UN Watch, the Geneva-based affiliate of the American Jewish Committee, has a helpful summary of Mary Robinson’s problematic career. It begins:
Should Mary Robinson be awarded the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom for being an “agent of change”?
In March 2004, we noted that, “Whatever her accomplishments, Mary Robinson’s legacy will be forever entwined with Durban’s racism-turned-racist conference that disgraced the UN.”
In the words of the late Tom Lantos, U.S. delegate to the conference and founder of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus: “To many of us present at the events at Durban, it is clear that much of the responsibility for the debacle rests on the shoulders of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who, in her role as secretary-general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track.”
Lantos thoroughly documented her counter-productive acts of omission and commission in the vital lead-up process.
UN Watch then reminds us: “But problems with Robinson preceded Durban. UN Watch closely monitored her 1997-2002 tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. We gave her credit on various occasions for speaking out on human rights issues. But in several key instances her moral megaphone was selective, nowhere more than in the case of Israel.” UN Watch then lists 10 separate instances in which the group documented Robinson’s bias and predilection to inflame events and distort facts — always to favor the Palestinian-propaganda line and to indict Israel.
In a separate post, UN Watch concludes:
The evidence is clear. As described by the late Tom Lantos, throughout the lead-up to the 2001 Durban conference Mary Robinson was part of the problem, not the solution. At preparatory sessions in Tehran and Geneva she consistently justified and encouraged a selective focus on Israel. While she did make statements against anti-Semitic manifestations at the conference itself, these were too little and too late. Robinson may not have been the chief culprit of the Durban debacle, but she is its preeminent symbol.
The problem was not just Durban. UN Watch interacted with Robinson when she was U.N. rights chief in Geneva from 1997 to 2002 and closely monitored her tenure. Though she did speak out aptly in various instances, Robinson consistently displayed one-sided criticism of Israel matched with indifference to Palestinian terrorism.
The U.S. government rightly stood up for principle in April when it opposed any reaffirmation of the flawed 2001 Durban declaration. Whatever her other accomplishments, Robinson’s actions in the Durban process and the bias she displayed throughout her tenure as UN human rights chief were not worthy of this award.
The question remains: what was the Obama administration thinking? One can guess at who might have suggested this awful pick (I think we can assume Richard Holbrooke is off the hook), but the responsibility remains with the president. He will present the honors, and he should explain why he thinks Robinson is deserving of our country’s highest civilian award.
Nobody reasonable would suggest the the Bush administration was wrong for wanting to keep Americans safe, and nobody reasonable should doubt this administration’s desire to do the same.
Hey Max – remind the class – on 9/11 were we attacked by military personel or civilians who used box cutters to bring down commuter jets? I know that Conservatives – who despise money for infrastructure or law enforcement, but never met a Pentagon money hole they didn’t love, but let’s face it: 9/11 was a law enforcement job – combined with intelligence and homesecurity – not one for tanks or bombs…
unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the military failed us on 9/11…
2-Agents of an organization having hundreds or thousands of agents, with military training camps operating in a foreign country and allied with that country’s government are civilians?
Change in labeling is the first step in a propaganda campaign to change attitudes. Call “terrorism” “man-made disaster” and it is placed on a par with global warming. The “war on terror” was not the best description (should have been “war against Islamic extremism”), but at least it had the essential word “war”. It helped to remind the world that we were fighting against an enemy Now we are not fighting, but operating. Our enemies are not combatants, they are contingencies.
Military recruitment will soar.
Mr. Boot, I wish you were right about this, but I’m afraid words matter. They matter tremendously. What we lose with this frenzy of seemingly superficial name changes is accountability.
When we call something a war, the name itself implies an objective — an end-state — a strategy, and a set of measures of effectiveness. You can tell what a war is accomplishing. You can make a logical argument that it’s NOT accomplishing what it is supposed to — and even if you’re arguing incorrectly, the context still admits the form of the argument.
The implication of an end-state is particularly important. Wars, in their Western connotation, are supposed to be waged for the very purpose of ending themselves, and presenting us with the payoff of what Liddell-Hart called “a better peace.”
An “overseas contingency operation” carries none of these implications. It implies force; it does not commensurately imply decision, and the means to its own end. This is a recipe for disaster, as we found with Vietnam, and on a lesser scale, in Somalia and Lebanon.
The accountability that is being drained from our use of law enforcement and armed force is very, very dangerous to lose. In law enforcement, I think we would all be alarmed at the prospect of “saying we’re not, but doing it anyway.” It’s Americans’ civil liberties we are talking about.
And from “saying we’re not, but doing it anyway,” it is only a short, perilous step to “let’s not, and say we did.” The grave danger in applying this rubric to national defense should be obvious.
5-A very well-written presentation, but I’m slightly unclear as to how a reluctance to use the word “war” diminishes our ability to reach a state that is “better” or occludes our ability to judge if we are approaching betterment.
The location of the occlusion is, of course, obvious.
Try not to assume your occlusion.
“2-Agents of an organization having hundreds or thousands of agents, with military training camps operating in a foreign country and allied with that country’s government are civilians?”
The men who attacked us on 9/11 were civilians – much like the members of the IRA were civilians. Yes, they had SOME military training – but so do weekend paintballers – and, yes, they were part of an organization – but one with little or no hierarchy, operating under no flag – and with little or no resources. This is not to diminish their crimes, but to merely state that 9.11 was a failure of intelligence (even though there were warnings) and law enforcement (imagine if there had been an armed federal agent on those planes – 9/11 would’ve been just another day). For some reason, the right wing is invested in making sure that we fight terrorists with the military – as if were at war…
but we’re not…
9- perhaps you could have made these points to Lord Cornwallis.
10 – are you really comparing al qaeda to the Revolutionary Amry under George Washington? The guys who fought under a flag for freedom? as an Army? Are you accusing the Americans of terrorism – IN THEIR OWN HOMES? In their own towns? In their own country? The Americans made VERY CEAR to the Crown that freedom was what they wanted. And they asked for it very nicely…
Now, if they had opened fire in London…
we’de be having a different conversation…
“5-A very well-written presentation, but I’m slightly unclear as to how a reluctance to use the word “war” diminishes our ability to reach a state that is “better” or occludes our ability to judge if we are approaching betterment.”
As J.E. said:
“When we call something a war, the name itself implies an objective — an end-state — a strategy, and a set of measures of effectiveness. You can tell what a war is accomplishing. You can make a logical argument that it’s NOT accomplishing what it is supposed to — and even if you’re arguing incorrectly, the context still admits the form of the argument.”
“Out of sight, out of mind, but we’ll follow it closely” is a losing strategy in the long run.
11- No, what I hoped you to understand is that lack of resources, weaponry or rigid structure does not mean that the terrorists who attacked us are criminals instead of soldiers. I also mean you to understand that they, along with their allies, constitute a level of threat to us that shoulld not be confused with common criminality.
Cornwallis made the mistake of considering his opponents to be rabble and unable to pose a serious threat to his command.
12- If failure to use the word war means that the current administration is not in earnest about securing our safety, then I would agree with Dyer.
Too often have I heard arguments over words being considered as more than arguments over words.
When it comes to keeping body and soul together I want to focus on actions.