Gjesteskribent

richard_falk.jpg

Hvorfor er FN så lite kritisert i norske medier? Hvorfor frede en organisasjon som trenger å utsettes for konstant kritikk, hvis man vil den vel? FN trues hele tiden av overbyråkratisering, og politisering. Den senere tid har Konferansen av islamske stater, OIC, kuppet Menneskerettsrådet på en måte som truer med å kompromittere FN.

Muslimske land har lenge misbrukt den nedlagte Menneskerettskommisjonen, men det kolllektive fremstøtet i Human Rights Council representerer et kvalitativt nytt steg: man påla Rådets menneskerettsrapportør å overvåke misbruk av ytringsfriheten, ikke undertrykkelse av den.

To tendenser har funnet hverandere: den politisk korrekte fløyen i Vest og globalt som finner ondskapen lokalisert i USA og Israel, og Konferansen av islamske stater. Det kommer konkret til uttrykk ved at Rådet har utnevnt professor emeritus ved Princeton, Richard Falk, til ny spesialrådgiver om Israel. Falk, som selv er jøde, har tidligere sammenlignet Israel med Nazi-Tyskland.

David Aaronovitch skriver i the Times:

So, what did the 40-plus members of the Council see in the professor? As far as I can tell his attraction lies in the following. He is American; he is Jewish; and more deliciously in light of the first two, he blames Israel for just about everything – as opposed to those who (rightly, in my opinion) blame it for quite a lot. This, for example, is Falk in 2002, on the second intifada: «Palestinian resistance gradually ran out of military options, and suicide bombers appeared as the only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the struggle could go on.»

There are three problems with this analysis. The first is that suicide bombing began in Israel in 1994, when Hamas saw the Oslo peace process as threatening to succeed. Secondly, the suicide bombs were obviously utterly counterproductive in terms of procuring peace, and indeed helped to destroy the Israeli peace movement. And thirdly, other «resistances» (Tibet, Darfur?) seem to have avoided the «only means» of suicide bombing aimed at civilians – family restaurants, buses, schools, discos, and groups of teenagers, to be more specific.

Politisk vekkelse

Både OIC og de politisk korrekte av Falks støpning har én ting til felles: en understrøm av antisemittisme, og den nye versjon av Sion vises protokoller heter 9/11-konspirasjonen.

For Falk «Israel was mainly responsible». It was transparently this political position that led to him being appointed to his job, not his expertise, nor his open-mindedness. Nor, we now know, was it his common sense. In my library of conspiriana are several books by the American theologian David Ray Griffin, intellectual guru of the «Bush blew up the twin towers» movement. Griffin believes that no plane hit the Pentagon (despite hundreds of people seeing it) and that the World Trade Centre was brought down by a controlled demolition. There isn’t a single point of alleged fact upon which Griffin’s barking theory hasn’t itself been demolished. And there isn’t a single volume of Griffin that doesn’t carry Falk’s endorsement.

This journey reaches its depressing climax in a chapter written by Falk for Griffin’s 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Following on from the pseudo- scientific blah about the heat at which steel bends (all of which stuff Falk describes as possessing «high credibility») the UN expert-official opines that part of the evidence that there was conspiracy is the very fact that so many people say there wasn’t. Or, in intellectualese: «Momentous suspicious events bearing on the legitimacy of the process of governance in the US have been consistently shielded from mainstream inquiry by being reinscribed as the wild fantasies of �conspiracy theorists’… The management of suspicion is itself suspicious.» As you can see, because I believe that Falk, like Griffin, has taken leave of what remained of his senses, this column is now itself part of the sinister plot.

På toppen av verdensorganisasjonen, og ved USAs fremste læresteder, sitter det personer som ikke er beskjemmet over å fremme obskurantisme man må tilbake til 1500-tallet for å finne maken til. Den politiske heksesabatten foregår i fullt dagslys. Er det forlegenhet som gjør at mediene tier?

The UN Human Rights Council doesn’t give a toss about the human rights of the Palestinians in the sense of wanting them upheld. Its majority is far more interested in using Israel as a stick to beat the US with, or – in the case of Islamic states – as a bogeyman to dampen down domestic discontent.

But what is even more amazing is that some Western countries agree to play this game. Three weeks ago the Swiss, using a glossy brochure, persuaded the Council by 40 votes to 7 to elect a Jean Ziegler to its advisory committee. Professor Ziegler is an apologist for Fidel Castro and Colonel Gadaffi, a former associate of the Ethiopian dictator General Mengistu, a defender of Robert Mugabe (who, he said, had «history and morality with him»), a visitor to Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong, and an admirer of the French Holocaust denier, Roger Garaudy.

Do I need to add that he is also an outspoken critic of American imperialism and of Israel?

Samantha Powers bok om Sergio Vieira de Mello handler for en stor del om FN, og hun skriver at en stor del av staben, den ivrige, idealistiske typen som utgjør krumtappen i hjelpearbeid og humanitære operasjoner er venstreorienterte av innstilling. Det er en ganske viktig faktor når man skal forklare mangel på motstand og kritikk av forsøket på å temme FN fra de muslimske lands side.

Det stunder nå mot en ny Durban-konferanse, en Durban II, som ikke ser ut til å bli noe mindre kompromitterende enn den første som flommet over anti-israelske resolusjoner. Canada har sagt de uteblir, mens Norge stiller. Man risikerer å bli gissel for en politikk som på sikt vil ødelegge FN.

UN expert? No, a conspiracy crank

The new adviser on human rights has compared Israel to Nazi Germany. And not only that…