Cassilis

One of the things that always irritates me when people discuss international politics is the elevation of the UN beyond politics. It’s frequently held up as some sort of moral arbiter, incapable of getting anything wrong because, well, if the UN declare it to be so then ‘it must be so’ (echoes here of Nixon’s protestations that ‘if the President does it it must be legal’). This attitude was to the fore in arguments over the legality of the Iraq war – Kofi Annan declared the invasion legal so that’s that surely? This idea that the UN is the final word in what’s legitimate and what’s not or that it’s somehow ‘above politics’ is a dangerous one and there’s a couple of related things worth bringing to your attention today which illustrate why.

In today’s Times David Aaronovitch has a glorious pop at the UNHRC – the successor body to the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. The appointment of a 9/11 conspiracy nut, Princeton Professor International Law Richard Falk, would simply be bizarre were it not for the fact that Mr Falk is also a fierce critic of Israel & the US, comparing the former to Nazi Germany and employing verbal gymnastics in support of suicide bombers. It’s suddenly very clear what appealed to the UNHRC about Professor Falk.

Also worth a read is a piece from Robin Simcox at Henry Jackson Society. Robin has yet more on the appointment of Falk as well as Jean Ziegler, also recently appointed to the Council’s advisory committee. As with Falk, Ziegler’s qualification for the job appear rooted in his anti-US credentials rather than any strong commitment to human rights. In fact his praise for Mugabe, Gadafi, Castro et al suggest he’s actually willing to turn a blind eye to the suppression of human rights rather than fight for the extension of them. A curious appointment.

A quick glance at some of the member countries due to take a seat on the UNHRC illustrate the point Aaronovitch and Simcox are making - Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe. As Simcox points out this year Britain takes its place on the Council and it could surely do more to highlight the incongruity of the Saudis or the Chinese sitting in judgement of anyone’s human rights record?

So the next time someone starts bleating on about the international ‘rule of law’ or the importance of resolving things via the UN and it’s associated bodies (usually from the hard left) it might be worth reminding them of these absurdities. Yes, the US, UK and other countries occasionally play fast and loose with the rules when it suits but when the UN themselves have such scant regard for the high ideals they loudly proclaim then perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised when member countries follow suit…