Brussels, 12/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - The EP sub-committee on human rights on 11 September welcomed the ambassadors of Lebanon and Israel, Messrs Fawzi Fawaz and Odel Erau, as well as representatives from Amnesty International and the International Federation of the Human Rights League (FIDH), to discuss violations of human rights and international law in the Middle East conflict. Johanna Suurpää, who heads the human rights unit at the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was also there to clarify the attitude adopted by the EU at the UN Human Rights Commission sessions in Geneva. French Green member Hélène Flautre, who chairs the sub-committee, recalled the context, mainly speaking of the conflict in Iraq which, she said in substance, has demonstrated that resorting to practice counter to international conventions is on the rise. She also drew up an inventory of initiatives taken by European institutions since the conflict broke out in Lebanon until the recent EP resolution that she considers “momentous”. (See EUROPE 9258).
Violations of international law were the focus of the intervention by Amnesty International (AI) representative, Dick Oosting, who stressed the need for a “full inquiry” into these violations for which he believes both Israel and Hezbollah are responsible. A preliminary report giving details of such acts is apparently available on the AI website, showing that descriptions given of certain violations to date (such as the use of cluster bombs) fall short of reality. The responsibility of such acts must be established by international justice, Oosting said, inviting the EU to revise the association agreements with Israel and Lebanon to place more emphasis on the human rights dimension. Also, welcoming the EP's resolution early September, he said that the EU has made a “tactical error” by voting against the resolution presented in August at the UN Commission on Human Rights. Ms Suurpää explained this refusal by the “unilateral” nature of the text and stressed the “balanced” role played by the EU throughout the Lebanese conflict.
This notion of balance was a feature of nearly all the addresses made, including that of FIDH Representative Antoine Madelin, who noted that Israeli action was out of proportion, while stressing that Lebanon is facilitating a return to the rule of law, alluding to the role played by Hezbollah. The Lebanese ambassador was keen to give a detailed presentation of all the grievances against Israel and stressed the use of prohibited weapons. “The only thing not used was nuclear weapons”, he said. His statement brought the criticism of his Israeli counterpart down upon him as well as that of most MEPs present, who spoke of a Lebanon where there are two sovereign powers. “If you were to fall out of the moon and hear the Lebanese ambassador, you would think that someone in the Israeli government suddenly decided to go and attack Lebanon”, the Israeli ambassador said, recalling that tension goes back years (while regretting that, after “hesitating to take part”, he now finds himself in a “debate that is far from serious”). The ambassador also said that Israel “does not need advice from Amnesty International” in order to have a political dialogue with the EU. MEP Pasqualina Napoletano (PES, Italy), warned that “the Lebanese will never resolve the matter if they do not decide what the future of Hezbollah is to be” and that the international community cannot accept “dual sovereignty” in Lebanon. Most speakers expressed the concern that each side should shoulder its responsibilities and its own violations of international law, while stating the need for an inquiry into the facts.