The hatred was palpable in the words of supposedly mature, rational, reasonable representatives of what, by consensus if nothing else, are presumed to be governments capable of playing a responsible role in world affairs. The thundering denunciations of Israel following its legal if arguably quite unwise act of self-defense were based on no knowledge of what transpired before or during the commando raid on the Marmara.
At least the Security Council admitted ignorance. The resolution specifically acknowledged that it and its members had no independent information regarding what happened. The resolution and the vote depended completely upon media reports or quite possibly false and malicious gossip from partisan sources. The reality that the Security Council acted without knowing is borne out by the wording of the resolution condemning Israel in which it was alleged that ten "passengers" on board the Marmara had been killed. While that number had currency in the media, it was wrong as the later figure of nine demonstrates.
None of this bothered the worthies of the Security Council currently with Turkey in the chair. It was with a whoop and a hollar that the resolution went through. In double quick order and to its permanent disgrace and loss of credibility, the Security Council in essence legitimized the intentionally provocative action of Turkey in facilitating the movement of the "aid flotilla" knowing, even hoping, that the Israelis would stop the maritime parade and some good Muslims would attain the martyrdom they were seeking.
The haste of the Security Council's lynching of Israel stands in very sharp contrast to the apparent indifference within the body's membership to the act of aggression committed by North Korea in the Cheonan Incident. Even though weeks have passed, an international investigation undertaken by a credible group including at least one neutral nation, and the finger of culpability firmly pointed at North Korea, the Security Council is in no hurry to render a judgement not even a mild censure directed at Pyongyang.
Given the contrast between the Security Council's action on Israel and inaction on North Korea, it is hard to see how the Council can claim any legitimacy as an arbiter and enforcer of international norms of governmental conduct. This is not to imply that the Council would have been in the right to ignore the Marmara Affair as it has the Cheonan Incident but rather to argue that once the impartial investigation has occurred in either of these unfortunate matters, then it is proper for the Council to condemn or offer condolences. But, unless and until the facts of the matter are known in sufficient detail to meet some form of the "rational person" test, the Council should sit down and shut up.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) can never sit down and shut up. Neither can it ever be bothered with finding real, honest-to-gosh, objective facts as opposed to convenient artifacts and anti-facts which meet a particular political (or, to err on the side of accuracy, political-religious) need or desire.
While the rhetoric in the Security Council was rather restrained, polite, civilized even, the oratory over in the HRC was over the top. Epithets were hurled at machinegun speed. These included "piracy," "act of aggression," "brutal massacre," and "war crime." The fast roping Israeli commandos were also held to have committed an act of "terrorism," a "crime against humanity," and a set of "murderous attacks."
The Festival of Insults provided the context for the passage of a Pakistani resolution introduced on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Sudan on behalf of the Arab League. Irony permeates this scene as it does most of what the HRC undertakes. In this case it is furnished by the reality that both the OIC and the Arab League are comprised in the main of states which routinely, systematically, and violently abridge most of the human rights they have committed themselves to upholding in assorted international undertakings.
Not that this sort of logical and ethical disconnect bothers the majority of the states comprising the HRC. As has been the case before, Israel was convicted instantly. Following conviction, the HRC called for a "fact finding" mission which would serve to justify the speedy conviction.
In the past four years, the HRC (and its predecessor) held thirteen special sessions. Of these, ten dealt with country specific issues. Of the ten, six focused on Israel. This is in keeping with another critical index of HRC priorities. The HRC (again including its immediate predecessor) passed fifty-nine country specific resolutions. Twenty-nine of these--that's right, half--named Israel as the target.
It is easy to recall that the HRC was responsible for the Goldstone Panel and its report. The travesty of fact embodied in this report demonstrates in one (admittedly difficult and painful to read) batch of cynical distortions the reality of the politicization of the HRC. Now the HRC is bound and determined to usher "Infamous Prejudice II" into existence despite the presence of the supposedly moderating influence of the US.
President Obama reversed the policy of his predecessor and the US rejoined the HRC. The president as well as Secretary of State Clinton and any number of others in the Obama foreign policy "team" have declared the HRC to be "flawed." This designation is on a par with calling the RMS Titanic "unsinkable."
The party line at Foggy Bottom and within the magic circle of the Oval Office is the US can work effectively from the inside to reform the "flawed" HRC. If the action taken by the body regarding the Marmara Affair is any indication--and it most assuredly is--the Obama administration and the president himself have given birth to one more policy failure. The failure of the US to influence in any way the immoderate, prejudicial, dare one write, "antisemitic," resolution shows clearly that the Obama foreign policy is not only bootless but that the US lacks any real diplomatic clout--even in the lesser venue of the HRC.
In a sorry, painful way the lack of real influence in the HRC simply is a shadow of the diminished capacity of the US in the far more critical arena of the Security Council. Perhaps the issue of a resolution of condemnation and sorrow was not considered worth the use of the big gun of a Security Council veto, but the obvious unwillingness of the Obama "team" to use the veto reinforced the already prevalent perception of American weakness of political will.
Not even in the dismal days of Jimmy Carter was the US so widely seen as lacking the intestinal fortitude necessary to exercise influence in the Security Council. The hemorrhaging of American diplomatic influence has little to do with the presumed hatred engendered around the world by the actions and policies of the Bush/Cheney administration as has been alleged to the point of nausea by apologists for the Obama administration.
Rather the loss of that most precious of international commodities--influence--is the direct and immediate result of the Obama policies of appeasement, accommodation, political correctness, and "outreach." None of these have been seen by adverse states as indicative of a creative new approach to foreign relations on the part of the US. Rather, all have been understood as signs of weakness, irresolution, loss of faith in ourselves.
The administration and its media flacks are attempting to rationalize the Obama stance as one of mediation, of counselling of the relationship maintenance sort seeking to restore good relations between two key allies--Turkey and Israel. Not only is this an exercise in squaring the circle, it is arguably doomed to fail simply because Turkey has changed course over the past three years.
The emergence of AKP to power brought politicians rooted in political Islam to power. Not surprisingly the Erdogan government has tilted increasingly to the East, to using its Islamic commonalities not only to creep closer to Iran but to become an ever more leading power within the successor states of the old Ottoman Empire.
Turkey sees no particular advantage to its pursuit of its national interest by keeping allied with either Israel or the US. Erdogan and many others in Turkey today see the future of their country deeply rooted in the past. They see Turkey as once more becoming the seat of the "caliphate."
Reality has slapped the Obama face. Perhaps even this slow learner president can overcome his disinterest in foreign affairs, his mental inertia, and his fixation on outdated ideologies and recognize that Turkey is not an American ally--and will not become one again in the near to mid-term.
While he is at it, perhaps it is possible, at least in principle, for Mr Obama to wake up to the fact that the US is playing a very weak hand in the UN. As a result, thinking the unthinkable becomes attractive. Do we really, really need to be a member of and chief financial backer of a dysfunctional institution in which our influence is nil?
Or, paradoxic as it seems, might we not gain both influence and freedom of action by leaving the UN to stew in its own increasingly anti-West, anti-democratic juices?
Well, it's a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment