The United Nations As A Farce For Human Rights

In April 2006, the UN came out with "Uniting against terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy" (PDF)

You would think that the UN would agree to Israel's need for checkpoints and searches, what with stuff like this:

They seek easy access to their intended targets and increasingly look for greater impact — both in numbers killed and in media exposure. Denying them access to these means and targets can help to prevent future attacks.

The UN seems to hit all the right notes:

• "We must also work to strengthen border control..."
  
  
• "There are, however, several examples of terrorists abandoning a planned target because it was considered too difficult to achieve their goal. Accordingly, we must work to improve the protection of soft targets as well as the security and safety of civilians affected by their attacks."
  
  
• "No end justifies intentionally attacking civilians and non-combatants."

But in the end, the UN hasn't changed at all. Eye On The UN points out that the UN has yet to even define the term terrorism.

Then in November 22, 1974 there was UN Resolution 3236, which recognized:

the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Ami Isserhof notes:

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

In the end, the UN's preferred argument is that the concern over human rights must take precedence over in the war on terrorism:

Only by placing counter-terrorism within a rule-of-law framework can we safeguard the internationally valued standard that outlaws terrorism, reduce the conditions that may generate cycles of terrorist violence, and address grievances and resentment that may be conducive to terrorist recruitment. To compromise on the protection of human rights would hand terrorists a victory they cannot achieve on their own. And when human rights are abused as part of a campaign against terrorism, terrorists exploit the abuse to mobilize recruits and seek to further justify their actions. To this end, States should ratify and implement the core international human rights instruments and accept the competence of international and national human rights monitoring bodies, including those entrusted with monitoring all places where people are deprived of their liberty.

Considering the UN's paralysis in the war on terrorism and their inability to even arrive at a definition of what terrorism is, it is less than impressive to see the UN claim for itself any kind of expertise on what actually defines victory.

Nor is there any encouragement when one reads their conclusion that the concern for human rights of the terrorists and their allies trumps the protection of the human rights of the intended victims of the terrorists.

Technorati Tag: UN.