The resolution passed but the vote demonstrated persistent flouting international law in favour of strategic interest.

The death toll from an Israeli air attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs has risen to 37 people, including three children and seven women, Lebanon’s health minister says.

On September 18, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution calling for Israel to terminate its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory within one year. The vote, which concluded with 124 in favour, 12 against, and 43 abstained, has been interpreted by some as a significant triumph for Palestinian advocacy.

Yet, the fact that 54 countries (excluding Israel) – constituting about 28 percent of all member states – did not back the resolution cannot be overlooked. It not only signifies a failure of moral courage but also underscores a pervasive hypocrisy that continues to shape global governance. In fact, it reflects continuing efforts to erode the international regime in order to ensure impunity for Israel.

The resolution in question demanded that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. It reiterated the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in July that Israel’s occupation was illegal, that its settlements on occupied Palestinian land are also illegal and must be dismantled, and that it needs to pay reparations for damages incurred by the Palestinians.

International law is quite clear on the question of occupation: it is a criminal act. A consensus among international scholars underscores that an occupier cannot invoke the right of self-defence against the people it occupies – an argument Israel has employed to justify its nefarious genocidal actions.

In the context of this ruling by the World Court, voting against and abstaining from voting on the UNGA resolution cannot be dismissed as mere political neutrality. By choosing not to support a resolution that re-affirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation, these nations implicitly endorse Israel’s actions and contribute to the perpetuation of a status quo marked by brutal oppression and suffering. They also openly disregard and thus attack the provisions of international law.

It is important to remember that this vote came amid a continuing Israeli aggression against Gaza and the West Bank, in which nearly 42,000 Palestinians – the majority of them women and children – have been killed and more than 100,000 injured. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that Isreal is “plausibly” violating the Genocide Convention with its actions in Gaza. This genocidal violence is a direct consequence of the decades-long illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The October 7 attack last year by Hamas cannot be viewed in isolation. It is rooted in decades of brutal occupation that has left Palestinians trapped in what many describe as the world’s largest open-air prison, where systemic oppression, displacement, and violence have defined millions of Palestinian lives. Understanding this context is essential to addressing the underlying issues and moving toward a just and lasting resolution that honours the dignity and humanity of all affected.

One of the 12 countries that voted against the resolution – the United States – has been a long-time supporter of the Israeli occupation, sending billions worth of weapons to its military before and after October. For its role in arming Israel, the US has been repeatedly accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Strangely, the US representative to the UN entered a “no” vote despite the fact that Judge Sarah Cleveland, who represents the US at the ICJ, voted in favour of all the court’s opinions in the July ruling.

What makes the US position even more problematic is that it has had the exact opposite stance on occupations elsewhere. In 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupied parts of its territory, Washington was at the forefront of global condemnation, sending billions in military and financial aid to the Ukrainian army. This has set a troubling double standard that other countries allied with the US have also followed.

The United Kingdom, for example, expressed “considerable concerns” about the January ICJ ruling and rejected genocide allegations against Israel. On September 18, it chose to abstain. Despite its own legal advisers warning that British weapons could be used for human rights violations in Gaza, the British government has continued its arms shipments to the Israeli army, suspending just 30 out of 350 arms export licences.

Like Washington, London has also extended significant military support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian occupation and wholeheartedly backed investigations into war crimes committed by Russian forces.

Germany, which also abstained on September 18, is another example of a country with a troubling position. As a key supplier of arms to Israel, Germany faces serious allegations of facilitating the commission of genocide, complicating its moral standing and raising questions about its commitment to human rights. Its government has announced plans to intervene in the main hearing of the genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, categorically rejecting the accusations of genocide without substantial justification.

While trying to block legal proceedings against Israel, Germany has accelerated investigations launched by its own justice system into war crimes committed in Ukraine.

Various other countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific – mostly US and NATO allies – have also either voted against the UNGA resolution or abstained, putting geopolitical considerations above international law and ethics.

The hypocrisy inherent in these geopolitical alliances raises critical questions about the integrity of the global legal framework. Why is it that violations committed by Israel, an ally of powerful Western nations, are met with silence or insufficient condemnation and others are not? This inconsistency not only deepens the divisions between the West and the Global South, but also damages the legitimacy of international law and its ability to prevent atrocities.

The more Israel is shielded by these countries, the more it flouts international law without fear of consequences and the more brutal and deadly its abuses become. And its violations do not only affect the Palestinian population. This pattern of impunity undermines the foundational principles of justice and accountability and encourages others to engage in such crimes.

The abstention of 43 countries and the opposition from 11 others regarding the UNGA resolution send a clear message to the world: there are “no rules”. This alarming trend suggests that nations with powerful militaries can act unilaterally, disregarding international law without consequence. If we fail to halt this erosion of the legal regime, we risk descending into a world governed by the “law of the jungle”.

Such a breakdown of international law would have catastrophic implications for human civilisation. It would foster a climate where the powerful can trample on the rights of the weak, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression. The hypocrisy evident in the global response to the Palestinian plight exemplifies this dangerous disregard for justice and accountability. As these 54 countries continue to turn a blind eye to grave violations, the foundations of global order are threatened.

To restore faith in international law, countries must prioritise human rights over strategic interests. This requires a unified front from the international community. Nations must hold each other accountable for their actions and speak out against violations, regardless of political affiliations or alliances. A true commitment to justice necessitates that the principles of international law be applied consistently and without bias.

Only through decisive action can the ideals of international law be upheld and the world saved from a dark, lawless future.

Israel-Hezbollah attacks resume after Lebanon says 37 killed in Israeli strike on Beirut

Here’s a look at today’s main developments:

The death toll from an Israeli air attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs has risen to 37 people, including three children and seven women, Lebanon’s health minister says.

The strike, which wrecked two buildings in the Lebanese capital’s Dahiya district during rush hour on Friday, also injured more than 60 people, Health Minister Firass Abiad told a news conference on Saturday.

Cross-border attacks between Hezbollah and Israel have resumed. Hezbollah says it has fired rockets at two military positions in northern Israel, while the IDF said it was attacking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon

The number of people killed in the Israeli strike on Beirut on Friday has risen to 37, the Lebanese health ministry says, as search and rescue efforts in Dahieh continue.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said it killed 16 Hezbollah members in the strike, including 12 senior commanders.

A news conference by Lebanon’s health ministry revealed this morning that 152 people are still in a critical condition after the device explosions on Tuesday and Wednesday. It also said the number of those killed over the two days of explosions has risen from 37 to 39.

Away from Lebanon in Gaza, the Hamas-run health ministry says at least 22 people, « mostly » children and women, have been killed following a strike on a school in Gaza city housing displaced people.

World Opinions + BBC News + Aljazeera News

L’article Analysis. No, the UNGA resolution on Palestine was not a win..  Attacks resume after Lebanon says 37 killed in Israeli strike on Beirut est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

On August 4, 2020, nearly 2,750 tonnes of improperly stored ammonium nitrate exploded in the seaport in Beirut, killing more than 200 people, injuring more than 6,000, and displacing thousands from their homes. As Beirut residents still await answers from the official investigation, it is important not to brush aside this incident as the product of exceptional circumstances.

The widespread use of ammonium nitrate makes similar deadly explosions quite possible across the world. Equally concerning is the significant role this chemical plays in environmental degradation and climate change, which is also deadly. That is why it is crucial that the international community takes action beyond aiding the Lebanese authorities in the aftermath of the explosion.

Ammonium nitrate is an odourless substance that is commonly used to make fertiliser and explosives. Nitrogen fertiliser production accounts for nearly 1.2 percent of global primary energy demand, generates pollutants like fine dust, nitric acid emissions, and produces wastewater that may contain phosphorus, fluorides, ammonia, carbon dioxide, or weak acids. About 80 percent of manufactured ammonium nitrate is used for fertiliser, particularly in the global agro-industrial system.

Nitrogen is essential for plant growth. Ammonium nitrate fertiliser gained popularity after World War II as an inexpensive source of plant nutrients. Plants can more easily absorb synthetic fertiliser than naturally occurring nitrogen in the soil. The widespread use of nitrogen-based fertilisers has increased crop yields. However, fertiliser overuse has depleted naturally-occurring nutrients in the soil, making the agro-industrial system reliant on fertilisers to support its productivity.

Ammonium nitrate use can not only lead to tragedies like the Beirut blast but also cause much harm to nature and humans.

The overreliance on external inputs, such as ammonium nitrate, also comes at the expense of the health of farmworkers and consumers, the environment, and our climate.

Nitrogen-rich fertilisers are a key source of ammonia emissions, which combine with other air pollutants to form fine particulate matter. Particulate matter exposure can cause heart and pulmonary disease and has been linked to thousands of premature deaths in rural farming communities. Direct chemical exposure is especially harmful to farmworkers who regularly come into contact with fertilisers and other inputs.

Ammonium nitrate and its production also contribute to global warming. The use of nitrogen fertilisers, along with manures and other agricultural sources, accounts for nearly 60 percent of nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that can trap heat 300 times more than carbon dioxide, contributing to rising global temperatures.

Nutrients that are not absorbed by the soil or plants contaminate water sources, which is harmful to aquatic life. A visible expression of this disturbance is the annual dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Oman. Dead zones are caused by eutrophication, which happens when a body of water is contaminated by excess nutrients. Eutrophication increases algal growth, depletes oxygen in the water, and results in an environment where marine life cannot survive.

Additionally, the widespread overreliance on synthetic fertiliser is disrupting the Earth’s natural nitrogen cycle, which is one of Earth’s nine planetary boundaries. Planetary boundaries define the safe operating spaces for humanity, which, once crossed, can cause irreversible environmental damage that may have disastrous repercussions for our current way of life. Regulating the Earth’s natural nitrogen levels in the air, soil, and water, are necessary to sustain life and ensure a healthy environment. This requires rethinking global food production methods that do not transgress Earth’s planetary boundaries.

In order to avoid future incidents like the explosion in Beirut, but also tackle climate change and environmental degradation, we have to curb the use of ammonium nitrate.

Some may argue that reducing the use of fertilisers would threaten food security and sovereignty, especially in areas prone to famine. But that is not the case. Agroecology is emerging as a holistic answer to the challenge of growing enough food to feed ourselves without damaging the environment or contributing to global warming.

Agroecology is an integrated approach to agriculture that seeks to optimise the interactions between plants, animals, humans, and the environment to enable sustainable and fair food production based on local knowledge and traditional agricultural practices. This approach can help meet the global needs of food sovereignty and food security in a world that seeks to divest from carbon and nitrogen.

International climate initiatives are beginning to pay attention to agroecology. For example, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Koronivia joint work on agriculture, the Climate Dialogues have discussed the intersection of food security and climate change. It is encouraging that states are beginning to include agroecology in their Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

However, what is currently being done is not nearly enough. For example, in a couple of months, UN Secretary-General António Guterres is convening the 2021 Food Systems Summit, which seeks to “transform the way the world produces and consumes food”. This high-level event, however, appears dominated by agro-industrial interests, which are resisting divestment from nitrogen. Meanwhile, the ammonium nitrate market continues to grow and by 2026 is expected to be worth $19bn.

The 2021 Food Systems Summit should make agroecology the centrepiece of its strategy for the realisation of the right to food and the right to a healthy environment. The summit should discuss the recent calls for global agricultural subsidy reform to address agriculture’s role in the climate crisis.

The summit can be the first step towards divestment from nitrogen. The UN should work with its members towards removing subsidies for nitrogen-based fertilisers. It should also encourage countries that give out agricultural subsidies (currently amounting to $480bn globally) to prioritise crops that are less emission-intensive and to fund research and development of sustainable farming practices.

The Beirut explosion was avoidable. So are climate change, dead zones in the seas, and the disruption of the global nitrogen cycle. Urgent action is needed to save human lives and our planet.

By Marcos A Orellana – UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

L’article Beyond the Beirut explosion: The many dangers of ammonium nitrate est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Only a truly independent international investigation can renew the Lebanese people’s hopes for their country’s future.

The August 4 explosion at the Port of Beirut not only killed more than 170 people, injured thousands of others, and left at least 300,000 people homeless, but it also dashed the Lebanese people’s hopes for a better future for their country.

This is why, I, alongside 36 other United Nations Special Rapporteurs and independent experts, issued a statement earlier this month calling for an independent and transparent investigation into the explosion that underscores international human rights obligations, clarifies responsibilities related to the explosion, and leads to justice and accountability. I am also acutely aware of what is at stake since my immediate family was hit by the blast, sustaining life-threatening injuries and losing their livelihoods.

In our joint statement, my colleagues and I urged the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to hold a special debate on the Port of Beirut explosion when the council reconvenes in September so as to explore all avenues by which this leading international human rights body can support the people in Lebanon and help them meet their needs and demands.

There are several reasons why we believe the UNHRC should play a leading role in the efforts to ensure that effective, transparent and impartial justice is realised for the victims of the explosion, and people in Lebanon at large.

Like scores of Lebanese and international civil society organisations, we do not trust the Lebanese government’s ability to conduct an efficient and transparent investigation into its own failures. Therefore, we believe only an international and truly independent investigation can achieve the desired results. 

As we noted in our statement, the investigation into the explosion should not only be protected from any undue influence, but it should also have « a strong and broad mandate to effectively probe any systemic failures of the Lebanese authorities and institutions to protect human rights. » 

Unlike an investigation led by the Lebanese government, an international investigation mandated by the UNHRC could go beyond finding the individuals directly culpable for the explosion and address the systemic collapse of Lebanese governance that paved the way for the blast.

When faced with calls for an international investigation into the blast, Lebanese elites raised concerns about foreign powers meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs and using the blast to push their own agenda. 

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun, for example, rejected calls for an international investigation just a few days after the devastating blast, on the grounds that such an effort would « dilute the truth ». Lebanon’s caretaker Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm also dismissed calls for an international probe, asserting that she does not want to « create a system where every time there is an important issue I go to the international ».

The Lebanese people’s lack of trust in local judicial authorities undoubtedly justifies the calls to involve international institutions and bodies in a probe into the explosion. However, the concerns about the possibility of foreign governments using an international probe to serve their own interests should not be dismissed as baseless either. 

The Lebanese people have previously witnessed how seemingly well-meaning international inquiries – such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the UN Security Council – could end up serving narrow geopolitical interests and ignoring wider calls for justice. 

So when French President Emmanuel Macron calls for an international inquiry into the explosion, the Lebanese people should be suspicious of his intentions. After all, France was the former colonial power that institutionalised the sectarian system that is at the root of Lebanon’s current problems. And it is still working to expand its influence over Lebanon today. Last year, for example, the French government was the main player behind the CEDRE proposal, in which a mix of international institutions and countries pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants on the condition that it implement certain reforms. On the surface, the proposal seems to be aimed at helping the people of Lebanon. But under closer inspection, it becomes clear that its primary aim is to give international lenders, especially France and the World Bank, a significant amount of power over political and economic life in Lebanon. 

The international community has failed Lebanon too often. For too long it left the Lebanese people searching for justice and a better future with a choice between relying on faulty and corrupt local mechanisms and international efforts guided by vested interests. But this does not mean that the international system lacks the capacity to conduct a truly impartial probe into Lebanon’s August 4 explosion that is not shadowed by powerful governments’ hidden agendas and interests. To achieve this, countries with a vested interest in Lebanon – such as France, the United States, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and China – would need to step back, and allow a multilateral process guided by an impartial international body and based on human rights principles to take its course. 

As Special Rapporteurs, who work on a voluntary basis and are independent from any government or organisation, we believe the UNHRC is well placed to give the Lebanese people what they desperately need. 

While we know the Council has the capacity to mandate an international investigation that would meet the Lebanese people’s demands for transparency and impartiality, we are also aware of how political pressures can cloud such a process. 

Just a few months ago in June, amid the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, a bloc of African countries pressed the Council to hold an urgent debate on racism, police brutality and violence against protesters. During the debate, some delegates called for an international probe to investigate racially motivated police brutality in the US. However, due to pressure from the US and its many allies, the Council failed to efficiently address the problem and merely adopted a vague resolution calling for a report on racially discriminatory and violent law enforcement practices used against Africans and people of African descent, without specifically naming the US. 

Only time will tell whether the UNHRC will be able to lead the way in the Lebanese people’s quest to bring justice to the victims of the explosion and hold the people responsible to account. 

To mandate an international investigation into the Port of Beirut explosion, the Council needs at least one country to officially put forward such a request. If a group of countries backs the proposal, it will send the message that the international community is ready and willing to help Lebanon in its time of need. 

Come September, the Lebanese people will see whether the messages of solidarity and concern issued by world governments in the aftermath of the devastating explosion were honest. If the UNHRC successfully mandates an independent investigation into the matter and ensures that the investigation is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, it will give the Lebanese people renewed hope for their country’s future. But if it buckles under political pressure and takes no action, or accepts a watered-down resolution, it will confirm the fears that the international community is incapable of furthering an impartial human rights agenda. 

Fakhri is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

L’article International justice for Lebanon? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.