11 septembre 9/11 aaron klein abbas abdallah abdallah II abdelkader merah accords d'oslo adam zertal adenauer affaires Ă©trangĂ¨res afghanistan africom afrique afrique du sud ahmadinejad aipac AKP al qaeda al qaida al-arabiya al-fayed al-qaida algĂ©rie algeria aliyah allemagne amĂ©rique america anavad ANC angela merkel ankara ansar dine antisĂ©mitisme antisemitism antizionism apartheid aqmi arabes arabes israĂ©liens arabie saoudite arabs arafat armĂ©e armĂ©niens army ashkenazy assad assemblĂ©e gĂ©nĂ©rale assyriens atatĂĽrk auschwitz autoritĂ© palestinienne autriche-hongrie ayrault azawad Ă©conomie Ă©glise Ă©gypte Ă©lections Ă©tat Ă©tats-unis Ă©vangĂ©liques bachman baker balkans balladur bangladesh bankruptcy banlieues barack obama barak barbares bat yeor bayrou begin beheading beilin belgique belgium bennet benoĂ®t xvi berbĂ¨res bernheim bible biden bill clinton blancs blood libel BNVCA bourgine brĂ©sil brexit britain brzezinski burke bush byzantins cahuzac cameron canada carter Castro cfr chaos charlie hebdo Chavez cheney chiisme chiites china chine chirac chosroes ii chrĂ©tiens christianisme christianity christians church chypre circumcision cisjordanie citizenship claude guĂ©ant clĂ©menceau clermont-tonnerre clinton cnn CNRS colin powell cologne columbia commentary communautĂ© communism communisme confĂ©rence de la paix confrĂ©ries congrĂ¨s conseil de sĂ©curitĂ© conservatism conservative conservatives consistoire constantinople constitution contestation coptes coran corĂ©e du nord corsica crif crime crise crise sociale cuba cuisine cukierman culture daesh daniel johnson daniel pearl david pryce-jones dĂ©mocrates dĂ©mocratie dĂ©mographie de gasperi de gaulle democrats demographics demography desportes dhimmis dhimmitude dieudonnĂ© dinard djihad dollar doxa dreyfus droit international droite droits de l'homme druzes egypte eilat mazar eisenhower election elections emanuel emigration empire ottoman ena enderlin enfants erbakan erdogan espagne etat etats-unis ethnic ethnie EU eurabia eurasia eureka euro europe european parliament european union exode expulsion expulsions fabius facebook far left far right fatah fayĂ§al ferdinand ferhat fethullah gĂĽlen fifth republic fillon finkielkraut flandre flotille fmi FN fondapol food foreign affairs foreign policy france franco frĂ¨res musulmans french french muslims front national frontiĂ¨re internationale fusion antisemitism gates gauche gaza gĂ©nĂ©tique gĂ©nocide gĂ©opolitique genĂ¨se general assembly genocide geopolitics george soros george w. bush george washington germany ghozlan gingrich giscard d'estaing giuliani globalization golden age goldnadel goldstone gorbatchev grande-bretagne grĂ¨ce greece greens grippe espagnole guĂ©ant guĂ©rilla guerre guerre civile guerre de sĂ©cession gurfinkiel hallal halutz hamas hamon haredim harkabi hĂ©breux hekla herzl herzog hezbollah hillary clinton hillel halkin histoire history hitler hollande holocaust holocauste houellebecq HUJI hungary huntsman hurvah hypercasher ibn saoud icm research idĂ©ologie identitĂ© nationale ifop iforas iiie rĂ©publique ilan halimi immigrants immigration implantations inĂ¶nĂĽ inde ined internet interview irak iran irgoun isabelle ISIS islam islamic state islamism islamisme islamistes islamists israĂ©lites israĂ«l israel israel beiteinu italie ivan de bloch j call j street jabotinsky japon jĂ©rusalem jĂĽnger jean paul II jean-marie le pen jerusalem jewish revival jews jihad jihadism jihadisme jihadistes jihadists john mccain johnson jordanie jour de colĂ¨re judaĂŻsme judĂ©o-christianisme juifs juifs amĂ©ricains juppĂ© kabylie kadhafi kadima kadimah kassam kemal kennedy kerry kgb khamenei khomeini kim kippour kissinger knesset kohl korsia kosher kosher supermarket kosovo kotel kouchner l'express l'obs la paix maintenant laĂŻcitĂ© lapid ldj le drian le monde le nouvel observateur le pen le point lebanon left leftwing Levant liban libĂ©raux liberation libertariens libertĂ© libye liebermann ligne verte likoud likud livni livres london louis xvi LR lyons macarthur maccain macron magoudi mahmoud abbas mai 1968 mali mandala mandat mandela mao marcion marcionisme marine le pen marines marion marĂ©chal-le pen maroc maronites marseilles massacres massortis mavi marmara mayflower mayotte mĂ©dias mĂ©lanchon mccain media medias mein kampf mer morte mer noire merah meretz mergui merkel mexique michel gurfinkiel middle east migrants migration missiles mitterrand mnla mohamed merah monarchie monarchy monde arabe monde islamique monod mont du temple montauban montebourg montesquieu morocco morsi mosaic moscovici moubarak moyen-orient munich murder muslims musulmans napolĂ©on napoleon naqba nasser natalitĂ© national assembly national front nations unies nato nazis neo-french netanyahu nethanyahu new emerging powers new york new york review of books new york times nicolas sarkozy nixon noĂ«l nobel noirs north america norvĂ¨ge nouvel observateur november 13 NPA nuclĂ©aire obama occident occupation odessa oliganthropie olmert olp onfray onu opinion orban orient orthodoxes oslo otan ottomans pacifisme pahlavi paix pakistan palestine palestinians palestiniens palin panislamisme pape paradigme paradigmes paris paritĂ© parlement europĂ©en partition pĂ©tain pĂ©trole pence peres peripheral france perses peste antonine peste de justinien petraeus peuple juif pew pipes PLO pogrom pogroms poland police politique poll pologne pompidou populism portugal poutine prĂ©sidentielle prĂ©sidentielles premier tour presidential election primaires primaries printemps arabe processus de paix proche-orient prophĂ¨te proportional representation protestantisme PS pundak putin qaradawi quai d'orsay quartiers quenelle qumran rabbis rabin racism rahm emanuel raid rajoy rasmussen rĂ©formĂ©s rĂ©formes rĂ©fugiĂ©s rĂ©publicains rĂ©volution reagan refugees regional elections religieux religion rempart renaud camus republican pacts republicans restaurants revolution right riots riyad rogers romains romney ron paul roosevelt roquette rosenfeld rouhani royal royaume-uni russia russie rwanda sadate sahara salafistes salem al-fayed sanctuaire du rocher sandler santorum sarah halimi sarkozy saudi arabia savir sĂ©golĂ¨ne royal sĂ©nat sĂ©pharades scandale SCO SDN seconde guerre mondiale security council selden senate shafik shalit shalom akhshav shamir sharon shas shoah sionisme sionistes socialist socialists sociĂ©tĂ© society sondages soral soviet union spcj ss staline state nobility state of emergency statism stratĂ©gie strauss-kahn strikes subworlds succession sunnites sweden sykes-picot synagogue syria syrie tahrir tardieu tariq ramadan taubira tel-aviv terre d'israĂ«l terror terrorism terrorisme thatcher the west time tocqueville torah totalitarisme toulouse tourisme travaillistes trevidic tribus trilatĂ©rale truman trump tsahal tsipras tunisie turkey turquie tv ue uk ukraine UMP un unesco union europĂ©enne union pour la mĂ©diterranĂ©e united nations united states unrwa URSS US usa valeurs actuelles valeurs judĂ©o-chrĂ©tiennes valls vatican vĂ©drine ve rĂ©publique versailles veto vichy vietnam violence walter laqueur war washington washington post wastelands west wilson women wright yellow vests yemen zacharie zapatero
Wednesday, May 23 2018
From Jerusalem to Mayotte : France's Double Standards
France says that Israel and the United States break « international law » in Jerusalem. What about her own stand on Mayotte ?
France shunned the inauguration ceremony of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem on May 14. So did most other European Union countries - with the remarkable exception of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania. The Czechs, the Hungarians and the Romanians went even so far as to block on May 11 an newly drafted EU statement reiterating the Union’s condemnation of the American embassy transfer.
The French and mainstream European stand runs against plain logic. Both France and the EU claim that the 1949-1967 ceasefire lines between Israel and Jordan in the Jerusalem area (the « green line ») are an international border. If this were indeed the case, those sectors in Jerusalem held by Israel during this period of time (« West Jerusalem ») would be internationally recognized Israeli territory ; accordingly, Israel would have every right to turn them into its capital, and the United States, or any other country, to locate its embassy there.
Likewise, France and the EU countries recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s de facto capital, since they routinely visit the Israeli government or the Israeli parliament there. Under international law, a de facto recognition is as valid as a de jure recognition.
Why should then France and the mainstream EU oppose the transfer of the American embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem (or at least to « West Jerusalem », where the new premises are located) and boycott of the inauguration ceremony ? They opine that such transfer is still a violation of « international law », inasmuch as it departs from an aggregative corpus of United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. In particular, Paris and Brussels point to Security Council Resolution 470, passed on August 20, 1980, which condemned the enactment by Israel’s parliament of a constitutionally binding law enshrining Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and called the governments that had already established embassies in that city to withdraw them. Resolution 470 was largely based on the previous Security Council’s Resolution 252 of May 21, 1968, which in turn was based of General Assembly’s Resolution 303 (IV) of December 9, 1949.
Are France and the mainstream EU correct ? Are these resolutions in particular, and other United Nations resolutions in general, coextensive with international law ? Hardly.
First, it should be emphasized that the United Nations is not a confederacy of sorts or a super-government, whose decisions would be binding on the member States, but a free association of sovereign countries who, ultimately, remain free to abide by them or to ignore them. The assertion that the United Nations Charter is a « constituent treaty », and overrides national laws and prerogatives, is unfounded : Article 103 of the Charter, which is casually mentioned in this respect, just says that in the case where a member-State’s obligations under the Charter would contradict other obligations under a State-to-State treaty, the former would prevail over the latter. Accordingly, the UN has no capacity to decide the exact location of Israel’s capital, nor to condemn those countries who happen to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Second, it should be stressed that United Nations resolutions carry very little authority according to the Charter itself. The General Assembly’s decisions carry no authority at all : they just warrant some kind of consensus between the UN’s members, as the 19th century « Concert of Europe » used to do. As for the Security Council, which essentially revolves around the Five Permanent Members or Great Powers, that is to say the five largest military powers in the world, its resolutions carry authority only in the very rare instances where the Great Powers agree to implement them together, that is to say, again, to use their superior military forces to that effect together, or to allow one of them to use its individual military forces on their common behalf. It is well known that every individual Great Power may therefore veto a Security Council resolution. What is not well understood is that, unlike formal treaties between sovereign countries, Security Council resolutions lapse at the very moment one of the Great Powers decides not to abide by them. Which is precisely the case regarding the United States government’s decision to disregard Resolution 470.
Third, one should remind that the United Nations was originally intended as an improved, healthier version of the previous international body, the League of Nations. In particular, it was not to be rooted on principles only and on the fallacy of a complete equality between the member-States – as was the League of Nations -, but in the realities of world politics and the balance of powers : hence the special role assigned to the Great Powers. However, the admission into the UN of growing numbers of weak, immature or non-functional polities, usually as part of the decolonization process, or even the retension of failed and no longer existing polities (from Somalia to Syria), largely reversed or annuled these realistic provisions and allowed for growing numbers of unrealistic resolutions to be voted. The more divorced from realities they are, the less United Nations resolutions are valid according to the spirit, logic, and letter of the United Nations Charter – and according international law.
General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949 was a very early instance of divorce between UN resolutions and realities : it maintained that the Corpus Separatum provisions in the Jerusalem area, as outlined by the 1947 partition plan of Palestine, were still valid, notwithstanding the fact that this plan had never been implemented, that all its provisions were accordingly null and void, and that a completely different situation had arisen on the ground following Israel’s Independence War and the Rhodes Israeli-Jordanian ceasefire. Security Council Resolution 252 of 1968 blindly refered to the illusional Resolution 303 (IV), and in addition ignored the new situation created by the Six Days War and a further Israeli-Jordanian cease-fire. Security Council Resolution 470 of 1980 no less blindly built up on both Resolutions 303 (IV) and 252. None of these resolutions should be seen as pertinent.
There is however an even more definite argument against the French and European reliance on UN resolutions on Jerusalem : the fact that France superbly ignored other UN resolutions directed at her.
The case story is Mayotte, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean, halfway between Mozambique and Madagascar. In geographical, anthropoligical and cultural terms, it belongs to the volcanic Comoros Archipelago, which was settled in turn by Polynesian, Melanesian, Malay, African, Arab, Persian and South Asian sailors, traders and slaves, and converted to Islam in the 16th century. A French dependency from 1841 on, the Comoros were granted independence in the early 1970’s as a single Islamic Republic. Mayotte, however, unanimously insisted in two successive referenda, in 1974 and 1976, to stay French. Paris grudgingly acquiesced, at least as a temporary solution. Finally, a third referendum, in 2009, confirmed the local population’s wishes : in 2011, Mayotte was reorganized as the 101st full-fledged French département or county. In spite of the distance, it is as French as Hawaii and Alaska are American. By the same token, it was recognized in 2014 as an integral part of the European Union.
The Republic of the Comoros rejected Mayotte’s « secession » and the its « continuing occupation » by France. A consistent move within the context of the « decolonization process », as defined by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, and by General Assembly Resolution 2621 (XXV) of October 12, 1970. The issue was defered to the Security Council, which overwhelmingly voted on February 6, 1976, for Mayotte to be « returned » to the Comoros, by 11 votes against 3 abstentions (the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy). For the first time ever, the French resorted to their veto powers as a Security Council Permanent Member - and blocked the draft. However, they could not prevent the General Assembly to pass a similarly worded resolution a few days later, nor to vote again every year until 1995 on the « Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte ». While no further resolution has been voted since 1996 (after all, France is very big, and the Comoros are very small), the previous resolutions are still in force – as the Comoros have not failed to recall to this very day.
Admittedly, there might be more to be said for the continuation of French rule in Mayotte than for the implementation of « decolonization » there. And the French may be right, in many ways, to ignore the United Nations resolutions pertaining to this Indian Ocean Island. However, what the French cannot possibly do is to scold Israel – or the United States - for not abiding by absurd United Nations resolutions, and acting exactly like Israel or the United States when it comes to Mayotte. In other words, they cannot found their foreign policies on double standards. Nor can the European Union.
© Michel Gurfinkiel & PJMedia, 2018
Michel Gurfinkiel, a French public intellectual and the editor emeritus of Valeurs Actuelles, is a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at Middle East Forum and the Founder and President of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The author does not allow comments to this entry