Israels Stubbornness





Israel\'s Stubbornness

Israel has recently come under fire from the United Nations for their failure to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If Israel doesn\'t want to abide by the UN\'s ruling, then why did they give up part of their own sovereignty to be part of the United Nations? John Locke explains this in his essay The Treatises of Government. His thesis basically is that states are "willing to joyn in Society with other who are already united, or have a mind to united for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates." Israel like other members of the UN, joined for security reasons. But in order for the UN to be successful in its effort to avoid conflicts and promote peace, it must first establish law, second be an indifferent judge of the law disregarding passion and revenge, and third it must be able to enforce the law and support the sentence when right.
The United Nations established the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to protect the world from possible nuclear war. It requires nuclear powers to work toward disarmament while forbidding non-nuclear countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel remains the only country in the Middle East that has not signed onto the treaty, which in turn has caused Egypt to lead the effort to encourage Israel to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect their nuclear facilities. Although the law of nature is clear in this case, according to Locke, Israel won\'t "apt to allow of it as Law binding to them in the application of it to their particular case."
Secondly, the United Nations must be an indifferent and unbiased judge, "with authority to determine all indifference according to the established law." I find the UN falls short on this issue in this area. Unfortunately for the UN, the United States is a biased "indifferent judge" when it comes to the power of the United Nations. Because the US holds so much clout, we have managed to lead off direct criticism of Israel at the last treaty review conference in 1995. But according to Locke, the UN must "determine all differences according to the established law." According to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel is in direct conflict with the established law.
Thirdly, the UN must have the power to enforce the law. I believe this is the most important of the 3 for without the power to enforce, the other 2 are meaningless. I feel too, that the UN can fall short in this category. In this case, all the UN can really do is support a special representative to urge Israel to gain the treaty and to report on progress before 2005. According to Locke, Israel would be likely "make good their injustice," with proper Execution from the United Nations. The only question which remains is, does this special representative hold enough power on behalf of the UN to enforce its established law. The answer remains to be found.
John Locke holds outstanding insight into the nature of states actions in dealing with security issues. In fact, it is so outstanding that he has essentially predicted the exact course of action taken by the United Nations to force Israel\'s signing of the treaty. As long as the UN continues to follow Locke\'s ideas of "man in the state of nature," then it will be a successful deterrent of war, as well as a promoter of peace. Unfortunately, my main objection (and I think Locke would agree) with the UN, is that it is rarely indifferent due to the United State\'s overwhelming power and influence in its decision making.




Bibliography: