The United Nations' Disarray
Not long ago, I joined a Washington luncheon with Shashi Tharoor, an under-secretary general at the United Nations. Tharoor, a candidate to replace Kofi Annan last year as head of the UN, speaks with the polish and assurance of the quintessential UN diplomat. But when asked why repressive states such as China and Saudi Arabia should be allowed to serve on the UN's premier human-rights body, he hesitated. "You don't advance human rights," Tharoor insisted, "by preaching only to the converted."
Here on display is the flawed idealism of the UN's human-rights agenda, as if having human-rights abusers judging human-rights cases is the way to convert them. It is the same utopian impulse that lies behind multilateralism (the idea that nations should always act in concert) and its cousin multiculturalism (openness to the traditions and values of other cultures) and causes such confusion about human rights. Though helpful in some contexts, these ideas are slavishly applied in international politics in ways that assault the concepts of natural rights and moral norms enshrined not only in our Declaration of Independence, but also in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The unconverted states, of course, have hijacked human-rights ideals for their own despotic purposes. A 2004 UN task force report lamented a "legitimacy deficit" in the organization's commitment to human rights. A year later, Kofi Annan admitted that the United Nations was "passing through the gravest crisis of its existence" because of its tarnished record. He finally recommended that the Human Rights Commission be abolished and replaced by a reconstituted Human Rights Council, an idea approved by the General Assembly last year. It appears, however, that the ...
This article is currently available to CT subscribers only.
To continue reading:
or
La complejidad hispana: Todo cambió en el 2012
The Latest in Movie News, May 20, 2013
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 13 comments
See all comments
Kwang
As a former Advisor to the World Bank, I applaud CT for this article, which reflects a growing interest on int’l issues and organizations by thinking Christians. Loconte's shrewdly observes that the world's secular leaders dominate the UN agenda, with their confused world view regarding human nature. Today's silent tragedy is that the majority world is being shaped on the advice of secular technocrats on the mold of post-Christian West. Just like Christians transformed the Civil Rights movement, the gap in the international justice agenda is a distinctive Christian voice a la King Jr., and William Wilberforce. But the Loconte’s Commission should be an international one, even if the US creates it. This is different than the Commission on Relig Freedom, an advocacy body. When you put the word "rights,” you get into the messy world of "enforcement,” and you need to face the formidable challenge of creating int’l enforcement mechanisms to human rights violators.
Mike
As an Australian Evangelical, I must agree entirely with Alex from England.
Daniel
The important rights are freedoms - speech, conscience, religion. The freedom to pursue your craft, occupation or calling. And by defending these freedoms we create an environment conducive to economic growth.