[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken.

Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V. And let's see what they say re: resolutions:

Article 14
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen. This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions?

(Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

[Edit: script cleanup, typos]

[ February 04, 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: E. Albright ]