Once again, the United Nations stands complicit with, and directly abets, US-Israeli colonial and imperial designs on the Arab world, writes Gabriela Becker in Ramallah There exists, of course, an immediate link between increasing calls for a "peace process" or "negotiations" and the rising number of martyrs, walls, demolitions, settlements and checkpoints in occupied Palestine. We were reminded of this fact last week during Kofi Annan's visit to "the region" as he pushed forward the United Nation's diplomatic line of appeasing Israeli wishes by not-so-subtly repackaging them under the banner of demands by the "international community", once again taking on the full-fledged role of promoting Israeli and US interests. As the UN secretary-general dined with Israeli government officials, tanks, Apaches, F-16s, and snipers gunned down tens in Gaza and the West Bank in a continuation and escalation of Zionist colonisation. But there was nothing to be said by the UN or its spokesperson in this regard, as if the fate of these martyrs lies as a distant and unrelated backdrop. The elite club's song and dance of diplomacy provided, once more, a powerful weapon of diversion for occupation and its cohorts, backed by Western (and other) media, and thus providing cover for Israeli crimes. And with this continued success, Israel and friends are able to strengthen the disparity between rhetoric and reality, manifest in the way in which policy is packaged and discourse (and resistance) contained, all of which allows the international system and the powerful states at its head to ensure that all roads lead to one form or another of the status quo. The connection between the UN's intentions, its statements and actions is neither explained by impotence nor by goodwill as if, and as broadcast by the media and UN spokespersons, Annan is a bystander falling victim to an Israeli and US monolith. On the contrary, the UN and thus its secretary-general persist in actively maintaining the international system despite or because of their position as just one rung or two below the top on the global ladder of power. The UN's role during the Israeli onslaught of Lebanon was another frightful indicator of the close-knit relationship and relentless synchronisation between the UN, US and Israel, manifest in the timing of both silence and statements, including the UN's lacking or non-existent condemnation, blaming the Lebanese resistance, supporting the Rome "new Middle East" conference, pointing fingers at Iran and Syria, calling for international forces, pushing forward the "comprehensive" solution for the region, just to name a few. Last week and this week saw round two to July's regional tour by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which in its first incarnation sought to bring about with utmost speed the destruction of Lebanon and its resistance and the ultimate demise of the Palestinian national struggle, all under the banner of a new Middle East, decades in the making. This time around, headed by the UN, a more "realistic" approach seems to have ensued: in a less overt fashion, and immersed in doublespeak, the message sent from Annan to his counterparts is that of upholding the current system/reality along with involving regional governments in the implementation of grand strategies in order to best bring about the desired end results. We can already see increasing calls by Arab governments for a revival of the so-called "peace process" -- a process that has been the core of Israeli expansionism which today moves forward with boundless speed reflecting continued if not escalating US-Israeli regional control, unendingly marked by the targeting of the Palestinian national struggle with the final goal (like in the case of indigenous Americans) of Palestinian landlessness, ghettoisation, suppression and expulsion, preferably to take place in the course of peace-labelled handshakes. Armed with UN Resolution 1701, Annan, like the US, is pushing forward "regional cooperation" founded on backing the Zionist colonial project and embodied in regional normalisation with Israel, using as the litmus test the extent of Arab governments' silence amid Israeli crimes together with outright collaboration with the occupation, along with support of US-Israeli targeting of Iran. In other words, resistance to regional colonial-imperial plans is the first phenomenon to be targeted, and only those allowing Israel free reign may be rewarded, included in which are UN bodies and the secretary- general. It is the US and European monies that are the backbone of the multi-billion dollar UN-headed industry of institutions and their elites working under the banners of human rights, humanitarianism and "civil society". Yet another issue surfaces around talk of the diplomatic efforts of one man. Highlighting the way in which today's world system is packaged and proliferated, the media together with official positions backs the notion that the victim this week was not Palestinians but Annan. An absurdity that turns reality onto its head, a trap is also set that seeks to individualise that which is inherently systemic. By turning the issue into that of personalities, power discrepancies are maintained as "Annan" takes up the same space in news articles as "Palestinians", particularly when related to the perpetuation of stereotypes and the avoidance of any critical language against the occupation. In the same way, it is no surprise that when looking to push forward "peace", previously Yasser Arafat and today Mahmoud Abu Mazen are all that the "international community" needs to claim legitimacy in front of their publics and constituencies to push forward on their goals. This is why the US and Europe have always invested long and hard, and at any price, to ensure in so-called "leadership" positions those which they see as like-minded and their own. "Tireless effort towards peace" should more accurately be called "unrelenting drives towards suppression and control." While many non-Western governments, parties, organisations and movements find themselves utilising (some forced to utilise) the international UN-led arena as a platform amid limited and worsening options, it is easy to understand why many if not most publics, facing the brunt of cynically termed "democracy building", "human rights" and "negotiations", see the UN as more of a ruthless epidemic that must be defeated than a resource or potential instrument of change. What Israel and its partners have proven time and time again, before Oslo and so overtly in its aftermath, is that negotiations and peace agreements, under the protection and promotion of the international community and international law, is occupation by other means.
