Or­wellian logic at the U.N.

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary -

In Ge­orge Or­well’s novel “1984,” the pro­tag­o­nists in the to­tal­i­tar­ian so­ci­ety em­ployed “newspeak,” the in­ver­sion of words to cre­ate false mean­ing. “War is peace,” “good is bad,” “moral is im­moral” are merely a few of the pos­si­ble in­ver­sions.

While Or­well passed this mor­tal coil years ago, his no­tion of false mean­ing is alive and well and re­sid­ing in the United Na­tions.

In fact, there is scarcely a sen­tence ut­tered at this in­sti­tu­tion that isn’t Or­wellian. Hu­man rights, for ex­am­ple, the hall­mark of U.N. ef­forts, does noth­ing to pro­mote th­ese rights. The com­mis­sion or­ga­nized to pro­mote this goal is com­posed of the most se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tors of free­dom.

The 57 Mus­lim na­tions in­vari­ably con­demn Is­rael as an au­to­cratic na­tion oc­cu­py­ing and dom­i­nat­ing Arab ter­ri­tory in the West Bank. Yet this con­dem­na­tion over­looks the fact that Arabs com­prise 20 per­cent of Is­rael’s pop­u­la­tion, are ac­corded the cit­i­zen­ship and rights of ev­ery Is­raeli and even have rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the Knes­set. By con­trast, Jews are op­pressed in ev­ery Arab Mus­lim state, are de­nied their right to wor­ship and, in most cases, have been forced to em­i­grate.

U.N. pro­nounce­ments have in­di­cated “Zion­ism is racism,” while the racism or the de­nun­ci­a­tion of in­fi­dels — non­be­liev­ers — is em­braced when­ever Wah­habism pre­vails.

At this late date, af­ter the ter­ror­ist at­tacks of Septem­ber 11, 2001, the July 7, 2005, at­tacks in Lon­don and the 2004 Madrid bomb­ings and a host of ter­ror­ist at­tacks all over the world, the U.N. can­not come up with a def­i­ni­tion of ter­ror­ism, re­ly­ing, in­stead, on the empty cliche that “one man’s ter­ror­ist is an­other man’s free­dom fighter.” Tell that to in­no­cent women and chil­dren maimed by sui­cide bombers.

Ter­ror at the U.N. is a rel­a­tive term: If it leads to Jewish blood be­ing shed or West­ern lives be­ing lost, it is ac­cept­able or, at the very least, un­wor­thy of con­dem­na­tion.

If Mah­moud Ah­madine­jad vi­o­lates the non­pro­lif­er­a­tion treaty en­dorsed by the U.N., he is wel­come to speak in its cham­bers as a con­quer­ing hero. The late Pales­tinian leader Yasser Arafat, bran­dish­ing a weapon as he spoke to the Gen­eral As­sem­bly, was her­alded as well.

Al­though the U.N. char­ter states specif­i­cally that na­tions can en­gage in “an­tic­i­pa­tory self de­fense” when threat­ened, Is­rael is in­vari­ably re­buked for de­fend­ing it­self against at­tack with the ab­surd claim its re­tal­i­a­tion is “dis­pro­por­tion­ate.” If this stan­dard were ap­plied uni­ver­sally (of course, it isn’t) would that mean the U.S. should have re­sponded to the 2,800 deaths at Pearl Har­bor with an at­tack on Ja­pan that killed 2,800?

As I see it, those who fol­low U.N. ac­tiv­ity have an obli­ga­tion to point out Or­wellian newspeak. When U.N. of­fi­cials ig­nore this cri­tique — as they do — it should still be made pub­lic. Shame will not en­ter this U.N. equa­tion, but the sources that pro­vide fund­ing should want to know why this mul­ti­lat­eral or­ga­ni­za­tion has turned mean­ing on its head.

Those who cover the U.N. un­der­stand full well that a body hous­ing democ­ra­cies and dic­ta­tor­ships can­not long pre­vail as long as the good and bad are treated in the same man­ner. When Zim­babwe and the Su­dan are con­sid­ered the equals of the United States and the United King­dom, rel­a­tivis­tic stan­dards must be im­posed. Even a de­bat­ing so­ci­ety must re­al­ize at some point that some views are more valid than oth­ers.

Hence, word in­ver­sion is a use­ful, alas, a nec­es­sary tac­tic in an or­ga­ni­za­tion that re­fuses to con­sider a uni­ver­sal stan­dard of jus­tice, free­dom, fair play, rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment and hu­man rights. Or­wellian­ism is the guide for na­tions that can­not jus­tify their ac­tions in the con­text of moral­ity, but none­the­less want po­lit­i­cal recog­ni­tion in this world body.

More­over, the more one uses the lan­guages of dis­sim­u­la­tion, the more it is be­lieved and ac­cepted. It is a Gre­sham’s Law of com­mu­ni­ca­tion in which the bad, or in this case the lie, drives the good or the truth out of cir­cu­la­tion. That is the U.N. method­ol­ogy de­rived di­rectly from newspeak.

Whoever said this isn’t 1984 hasn’t been to the tem­ple of lies at First Av­enue and 42nd Street in Man­hat­tan.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.