Jewish World Review Jan. 24, 2003 / 21 Shevat, 5763
The UN's moral irrelevance
The American delegate put a brave face on it.
"This is not a defeat for the United States," US Ambassador Kevin Moley
said after Libya was elected to the chairmanship of the United Nations'
highest human rights panel on Monday. "This is a defeat for the Human
The vote was 33 to 3, with only Canada and (reportedly) Guatemala
joining the United States in voting no. Seventeen countries, mostly
The ambassador's sentiments were understandable. Of course it is
preposterous to think of Muammar Qadhaffi's brutal regime -- which
tortures dissidents, imprisons citizens without charge, and prohibits
freedom of speech, assembly, and religion -- as a champion of liberty and
due process. Everyone knows that Libya, architect of the 1988 bombing of
Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 victims over Lockerbie, Scotland, is a
foe, not a friend, of human rights.
Nevertheless, the ambassador was wrong. The choice of one of the
world's most repressive tyrannies to head the UN's main human rights body
was not in any sense a defeat for the commission. Nor was it an
embarrassment to the UN. On the contrary, it was a textbook illustration
of the way the UN works.
Despite its name, the United Nations is not a fraternity of peoples. It
is an association of governments, and it makes no distinction between
those that rule with the consent of the governed and those that rule
through force and fear. Inside the UN, a bloody despotism is every inch
the equal of a liberal democracy. A government that respects human dignity
has exactly the same vote as a government that tramples it. And while lip
service is routinely paid to the high principles of the UN Charter, those
principles are irrelevant to the UN's decisions and deliberations.
If the Human Rights Commission were really concerned with human
rights, the accession of a ghoulish regime like Libya's to the chair would
indeed be a scandal. But the commission's true purposes are to give Third
World bullies a venue for grandstanding, to harangue Western democracies,
to ensure that the world's cruelest rulers escape condemnation, and, of
course, to bash Israel. There's nothing in that agenda to disqualify
Libya. Or, for that matter, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, China, Syria, Sudan, or
Zimbabwe -- each a notorious human-rights violator and each a commission
member in good standing.
The lopsided vote for Libya, including all those cowardly European
abstentions, speaks volumes about the UN's character. It has become a
monument to sanctimony and cynicism. It is a place where dishonesty and
injustice are routine -- where atrocious governments get away with
appalling behavior because better governments lack the courage to face
them down. The United Nations is a moral wasteland, and it is folly to
treat its imprimatur as a benchmark of international legitimacy.
Which is why it was a mistake for the Bush administration to seek a
green light from the UN before undertaking the liberation of Iraq. The
Security Council has no interest in shutting down Saddam Hussein's reign
of terror. It is not willing to destroy him before he acquires the ability
to destroy countless additional victims. No one should have been surprised
this week when France and Germany announced that they are opposed to
military action against Saddam Hussein. That is the position that they,
like the rest of the Security Council save Britain, have taken all along.
The inspections are a farce. Inspectors can verify that a country has
voluntarily dismantled its illegal weapons; they cannot disarm a
government that is determined to deceive. "Even the best inspectors have
almost no chance of discovering hidden weapons sites . . . in a country
the size of Iraq," wrote David Kay, the UN's former chief nuclear weapons
inspector, in The Washington Post on Sunday.
Seven years of inspections in the 1990s failed to shut down Saddam's
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; no serious person can
believe that another round of this charade, under a much less aggressive
chief inspector, will be any more successful. In any event, it is clear
that no matter what Hans Blix and his team may find, Iraq's protectors on
the Security Council will insist it is not enough to justify war.
The UN has gone as far as it will go: Under American pressure it
passed Resolution 1441, which confirmed that Iraq "remains in material
breach of its obligations" dating back to the Gulf War and offered Saddam
one "final opportunity" to avoid "serious consequences" by complying.
Those were strong, clear words and if the Security Council were worthy of
its name, it would be prepared to back them up with strong, clear action.
That it isn't is a pity. But the UN's lack of moral fiber must not
keep the United States from acting. War is always risky, but appeasement
and denial are more dangerous by far. The dissolution of Saddam's
poisonous dictatorship can no longer wait.
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.
01/22/03: Musings, random and otherwise
01/17/03: The Sharpton hypocrisy
01/13/03: The fig leaf of 'diversity'
01/10/03: Israeli restraint makes terrorism more likely
01/02/03: The double standard on political hate speech
12/30/02: Good for the spirit, good for the body
12/23/02: The college president who owes a greater duty to a fugitive serial killer than the public or to the law
12/20/02: The death penalty by the numbers
12/16/02: Yes, Virginia, there is (still) a liberal media bias
12/03/02: On the brink of regime change --- in Iran
11/27/02: Light's victory over darkness
11/25/02: A 'Republican' lesson from a Democratic convention
11/22/02: The slippery senator
11/18/02: The campus 'diversity' fraud
11/14/02: MURDER AT A KIBBUTZ
11/01/02: Saddam's shop of horrors
10/24/02: Musings, random and otherwise
10/17/02: Jimma's ignoble prize
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/08/02: STEVEN EMERSON AND THE NPR BLACKLIST
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/07/01: THE PALESTINIANS' MYTH
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/28/01: THE CENSORS ARE COMING! THE CENSORS ARE COMING!
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
01/05/01 THEY NEVER FORGOT THEE, O JERUSALEM
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore
© 2002, Boston Globe