Kofi Annan: giving ‘the benefit of the doubt’ to Sharon, Chibli Mallat

Opinion, June 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info

The Daily Star, 6/28/03

Dear friends have criticized me for exposing the UN leadership over Iraq in a brutal, “irresponsible” manner (The Daily Star, June 12, The Record of UN Apparatchiks in Iraq.) True, an ad hominem campaign against this or that international civil servant is not a forte. For all one knows, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is liked by his aides, congenial in public, even perhaps well-meaning. But policies are made by men (and sometimes women), and those at the top must be held responsible for them lest the gentle face of international diplomacy make us forget the terrible consequences of realpolitik disguised as diplomacy.
Frank, abrupt and hard-hitting language is necessary when dealing with the Middle East, because nothing less than our future in the region is at stake. This is also true for Palestine. Should violence in Palestine continue, it will affect every Arab country, including Iraq, by reinforcing a vicious circle of extremisms which have plagued our societies since 1948. To break the cycle, a change in everyone’s choice of words is the first priority: We must say what we think and express in public what we say in private. This is far harder for us in the region considering the intolerance of our governments toward the slightest dissent.
On the international level, American policy should be at the heart of one’s criticism. But, for now, let us consider the problem of those who speak day and night about human rights, in this case the United Nations secretary-general (UNSG), without ever doing anything sensible about them. His attitude toward Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon is the latest example.
Ever since the silent response to Sharon parading on Sept. 28, 2000 to provoke the Palestinians who started the violence of the second intifada? extremism has fueled further extremism, with one important provision. Deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat are no longer on the political map, perhaps a good thing for their people and the region, but their Israeli counterpart is more ensconced than ever in deciding the future of the region.
Yet Kofi Annan found nothing “less appropriate” than to grant an interview with Haaretz headed by his readiness “to give the benefit of the doubt” to Sharon.
Annan knows that a criminal complaint against Sharon has been litigated in Belgium during the past two years, and that the Supreme Court of Belgium found in February that it had merits, except for Sharon’s current immunity as prime minister. Annan should know by now that part of the case was founded on the unanimous definition by the UN General Assembly of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres as “an act of genocide.” Furthermore, Israel’s Kahan Commission concluded in its report on the 1983 massacres that Sharon bore “personal responsibility” for them. Annan also knows firsthand how Sharon despises the UN, and how his government has prevented the UN, or any other party, from bringing an end to the conflict, from the proposal two years ago to have international forces on the ground, to the scuttling of the UN mission in Jenin. Yet Annan is still prepared to give Sharon “the benefit of the doubt.”
The argument belongs to the usual school of realpolitik. It is twofold: It is “suicidal” to do anything meaningful against Israel, and it is counter-productive because it will prevent any advance in the process by way of the UN in this case on the “road map.”
On the first portion of the argument, this received version is not accurate. When former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned the rest of the US Cabinet about the renewal of Butros Ghali’s mandate, the issue was not his position on Israel, as Arab lore has it. Its concern was his position on Iraq, as Ghali was rightly perceived to be too attentive to Saddam Hussein’s wishes in consonance with Egyptian policy against any forced change in Arab leadership. But even if standing up to Sharon will see some backlash against the UN from Washington, at least it would be for the right reason. At worst, “suicide” means that the UNSG would have to resign, reviving the importance of resignation in the public sphere as an important and respectable protest against an intolerable situation.
Would exposing Sharon be “counterproductive,” under the facet branch of the argument? “Benefit of the doubt” means that the UNSG hopes Sharon will accept UN participation in the peace process, contradicting every single principle of his political career and against a unique track record in world criminality. “Benefit of the doubt” was the exact argument used time and again about deposed Yugoslav President Slobadan Milosevic, until a principled American ambassador finally said this was the wrong policy because we owe it to Milosevic’s victims, and to his own people, to deal with him in public as we talk about him in private. This is what Annan and all the European and Arab leaders have failed to do ever since Sept. 28, 2000 say the truth about the man who epitomizes extremism in the Middle East, as underlined in a courageous and scholarly book, Politicide: Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians, by Baruch Kimmerling. So the questions to Annan, and all others who like him hold high office and high responsibilities, are simple: How can your conscience square up with giving the benefit of the doubt to a person accused of serious crimes against humanity? Will there be one single time in your public life when you will speak about Ariel Sharon as you would do in private?

Chibli Mallat is EU Jean Monnet professor in European Law, Universite Saint Joseph,Beirut, and lawyer for the victims of Sabra and Shatila before the Belgian courts. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).