OPINION:
EDITORIAL:
Can’t we all just get along? Well, sometimes, judging from a trio of U.N. developments in recent days.
On the positive side, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to approve a resolution, proposed in person by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to authorize nations to conduct land and air attacks on pirate bases in Somalia. On the negative side, Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion threaten to doom an already shaky U.N. anti-racism conference planned for April. Somewhere on the yet-to-be-determined side is the third issue of gay rights, where the U.N. General Assembly stalled on a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality after the statement prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.
The action on the piracy resolution came on the same day that Somali gunmen seized two more ships. Since the lawlessness has affected Russian and Chinese commerce as well as that of other members of the Security Council, and the government of Somalia welcomed the resolution, it was almost a no-brainer - if any Security Council action can be classified that way.
As for the attempt to ban religious criticism as part of the forthcoming anti-racism conference, various Muslim and African nations say stifling free speech is needed to stop the publication of “offensive” articles and images. They pushed that view at a meeting of the European Union but, to their credit, the Europeans rebuffed the overture. As one diplomat noted regarding anti-blasphemy laws used in some countries, “Such laws are often used to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and nonbelievers, and are applied in a discriminatory fashion.” Canada and Israel have already stated they will boycott the conference out of concerns that there will be a repeat of anti-Semitic outbursts at the first anti-racism conference in 2001. The United States may do likewise, and other nations are pondering whether to participate.
The attempt by European nations to decriminalize homosexuality had 66 signatures on the statement, and a rival Syrian statement had 60, at last count. No resolution was drafted and there has been no vote yet. The sponsors of decriminalization say homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, with seven of them punishing it by death. While some penalties may be far too severe - and any degree of criminalization may be debatable in free societies - we are in general tentative agreement with Syria (hard to imagine) that the European statement “delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states” and which could lead to “the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.” The decriminalization also “attempts to create ’new rights’ or ’new standards,’ by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership” and this could “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.” This thorny situation needs further thrashing out. U.S. officials said without amplification that the decriminalization statement creates conflicts with U.S. law; the U.S. has not signed either statement.
If there is a common thread between the three U.N. issues, it may be that nations are still far more likely to vote from their own perspective than from a shared worldview - which is another way of saying there is no shared worldview on much of anything yet, with the possible exception that pirates are bad guys from each nation’s perspective.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.