About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Friday, July 9, 2004
UNILATERALLY CONSTRUCTED BARRIERS IN CONTESTED AREAS

PEACEWATCH
THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE'S SPECIAL REPORTS ON THE ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE PROCESS
Number Four Hundred and Sixty-Five July 8, 2004
www.washingtoninstitute.org/distribution/PCE465.doc

UNILATERALLY CONSTRUCTED BARRIERS IN CONTESTED AREAS
By David Makovsky and Ben Thein

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is expected to issue
an advisory opinion this Friday, July 9, on the international legality of
Israel's security fence.

Although advisory opinions are often sought from the ICJ before an
international body has made up its mind on an issue, the United Nations (UN)
General Assembly referred the matter to the ICJ after it had already
condemned the Israeli move. Given the UN General Assembly vote on December
8, 2003, by a ninety-to-eight margin with seventy-four abstentions, a
comparable number of states were expected to offer briefs to the ICJ.
However, this was not the case. All major industrial countries opposed
referral and many issued written statements basically arguing that the IJC
should not adopt an advisory opinion, including the United States, United
Kingdom, France, Germany, the entire European Union (EU), Japan, and Canada.
Although many of these countries expressed their opposition to the fence-or
its route-in their written submissions, they also pointedly stated that the
Israeli-Palestinian issue was a political problem that should be addressed
through political rather than legal means and that, therefore, the ICJ was
not the correct venue for addressing the question. In contrast, of the
forty-nine states that submitted written statements, only a minority
supported ICJ referral, including nine Arab states, the Palestinian
Authority, North Korea, and Cuba.

Ironically, three countries-India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey-condemned Israel
at the UN General Assembly and voted to refer the Israeli fence to the ICJ
for an advisory opinion even though they had themselves built barriers in
areas contested by their neighbors. India is just completing a 460-mile
barrier in the contested Kashmir to halt infiltrations supported by
Pakistan; within the last two years, Saudi Arabia built a sixty-mile barrier
along an undefined border zone with Yemen to halt smuggling of weaponry; and
Turkey built a barrier in an area that Syria claims as its own. Of the three
countries, Saudi Arabia also submitted a written statement to the ICJ
directly, while the other two-India and Turkey-did not. The Arab League and
Organization of Islamic States submitted statements to the ICJ condemning
the Israeli barrier, but they did not condemn the Saudi barrier when it was
being built. The ICJ has not been involved in any of the other barrier
disputes.

India
To halt infiltrations from Pakistan, India has almost completed a
twelve-foot-high fence in the contested area of Kashmir. Straddling 460
miles of territory known as the Line of Control (which divides both
Kashmirs), the fence reportedly looks comparable to other sections of the
India-Pakistan border. The issue of Kashmir goes back to the India-Pakistan
partition of 1947. Because a majority of Kashmir residents were Muslims, in
1947, Pakistan seized part of Kashmir. In the late 1980s, it sought to
obtain the rest of Kashmir by supporting an insurgency movement. Last year,
India began constructing a fence to halt the infiltrations. Construction of
the fence was at first hampered by shelling between Pakistan and India.
However, it has been aided by a ceasefire worked out late last year between
the militaries of both countries. Pakistani leaders pledged early this year
not to allow their territory to be used as a springboard for attacks.

The Pakistani government has accused India of violating the UN charter as
well as the ceasefire agreement. The spokesperson for the Pakistani
military, Major General Shaukat Sultan, said that "the border in Jammu and
Kashmir remains undemarcated. It is a working boundary and a ceasefire
line. . [A]ny measure to alter the status of [the boundary] and any attempt
to erect a new impediment is a direct violation of international
commitments, and Pakistan opposes it. Border fencing is not allowed."

General Nimal Chand Vij, India's Army chief, claimed in May 2004 that the
barrier was constructed to decrease the number of attacks of invaders coming
from Pakistan into India: "The number of terrorists inside Jammu and Kashmir
has dropped to nearly 55 percent to 60 percent of what it was last year."
General Vij added that the fence had stopped almost 90 percent of
infiltration attempts, but about 3,000 militants are still waiting for the
best chance to invade.

Saudi Arabia
In a twenty-four-page statement available on the ICJ website (
www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpstatements/iWrittenStatement_02_King
domofSaudiArabia.pdf), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued a blistering
attack against the Israeli security fence, which it called an
"internationally wrongful act" and called for the "destruction" of the
barrier.

Yemeni officials have publicly charged that Saudi Arabia, within the last
two years, constructed sixty miles of barrier in an undefined zone along the
Saudi Arabia-Yemen border. The barrier is ten feet high. Saudi Arabia claims
that the disputed area is part of its territory and asserts that the move is
defensive to stem the flow of Yemeni smuggling of militants and weaponry.
Yemen claims that the Saudi move violates the Jeddah Treaty, which the two
countries reached in 2000. Amid continued Yemeni protest and just days
before the ICJ convened in February, the Saudis and Yemenis held a
high-level bilateral meeting in Riyadh. As a result of the summit and the
ICJ, the Saudis have agreed to pause construction-at least for now. However,
they have not done what they advise the Israelis to do-namely, to take down
the barrier.

Turkey
Turkey's control of the southern province of Alexandretta, which was
formerly in Syria, is accepted internationally, but it remains disputed by
Damascus. Turkey patrols the border area, which it calls Hatay Province.
Syria, however, calls it the Sanjak of Alexandretta Province.
Alexandretta was part of France's mandate for Syria after World War I, but
the French-Turkish Treaty of Ankara also guaranteed the Turks living there
cultural autonomy. In 1936, as France took early steps toward Syrian
independence, Turkey sought a revision of Alexandretta's status. It appealed
to the League of Nations, claiming that the privileges of the large Turkish
minority there were being infringed and would be further infringed if
Alexandretta were part of an independent Syria. The League of Nations
decided in 1937 that the area should be a separate, self-governing state,
and indeed, it was an independent state for a year. France ceded the area to
Turkey in 1939, hoping to coax the Turks away from Nazi Germany. Justifying
its move, France cited a freshly formed local parliamentary vote of the new
state of Hatay to join Turkey. However, the move created disturbances in
Syria. Syrian maps still show the region as part of Syria. Hence, Turkey
constructed a barrier in the disputed area. Also, since the late 1980s,
Turkey has fenced and mined almost 500 miles of other parts of its border
that are not disputed by Syria because of infiltration of Kurdish
insurgents.

David Makovsky is the director of the Project on the Middle East Peace
Process, and Ben Thein is a research intern at The Washington Institute.

Search For An Article
....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)