Deploring Misuse of International Court of Justice by United Nations General Assembly for Political Purpose

DEPLORING MISUSE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE -- (Extensions of Remarks - July 16, 2004)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion on Israel's security fence. I also stand in strong support of Israel's right to defend itself against the ongoing threat of terrorism.

There has been considerable debate about the line the security fence follows, but there can be no doubt about the effectiveness of the fence in protecting against suicide attacks. The fence simply works. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of attacks on Israelis where the fence is in place and operational. And according to Israel Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, security officials have been able to prevent an estimated 95 percent of overall Palestinian attacks.

The reason there is need for a fence speaks directly to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict-there are no borders, but there is terrorism. There must be direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreed upon solution that not only provides Israel with secure and defensible borders, but ultimately establishes a state for the Palestinians. But when this political debate will be resolved is unknown and until Israel has a legitimate partner to negotiate with, Israel must protect her people.

In endorsing the roadmap, even the United Nations acknowledged that this is a political debate that can only be resolved through direct negotiations. Yet, even though the U.N. Charter states that the General Assembly can only refer cases concerning legal issues to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, this political matter was taken under consideration. In their ruling, the ICJ did not take into account the context of the terrorist threat that led Israel to construct the fence. Nor did it consider the steps Israel has taken throughout construction of the fence. Numerous modifications and changes have been made to ease the hardship on Palestinians.

Most recently-even before the ICJ's ruling-the Israeli Supreme Court addressed the position of the fence and its effects on Palestinians' access to their homes and jobs. The Israeli government is moving quickly to change the route of the security fence. By doing this, Israel is responsibly balancing its security needs and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians not involved in terrorists acts. Clearly there is no need for an outside organization to pass judgment.

Ultimately, the ICJ overstepped its jurisdiction by hearing the case in the first place, which could have negative consequences for the peace process. Over 40 countries, including the United States, Canada, and most European Union countries, opposed the ICJ's consideration of the case because of their concerns about jurisdiction and politicization of the court.

Israel has said the security fence is a temporary self-defense measure. It is not meant to replace the peace process and does not preclude final status negotiations. The construction of the fence is reversible, but the taking of Israeli lives is not. The ICJ's ruling was inappropriate and harmful. The United States needs to stand firm with Israel, and as the United Nations continues to consider this issue, I call on the international community to recognize Israel's absolute right to defend itself.