Dartblog

The United Nations long ago misplaced its formative charge in the wilds of the Secretariat. It had, vaguely now, something to do with preventing another world war. As the years intervened the organization’s job description has changed, and if its practices are any indication, the current goalposts seem to be: Grant legitimacy to Earth’s cruelest operators; Mislead all the wrong people into believing that the power balance does not matter; Valiantly defend human rights where human rights are not in jeopardy and where “defending” them imposes no cost.

Sad to say, the United Nations Human Rights Commission was a roughshod crusader for those things, if unintentionally so. But they were destined to be fulfilled by any commission serving under an organization which has for decades taken as its sworn duty the worldwide promulgation of One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Of course the UN stopped saying that outright after September 11 (it had a sweetheart of a lease) but it remains at the core of the mission, and policies are informed by it. When it came time for the Human Rights Commission to be razed and replaced with a less-corrupt, un-hypocritical, at least marginally effectual body to defend human rights, the result was the shining Human Rights Council. Commentators looking at the documents behind the new organization have generally been impressed by the keen name change—‘council’ is a more solemn, auburn word, and is easier to spell than ‘commission’—but less so by the changes themselves. Most of the internationalists at the United Nations have, as John Bolton once warned against, put lipstick on a caterpillar and accepted it as the butterfly they wanted to begin with. The new Council is plagued by the same misunderstanding of humanity, life, and the universe that the rest of the United Nations suffers under: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Let no one be judged. It is not for anyone to say anything if an ideology demands suppression, political executions, genocide, or censorship. It is a foreign ideology which underwrites these things and we are enlightened to respect it. Indeed, let us bend double under the weight of its strange taboos: We’ll take them on, too.

The embarrassment is revealed in the tiff Ambassador Bolton has become involved in at the General Assembly. While Bolton argues that the Council should consist of members elected by the General Assembly on the basis of their demonstrated commitment to human rights, great swaths of the world find this surely a silly American joke. They’ve won the fight, and the Council as proposed turns on a membership elected by the General Assembly on the basis of geographic equality.

Which means that, as with the past Commission, such evil states as Libya, Sudan, Iran, and Syria—countries with no regard for the individual—will be held in exactly the same nominal regard as the United States, which for much of its history has bled in foreign places for freedom.

Economists have to deal with something called the relevant market. So an actuary for Coca-Cola must consider, when he’s tallying numbers for the marketing folks, whether customers walking into a shop are there with “beverage” on their list or “soda” or perhaps “cola”. Understanding which market is appropriate for analysis is key to drawing useful conclusions.

Trumpeters of diversity rarely understand this notion. I have been a frequent critic of colleges’ affirmative action programs, because they attempt to find irrelevant diversity in skin color rather than the pure, golden diversity of mind. In the case of this proposed United Nations Council, its defenders are zealously advocating the useless diversity of location. That is a simple, unthinking, mechanical diversity. It is a calculation and a carving up. It, like the color of one’s skin, tells no story about the man—or the people—behind the name. What the Human Rights Council needs is diversity of heart. Wherever in the world a people still feel their old liberty new and crave to export it, let them be on the Council. Wherever in the world a citizenry in its riches and comforts can be charitable to other nations, let them be on the Council. Wherever freedom is so thoroughly vaunted and persecution relentlessly rejected that people will fight overseas to secure it for others, let them be on the Council. No one cares where these humans are or who is their leader, so long as they are human. So long as they have heart.

In forming armies for the defense of freedom and the eradication of tyranny, the relevant market is heart, not terrain. When John Bolton says that a state’s human rights record should be the basis of their membership on the Human Rights Council, he isn’t acting out of petulance. He is downtrodden, betide, that early in this reform game (All of the United Nations needs true overhaul, not just the Human Rights Commission) the air is so thick that “equitable geographic distribution” remains the rallying cry. Is there any hope for eliminating the ancient apology that One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter if we cannot even agree that human rights violators are not human rights defenders?

UPDATE: See also Mark Steyn’s recent remarks at Hillsdale College.