Seven Questions: The United Nations Defends Its Role in Gaza
Page 1 of 1
Posted January 2009
The U.N. Deputy High Commissioner on Human Rights says Israel is to blame.
There's not much good news coming out of the Middle East these days. About 700 civilian casualties have
been reported in Gaza, and some 30 Hamas rockets
jetted into Israel
on January 9. Both Israel
and Hamas have rebuffed a plan for ceasefire, as well as a U.N. Security
Council resolution calling for an end to hostilities. Just hours after FP's Elizabeth Dickinsonsat down with U.N. Deputy High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Kyung-wha Kang, the United Nations and the
International Red Cross announced the suspension of humanitarian relief into
the Gaza Strip. After a U.N. contract driver was killed on Thursday, the
conditions were deemed simply too dangerous for staff to continue their work.
There is much blame to go around for the stalemate and the
destruction. On Dec. 28, Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, condemned what she called a "disproportionate use of force" by Israel to
achieve its objectives. Others, such as former Deputy Prime Minister Natan
Sharansky, have blamed Hamas -- and even the United Nations -- for politicizing
civilian casualties. Kang, who is in Washington
to discuss an upcoming conference on racism and xenophobia, addressed the
situation in Gaza
and the sometimes controversial role of the United Nations.
Foreign Policy:High
Commissioner Navi Pillay released a statement in late December condemning Israel's actions in Gaza. Is this still your position?
Kyung-wha Kang: From
the first day, the casualties coming out of this conflict were a great concern.
[The high commissioner has] condemned both sides for the use of force, and she
has been calling on the immediate cessation of the military actions on both
sides.
I think what is of concern from the human rights and
humanitarian side is that, yes, [humanitarian] access has to be more broadly
opened to get the more needed assistance to the population of Gaza. But we also want to draw the attention of
the Israeli authorities to the fact that the use of force has to be in concert
with their humanitarian obligations to avoid excessive use of force, to avoid
targeting citizens, and to avoid collective punishment. [Israeli authorities] argue
that they're making all the cautionary steps to make the distinction between
Hamas and the civilian population, but what counts as civilian should depend on
the interpretation of humanitarian law: if you're not an active combatant,
you're a civilian. So for example, people working for Hamas related factories
would count the civilians.
FP: In a press briefing
from the White House, spokesperson Dana Perino told reporters, "Hamas often
hides amongst innocents, and uses innocent people, including children, as human
shields." Is a distinction between civilians and combatants feasible in this
case?
KK: I think
there's also an obligation to take precautions to make the distinction between
civilians and active combatants. [Even if Hamas were hiding in a school, for
example,] that would be the obligation.
FP:On Wednesday,
Israel agreed to open its
border for several hours to let humanitarian aid filter into Gaza. Realistically, how much aid can get
through in that time?
KK: According to
the humanitarian assistance agencies, it's far from sufficient. What is really
needed is the cessation of hostilities because the infrastructure is destroyed.
It's very difficult to get [the assistance] to the people who need it.
[Supplies would include] hospital and medical supplies, and fuel
to run the hospitals. One of the things [we're facing is that] there's been such
and outpour of willingness to provide assistance that a lot of the donations are
not useable assistance, for example malaria drugs. In the confusion and the
outpouring of wanting to help, sometimes [the operation] doesn't end up getting
what is needed.
FP:Israel says
its military action was in response to missiles fired over the last weeks into Israel by
Hamas. If you were in the position of Israel, how would you have
responded to the missile attacks into settlements? In other words, how would
you have advised Israel
to react?
KK: Violence
begets further violence. There's a clear asymmetry here in terms of the
military abilities on both sides. And the two sides have different goals -- clearly.
The asymmetry of military power and asymmetry of goals makes it a very
difficult situation.
FP:On Jan. 6,
Natan Sharansky -- the former deputy prime minister -- wrote an editorial for
the Wall St Journal arguing that the
role of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has exacerbated the conflict
by perpetuating the plight of refugees and allowing for their permanent
settlement in camps. What is your reaction to this?
KK: The UNRWA has
for more than 60 years provided crucial support to Palestinian refugees not
only in Gaza but in the West Bank, Jordan, and Syria,
Lebanon, and Egypt.
Without UNRWA, the suffering of the Palestinian refugees would be
enormous. UNRWA's mandate, as given by member states of the UN,
is to provide humanitarian assistance to the refugees, not (like the UN High Commission
for Refugees) to find long-term solutions to individual refugees, in the
absence of a political solution to the greater Palestinian refugee
problem.
Any claim that the U.N. would purposefully prolong the
suffering of the Palestinian people is ungrounded, and diverts attention
away from the real issue. Even more ungrounded is the
notion that the U.N. has helped to sustain terrorists in the occupied
Palestinian territories, or OPT. The ongoing and long lasting
existence of the Palestinian refugee camps in the OPT is the direct result of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the inability of the relevant parties to
find an agreeable solution for the refugee problem. Until that
solution is found, the U.N. cannot ignore the needs of the refugees. Until the
larger refugee problem finds a solution, UNRWA will continue to provide
relief to the refugees, as mandated by the member states of the U.N.
FP:What will
your office do to follow up on these allegations of human rights abuses?
KK: We've had
presences in Ramallah and Gaza
over the years to do human rights advisory and technical training activities
with the local population. We've not had any monitoring and reporting
functions. With the situation, we would like to take on a more expanded role. But
that requires the cooperation of the Israeli authorities, and they have turned
back the special rapporteur on the human rights situation in OPT, Mr. Richard
Falk, when he tried to go into the OPT at the invitation of Mr. Abbas.
FP:Your visit to
Washington is
in part to discuss the work of the Durban Review, a conference promoting the
end of racism and xenophobia. Given that Israel
and Palestine was a difficult subject in initial
negotiations -- and Israel
has since removed itself from the discussion -- do you think conflict in Gaza will have an impact on
further negotiations?
KK: I think it's
too early to tell. But so far, the responses that we have been getting from
individual delegations that [our framework] is a good basis for negotiation -- I
think so far there has been a distinction between this process and the
situation unfolding in Gaza.
Kyung-wha Kang is
United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights.
FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor. Readers should address their comments to Letters@ForeignPolicy.com.