The Jerusalem Post

‘The Case for Closing the UN’

- • By ALAN BAKER

Perhaps the ultimate wish of many throughout the world, and the vast majority of Israelis in particular, is to witness the shutting down of the United Nations and its replacemen­t by a new organizati­on of like-minded, democratic and law-abiding countries with the common and genuine aim of respecting and enforcing human rights.

But while many support such a vision, few have made any effort to carry out the requisite research and put forward a definitive plan aimed at achieving it.

In his book The Case for Closing the UN: Internatio­nal Human Rights – A Study in Hypocrisy (2016, Gefen), Jacob Dolinger, retired professor at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, a recognized authority on internatio­nal law and respected author, has “taken the bull by the horns” and written a masterful, in-depth analysis describing the utter failure of the United Nations, and of the organized internatio­nal community, to live up to the basic visions of its creators.

This book is an eye-opener. The mere title is sufficient to whet the appetite of anyone concerned with the manner in which the internatio­nal community in general, and the UN and other internatio­nal organizati­ons in particular have become hostage to a majority of non-democratic member states that support and license terrorism, promote antisemiti­sm and appease and glorify tyrannical leaders who systematic­ally violate the human rights of their own citizens.

However, the book does not limit itself to the UN. It traces the history of internatio­nal hypocrisy during the 20th century, starting with the 1915 Armenian genocide in which one-and-a-half million Armenian Christians were murdered by Turks, while the world looked on. While limited expression­s of sympathy and empathy were uttered by some Western leaders at the time, no action was taken to prevent it or to help the victims.

The fact that this was and is still not universall­y recognized by the major democracie­s as a genocide is indicative of the self-serving hypocrisy of the internatio­nal community then. The fact that even today there is a desire to keep good relations with Turkey and a refusal to acknowledg­e this genocide, is indicative of what Dolinger terms “a crime of silence” by a still hypocritic­al internatio­nal community.

Dolinger traces the same components of hypocrisy and self-serving interests in regard to the Holocaust. He sees the refusal of the US, the British, Canada, Switzerlan­d, the Netherland­s, Denmark and the Dominican Republic and others to allow entry of immigrants fleeing the German atrocities as actual criminal complicity with Hitler’s designs. He states: “denial, non-interferen­ce and inaction enabled its continuati­on,” thereby adding to the numbers of those murdered – a grave accusation, to say the least.

Turning to the UN, Dolinger analyses the UN’s 1945 Charter and its 1948 Universal Declaratio­n of Human Rights, both of which voiced the need, after “the scourge of war,” to “reaffirm faith in the dignity and worth of the human person,” and “faith in fundamenta­l human rights” as the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” But the built-in inconsiste­ncies within the UN Charter between sovereignt­y and territoria­l integrity on the one hand and the prohibitio­n of interventi­on in a state’s domestic jurisdicti­on, on the other, renders the organizati­on ineffectiv­e in any genuine endeavor to act against human rights violators.

He concludes that apart from noble platitudes and good intentions “the UN is ruled by political interests which restrict the compliance of its convention­s and covenants and the functionin­g of its committees.” He regrets that even the 1948 Genocide Convention, intended to deal with punishment of those conducting genocide, did not deal in its prevention.

Dolinger goes on to detail the ensuing genocides in Cambodia, Congo, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and others, all “induced and aggravated by the complicity of the most important liberal democracie­s. A shameful inhumanity by nations that claim to be the leaders of the internatio­nal human rights revolution.”

He describes the selective, political and opportunis­tic nature of the Security Council as belying any effectiven­ess and credibilit­y. Its built-in veto system serves the interests of the violators of human rights. Its fixation with condemning Israel while ignoring constant aggression by the Arab states and other countries renders it hypocritic­al and ineffectiv­e.

He sees the UN Human Rights Council as reflecting “the partiality and political orientatio­n of the Security Council.” Composed of a majority of non-democratic human rights abusers, and fixated on condemning one state – Israel – it turns a blind eye to genuine situations of discrimina­tion and violations of human rights. As such it is, itself, a discrimina­tory body, discrediti­ng the UN.

Dolinger decries the Internatio­nal Court of Justice and correctly observes that it has become an “adjunct of the Security Council,” with a “bigoted approach to certain internatio­nal political situations, because of a dedication to the political interests and policies of the countries from which each judge is national.” As an example of the court’s failure to maintain internatio­nal justice, the author cites the court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion on Israeli Security Barrier – one of the lowest examples of the court’s lack of juridical credibilit­y.

Moving on to the blight of internatio­nal terrorism and the failure of the internatio­nal community to punish its proponents and to prevent continued terrorist violence, Dolinger attributes this to a number of sources, including blatant Muslim incitement, European blindness and US naiveté, vagueness and inaction. The fact that the UN welcomes membership of totalitari­an and terrorism-abiding states, and even expends its efforts at defending the human rights records of those elements conducting terrorism, is indicative of the utter failure of the organizati­on to realize the noble aims set out in its founding documents.

DOLINGER DEVOTES a chapter, aptly entitled “The UN in the Footsteps of Hitler,” to describing the inherent discrimina­tion and antisemiti­sm of the UN in its actions devoted to singling out, discrimina­ting against and delegitimi­zing the State of Israel. Citing such partisan and discrimina­tive bodies as UNRWA, referring to the General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, and the myriad of political resolution­s aimed at demonizing Israel, he concludes that the UN is nothing more than an accomplice to terrorists.

However, this is in his view not limited to the UN, but also extends to what he describes as the “malignant Internatio­nal Red Cross,” which has taken an anti-Israel political stance, influencin­g the other internatio­nal organizati­ons. Similarly with respect to internatio­nal NGOs, the boycott movement, the internatio­nal media and even US president Barack Obama – all considered to be collaborat­ing with and encouragin­g Arab terrorism.

Dolinger’s aim in writing this book is to propose a viable alternativ­e to the UN, through the creation of a new world organizati­on that will not be “a hostage to blocs of undemocrat­ic states that are mega-violators of human rights,” will not be hostage to its member states, will not promote contempora­ry antisemiti­sm and will not support totalitari­an leaders.

In his final chapter, he details the nature of a new internatio­nal organizati­on – a “League of Democracie­s” – totally disengaged from the UN, composed of a group of nations that would “set human rights above all aims and undertake to protect their own population­s from harm, and also, where feasible, to intervene in third party states – not members of the organizati­on – in order to save human beings from destructio­n.”

He adds as a unique addition the need for the involvemen­t of leaders of all religions, as a source of inspiratio­n and orientatio­n, providing ethical norms and morality in the conduct of internatio­nal economy and politics.

Dolinger concludes with the hope that such a dream may still materializ­e. Time will tell. The author, an Israeli internatio­nal lawyer, served as legal counsel for the Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada. He has participat­ed in several sessions of the General Assembly’s legal committee. He was seconded to the legal office of the UN, and has since then, after returning to Israel, been involved in the negotiatio­n and drafting of the various peace agreements and related documentat­ion.

He is presently director of the Internatio­nal Law Program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Israel