnia.
“He cannot sit on the sidelines and watch Rome burn,” she said. “The secretary general has no choice but to respond to this heart-wrenching, horrific cycle of violence. He has to act, and he has to act boldly. But he’s not the one who is going to solve this problem; the United States has to take the lead.”
© 2002 The Washington Post Company