Arafat's UN Connection

The U.N. flag outside its New York City headquarters flew at half mast today, at the direction of Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a tribute to Yassir Arafat. Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner noted the tribute. My question: is it lawful?

The U.N. Flag Code directs the office of the Secretary General to establish rules specifying the conditions under which the U.N. flag will be lowered in mourning. The U.N.'s Flag Regulations, unchanged since 1967, require half-mast tribute at headquarters "upon the death of any Head of State or Head of Government of a Member State." Neither Palestine, nor the Palestinian Authority is a U.N. Member State--the PA (and previously the PLO) is only an observer.

Nevertheless, the Regulations also permit the flag to be lowered "on special instructions from the Secretary-General on the death of a world leader who has had a significant connection to the United Nations." So Kofi must have seen a "connection." How did Arafat describe that "connection" when speaking to the General Assembly in 1974:

When the majority of the Palestinian people was uprooted from its homeland in 1948 [the U.N.-ordered partition], the Palestinian struggle for self-determination continued under the most difficult conditions. We tried every possible means to continue our political struggle to attain our national rights, but to no avail. . .

All along, the Palestinian dreamt of return. Neither the Palestinian’s allegiance to Palestine nor his determination to return waned; nothing could persuade him to relinquish his Palestinian identity or to forsake his homeland. The passage of time did not make him forget, as some hoped he would. When our people lost faith in the international community which persisted in ignoring its rights and when it became obvious that the Palestinians would not recuperate one inch of Palestine through exclusively political means, our people had no choice but to resort to armed struggle.

In other words, Arafat boasted that his connection to the U.N. consisted of defying decisions (Resolution 181, the partition of Palestine) and trusting diplomacy only if he won.

So, what does it say about the Secretary General that he honors an autocrat who flouted U.N. Resolutions and eschewed negotiations in favor of "armed struggle?" That Annan is correct. The connection between Yassir Arafat and the U.N.? They're two peas in a pod.