In the end, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, the President of the UN General Assembly, decided not to attend the Holocaust commemoration ceremonies at UN Headquarters here in New York. One can speculate endlessly as to why D’Escoto - whose choice of metaphor to describe Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians is “crucifixion” - bowed out. Perhaps it was because he didn’t want to be in a room where he wasn’t welcome; perhaps something inside him dreaded the prospect of looking actual Holocaust survivors in the eye just a few months after he embraced the world’s most well-known exponent of Holocaust denial; perhaps (let us not forget those who will inevitably say this) he was “leaned on” or “pressured” or “prevented” by you-know-who.

D’Escoto did, however, send a message to the gathering, read out by Rwanda’s UN Envoy. In its tone and substance, the message was supremely safe and eminently laudable, if completely unoriginal. The Holocaust was a consequence of demonizing Others (”Roma, communists, gays and lesbians, and most of all Jews.”) Its most basic lesson, if the cry “Never Again!” is to have meaning, is the need for tolerance. The election of President Obama is an inspiring demonstration of where such tolerance can lead.

Anyone who knows D’Escoto’s reputation will have a field day picking holes in these remarks. The word “genocide” is mentioned several times, for example, but no current examples are provided. In another setting, D’Escoto would doubtless have pointed to the conflict in Gaza, which he regards, as he told Al Jazeera, as a “genocide.” In this setting, though, a mention of Darfur would have been more appropriate. But Darfur didn’t figure. Its absence might be put down to the fact that Palestine’s international partisans, like D’Escoto, are irritated by talk of the slaughter there, which they regard as a Zionist plot to change the subject. A likelier explanation still is that the UN doesn’t regard what is happening in Darfur as a genocide.

Acts of recognition and commemoration can be very confusing, therefore, particularly in the inverted world of the UN, where a genocide can be recast as a “civil war in which all sides are committing atrocities” and, equally, a nasty regional conflict in which culpability can be distributed among several parties is suddenly defined as a “genocide.”

Why is this? Our view of history -- more precisely, the way in which we remember the recent past in the public domain - generally tends to be cluttered by the political imperatives of the present. Holocaust Memorial Day 2009 demonstrates this beautifully. The furore in New York over D’Escoto was based upon a sense, particularly among Jewish organizations, that his attendance would soil the event. Just by being there in person, many observers said, he would have shifted attention away from the past crimes of the Holocaust to the present allegations of “Israeli genocide.”

Try, though, to imagine D’Escoto in another context. Were he a local government official in Catalunya, he would not have delivered a speech either in person or through a surrogate; there would have been no event at which to hear such a speech. Instead, he would be defending the statement that “marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right.” Ditto if he served with the local authority in the Swedish town of Lulea. Or if he was an official of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The point is this: the objection to D’Escoto was never really about his physical presence. In another country he would have been visible by his purposeful absence. Rather, it centered upon fears about the representation of the Holocaust.

In the last few weeks, the Holocaust has been commemorated, in a manner of speaking, nearly every day: it is present in the accusations of genocide committed by the IDF, it is audible in the comparisons between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto, it is visible in the banners which equate the Star of David with the swastika. No-one, believe me, has forgotten the Holocaust. Even those who deny its occurrence, like the Iranian President, perpetuate the discussion about it.

And that is why I was left profoundly uncomfortable with the final sentence of D’Escoto’s remarks: “Let us remember and learn about the crimes of the past in order to prevent them today and in the future.” A harmless platitude, you might think? Maybe, had that sentence had been uttered by a schoolchild, or by a diplomat whose only concern is protocol. But coming from a man who has too often turned the lessons of the Holocaust against Jews themselves, and who believes that Jews have morphed into their persecutors, it sounds very, very sinister.

The Axis of Evil is up to its old tricks -- at least, if you believe Robert Mugabe's official spokesman. America and Britain are plotting an invasion of Zimbabwe, but this time at least we've had the smarts to make sure we don't have to do the dirty work ourselves. Comrade George Charamba had the scoop for the state-run Herald newspaper:

‘‘The British and the Americans are dead set on bringing Zimbabwe back to the UN Security Council, they are also dead set on ensuring that there is an invasion of Zimbabwe but without themselves carrying it out. In those circumstances they will stop at nothing including abusing both the office and personnel of the secretary general.

‘‘We would not be surprised if they spring a ‘mission' involving the UN.''

Would that this were true. It's rapidly becoming a cliché to describe just about everything as the most pressing item in the incoming President's in-tray -- terrorism, the economic crisis, you name it -- but while the growing humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe may not occupy the headline writers' attention to the same extent, it is urgent and it is getting worse.

Having evidently got bored of watching his people starve, Mugabe is now presiding over a cholera epidemic that has claimed hundreds of lives and could kill tens of thousands more unless urgent action is taken. The outbreak has been made worse by the breakdown of the water and sanitation systems even in Harare, and with no water, drugs, blood or food for patients, and intermittent electricity supplies, the hospitals are shutting down.

Meanwhile the international community has ratcheted up the rhetoric, but little else. While the EU extends its travel ban on Zimbabwean government officials (a ban that seems to be waived every time Mugabe is invited to an international summit, or a Pope dies), the regime returns the favour; a group of international mediators, including Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter, were denied entry to Zimbabwe last month. (Mind you, I wouldn't let those two in either.) As for regional bodies such as the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, they're busily putting pressure on the opposition MDC to accept a "power-sharing" agreement that could scarcely be more worthless if it were signed in bullshit.  

Thanks to the desperate situation in Afghanistan and the bungled aftermath of the Iraq invasion, "regime change" is the dirtiest of phrases, and not one that's likely to be on Obama staffers' lips. Remaining options, though, are few and far between. Economic sanctions can have little effect on a country with no economy, and diplomacy is clearly a non-starter without proper regional support. But the stance of the Mbeki government in South Africa has been shamefully weak (a dereliction of duty that stands second only to their policies on AIDS), and only the possibility of a refugee crisis on its border with Zimbabwe, combined with the harsher rhetoric of Mbeki's presumed successor, Jacob Zuma, holds out any real hope for a more pro-active South African role. By then, however, it will be too late for those who are dying as the infrastructure of the Zimbabwean state collapses around their ears, taking their lives with it.

From: Shmuel Rosner

To: Adam LeBor

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The lesson of your experience seems quite obvious: if even someone like yourself, whose instincts (I suspect) are much more pro-UN than mine, has turned skeptical, then the organization is really as useless as I imagined. And the point you've raised regarding its treatment of Israel is but one example of why it should be scrapped, or at least marginalized. Giving it more power will be very costly to Israel, as instead of working to better the world as it should, what I expect the UN to do it is to try and use any power it might obtain to make Israel less secure.

So let us agree (I think we do) on that, and turn to the question of Darfur, and to Jewish-American involvement in trying to make this cause a keystone of using Jewish political power to improve the world.

The facts are indisputable: Jewish Americans were on the forefront of the battle toScene From The Armenian Genocide: Jews fought against genocide even before the Holocaust save Darfur. If you happened to attend the largest Washington demonstration for Darfur you couldn't ignore the fact that although it wasn't a "Jewish" rally, most of the participants happened to be Jewish. Jewish legislators (among them the late Tom Lantos) were vocal, Jewish activists were, well, very active, Jewish organizations were, and still are, making space for this issue on their agenda.

But what is the reason for all that?

One possible explanation should make all of us very proud: Jews, who suffered the most from genocide, feel compelled to raise their voices against it in every part of the world. They feel they have the moral authority and obligation to do so. And they're right.

But there's also a second possibility (which isn't mutually exclusive from the first): For the past few decades, American Jews were spent most of their political capital on the just cause of securing Israel --- and then got tired of it. They got tired of being seen by some elite groups as particularistic and tribal. They got tired as the cause (Israel) has shifted from being David to being Goliath. And they were looking to prove that American Judaism is not a hostage of the Israel-first school of thought, that it has its own priorities.

This comes out in discussions of Darfur as well as other humanistarian causes. One expression of those sentiments the outrageous letter (former IDF civilian volunteer) Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) sent to Israel's Ambassador in Washington, demanding that Israel be more receptive to Sudanese refugees who reach Israel's borders. Another expression was the denunciation (in which Jewcy played no small part) of the Anti Defamation League after its leader, Abe Foxman, came out in opposition to the Armenian Genocide bill presented to Congress by --- you guessed it --- a Jewish legislator. (The bill was defeated for the very reasons on which Foxman based his opposition, but you didn't hear much criticism of its sponsors and of the leadership of the House when they failed to deliver on their unrealistic pledges).

So you see where I'm going with this --- and I hope the readers will spare me comments blaming me for not caring enough about genocide. I'm happy to see the Jewish community as active as it is in humanitarian causes. I do also think, however, that there's some merit to this niggling question that keeps coming back: Will universalist causes eventually replace Israel as the great political cause of American Jewry?

One might suspect that domestic considerations are also in play here. American JewsBeta Israel: The Jews of Ethiopia were always at the forefront of fighting for the rights of African-Americans. They were marching alongside Reverend King in the high days of cooperation between the two communities, but sometimes along the way the bond between Jews and African Americans have soured. The Jewish community has been trying to prove, ever since, that it did not abandon African-Americans for racial reasons --- hence some of the appeal to Jews of Barack Obama, offers the community the intriguing hope of repairing those historic relations.

That's why Israelis interpret the intense involvement of American Jews in shaping the policies toward Ethiopian Jews, as being motivated by domestic considerations. The same logic applies to the very active role Jews are playing in trying to help Darfurians. The Jews, arguably, were not as involved as a group during the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. (Interestingly, Ariel Sharon opposed international involvement in the crisis, fearing it would set a dangerous precedent. He anticipated an effort by the countries in control of international organizations hostile to Israel to influence the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the use of international force).

And again, this is not an indictment of the Jewish community for acting for the "wrong" reasons. Motivations that lead to the outcome of fighting genocide are all "good". However, I think one should be able to have an honest discussion of such motivations, because other than implicating the just war against genocide, it also raises issues related to the relations between Israel and Diaspora Jews, especially in cases in which the interests of the communities come apart.

Such contradiction was visible in the case of Turkey and the Armenian genocide, when fighting to establish historical truth ran contrary to Israel national interests (and American interests, to judge by the coverage and the outcome). The case the Ethiopian Jews was a similar story of American Jews pressuring Israel to accept more immigrants than it wanted to.

So: we started with the UN and its inability to stop genocide, and we now turn to explore Jewish involvement with stopping genocide. Is there a special Jewish responsibility here? Does it also apply to Israel? And what happens when the preservation of the State of Israel contradict the cause of stopping genocide?

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Best,
Shmuel

From: Adam LeBor

To: Shmuel Rosner

Dear Shmuel,

Thanks for your perceptive letter, and I think you are right to move the debate along to explore Jewish responsibility for stopping genocide, if indeed Jews have such a responsibility. But before we go there, let me share with you the latest news from the United Nations, which only confirms my increasing belief that the organization is in a terminal political decline.

Each year the General Assembly, which opens in September, elects a president and twenty-one vice-presidents. The General Assembly is dominated by the G77 group, non-aligned states from the developing world, including many Arab and Islamic nations, which accounts for its obsession with Israel, but let's leave that for the moment. The 2008 President of the General Assembly is Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua. Señor d'Escoto Brockmann, a Catholic priest, is a former Sandinista foreign minister. He does not much like the United States and swiftly condemned what he called acts of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, so familiar.

Now comes the list of twenty one vice-presidents. Vice-President of the GeneralDevastation In Myanmar: The Junta blocked UN aid to its own citizens Assembly is mainly an honorary position, but still counts for something in the carefully delineated diplomatic hierarchy of the United Nations. The VPs include Egypt, Russia and Afghanistan, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom. And Burma. Yes, Burma. Cyclone-ravaged Burma, which is ruled by a junta so paranoid and downright evil that it deliberately obstructed the flow of UN aid to its own citizens. Burma, which promised Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that aid would flow freely after his visit, and then immediately reneged on that promise. Burma, whose intransigence forced the World Food Programme, the UN's food agency, to suspend further supplies while the junta simply confiscated its aid and equipment. Burma, which obstructed and delayed visas for UN aid workers. Apart perhaps from North Korea, no other UN government has shown such contempt, even murderous disregard for its own citizens. No matter, for in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the UN General Assembly, Burma's anti-western credentials make it an honored member.

And this same moral blindness has shaped the United Nations' response to Darfur. I was amazed and depressed to learn, while researching Complicity with Evil, how much reflexive anti-Westernism still shapes international diplomacy there. Colonialism in Africa and Asia ended decades ago, but still shapes the mentality of governments from Jakarta to Algiers. Sudan's greatest defenders at the United Nations are the Arab, Islamic and African blocs, and of course, China, which buys Sudan's oil and so keeps the government in power and funds the genocide. Time and time again, since the crisis in Darfur erupted in spring 2003, Sudan's allies have blocked or watered down attempts by the United States, Britain and France to exert diplomatic pressure on Sudan. (It's fascinating to compare the response of the Arab and Islamic countries at the UN to Bosnia and Darfur. They pressed the West hard to intervene in Bosnia, where Bosnian Muslims were being killed by Serb and Croat Christians. They now try and stymie any attempts to intervene, even diplomatically, where black Muslims are being killed by their own Muslim government.)

So, to a large extent, as you rightly say, it has been left to Darfur lobbying groups, which have a substantial Jewish presence, to take the lead. You ask if Jews have a special responsibility over Darfur? In absolute terms, no. Darfur is the world's responsibility, a moral incumbency no more or less on Jews than anyone else. But perhaps that is mere sophistry. You write that we should feel proud that: "Jews, who suffered the most from genocide feel compelled to raise their voices against such actions in every part of the world. They feel they have the moral authority, and the obligation to do so. And they do." I absolutely agree. While objectively speaking, Jews do not have a special responsibility to combat genocide, they believe they do, and act on it, which should indeed make us proud. (Although it's notable that in my homeland of Britain, Darfur has never become a hot-button issue, neither among Jews nor the wider population.)

I thought your second point was especially interesting: that American Jews got tired of investing all their political capital in supporting Israel. Especially, in my opinion, when it has become impossible to justify Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, and the endless, creeping wave of settlements and annexations. It seems to me, Shmuel, that you are right, that there is a drift, even a movement away from the Israel-right-or-wrong school of thought and towards a more independent position, which can only be healthy in the long run. But here's an idea: maybe Jews support the 'Save Darfur' campaigns for another reason, so that they can argue that however bad things are in Palestine, they are nowhere near as bad as what is happening in Darfur. Which is true.

You ask what happens when the preservation of Israel contradicts stopping genocide.Yad Vashem: "Never Again" means more than remembering the six million I don't see a contradiction here, at least in today's world. Such a dilemma, thankfully, has not arisen. But I do think, that Israel, whose coming into existence was to some extent accelerated by the Holocaust, has a special responsibility to act humanely and with compassion towards refugees. I am critical of the way, for example, that foreign dignitaries are taken to Yad Vashem by Israeli government ministers. It's good that Yad Vashem exists, but it should be independent of politics. These visits seem to me an almost cynical attempt to draw a historical continuum between the Holocaust and the need to support Israeli government policies. And considering Israel's patchy record in dealing with refugees from a current genocide, Darfur, such visits could even be distasteful. Consider the Prevention of Infiltration Act, which has already passed a preliminary reading in the Knesset.

It allows the expulsion of refugees without judicial process, and seven year prison sentences for refugees from Sudan. It even allows for 'hot returns,' meaning that Israeli soldiers would force the refugees back over the border into Egypt, to face imprisonment or execution. Israeli soldiers have repeatedly witnessed and testified to how Egyptian troops deal with fleeing Sudanese: they shoot them.

Shmuel, we've covered a lot of ground in this enjoyable and thoughtful exchange, despite its depressing subject matter. But I leave you with this thought about Jews and Genocide. The Holocaust was the determining event in modern Jewish history, and has greatly shaped Israeli identity. But if 'Never Again' means anything, it means not just memorialising the six million, but also trying to stop present day genocides, or at least helping their victims. And that's true in Jerusalem as much as Washington DC.

Yours,

Adam

From: Adam LeBor

To: Shmuel Rosner

Dear Shmuel,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Once again you raise some good points, the most crucial of which is the Big Question: the United Nations -- Angel or Satan? The case for the prosecution is heavy indeed: Bosnia, Rwanda and now, Darfur. And, as you say, the same mechanisms that prevented, and prevent, any meaningful action on these crises still hampers any decision on Iran. No matter how many times the International Atomic Energy Authority warns that Iran is not co-operating over its nuclear programmes the UN seems powerless to act. Member states -- and especially the five permanent members of the Security Council: the US, Great Britain, Russia, China and France -- still act in accordance with their national interests and realpolitik triumphs over any hazy ideas of humanitarian internationalism. We live in a world of nation-states, and have done so since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which set out the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention.

Except when the opposite suits. Jumping back to Bosnia, you absolutely right toTreaty Of Westphalia: Where the trouble began point out that "Clinton didn’t really move in the Balkans until he was certain that political damage will be greater if he didn’t act, than the possible damage if he does." By the summer of 1995, it was clear that the daily humiliations that the Bosnian Serbs were meting out to NATO troops were severely damaging the western alliance's credibility and self-respect. Moscow was watching and laughing. Clinton finally pushed to bomb the Bosnian Serbs as much to save NATO as to save Bosnia. And here, once again, the UN's report into Srebrenica, provides an interesting footnote.

The war in Bosnia began in spring 1992. Western powers repeatedly argued that there was no mandate to intervene to stop the killing. But when NATO did finally bomb the Bosnian Serbs, they needed some legal authorisation. They found it in Security Council resolution 836 that mandated UN peacekeepers to "deter attacks" on the safe areas such as Srebrenica. Resolution 836 was passed in June 1993. For two years American, British and other diplomats had argued that this resolution (which they had more or less crafted) did not provide a mandate to intervene in Bosnia. But when NATO's credibility became the key issue -- instead of the lives of starving, ragged, Bosnians -- Resolution 836 was suddenly re-interpreted. A miracle! It did allow for intervention.

The pattern continues today. Let's focus briefly on Darfur as an example. For the past five years Sudan has been carrying out a campaign of genocide in Darfur. And yes, it is genocide. Contrary to popular belief, genocide does not mean mass extermination, either industrial, such as the Holocaust or, by hand, such as happened in Rwanda in 1994. It means the intentional destruction of a group. The group here is the civilian population of Darfur, of whom about 300,000 have been killed, or died of hunger or disease, and more than two million displaced from their homes. This campaign is thoroughly planned and executed by the Sudanese government, using its own armed forces and paramilitaries known as the 'Janjaweed.' Just as happened in the Holocaust, many of the victims die from the decisions of the 'desk-murderers,' in this case the Sudanese officials and ministers who deliberately obstruct relief and medical supplies to the victims.

Meanwhile China bankrolls Sudan, supplies its weapons and military equipment, and keeps the Sudanese economy afloat by buying its oil. The US, and to a lesser extent Britain and France, make a lot of noise about Darfur and the need to stop the killing. Even the Bush administration has talked tough on Darfur. It's to America's credit that unlike in Europe, where the left is obsessed with Israel/Palestine to the exclusion of almost everything else, there is a vocal Darfur solidarity movement. But one not powerful enough to actually influence policy.

The west is complicit in the genocide in Darfur. The key to stopping the slaughter inDarfur: The west could stop this, but won't Darfur lies in Beijing as much as Khartoum. Western diplomats would have you believe that China is some great, immovable behemoth, impervious to criticism and incapable of altering her policies. That's complete nonsense. China has never been as vulnerable: under the human rights spotlight during the preparations for the Olympics, its coming-out on the world stage.

Now is the time for sustained pressure from the United Nations, to get the peacekeepers into the field, to get the relief supplies to those whose lives depend on them. And for sustained pressure on China to stop bankrolling Sudan. Neither of these are happening. Western governments play safe with China because it is the biggest market in the world. We need to sell to China, sure, but China also needs our computers, aircraft and cars. But tragically, there is no political will to even use the leverage that we have.

Faced with these circumstances it's hard to be optimistic about any kind of meaningful reform of the UN. The new Human Rights Council, which replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission, shows how western concepts of human rights are being ever more marginalised. The council, whose agenda is dominated by Islamic and Arab countries, is obsessed with Israel. Only a handful of resolutions passed at the May 2008 session were concerned with specific countries. Four of these condemned Israel. Sudan, and Burma, for example, got one each.

We can doubtless look forward to more of the same, when, next year, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Cuba take their seats. Increasingly, it seems to me, that the United Nations, which was supposed to unite the world in a drive to protect human rights, is now the forum where human rights abusers find support and sustenance. All of which raises the question of why the west, and the United States in particular, which pays 22 per cent of the UN's budget, keeps funding hate-fests for those states who have diametrically opposed ideas to ours about the meaning of the words 'human rights.' I have always thought the UN could be reformed but increasingly, I am starting to have doubts. Perhaps it's time to start thinking about an "League of Democracies" after all.

Very best,

Adam

From: Shmuel Rosner

To: Adam LeBor

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your letter. I now see that it was probably an error not to first detail more of the stories highlighted in your book, and only then move to ask the grand-question of "the UN, an angel or Satan."

So now you corrected my structural mistake, and we can go back to this question. You say that you'd first like to see a "a system of internal UN accountability that calls to account those officials involved in the UN’s failures" – but that is not a real answer to my question.

Or maybe it is; if one wants to see more accountability at the UN headquarters, oneAli Khamenei: Can the UN stop him from going nuclear? can still see the benefit of having the organization function properly. However, this is not an obvious conclusion for the reader of your book. As you rightly blame the permanent five members of the Security Council for failing to meet their duty, you also reveal the incoherence that is inherent to the process necessary to achieving any goal through this paralyzed body.

Consider a problem that we're all familiar with by now, sanctions on Iran. Whether it is wise or not to sanction Iran, whether sanctions can really stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear goals, whether it is even necessary to stop Iran from achieving its goals – all these are beside the point. We are now looking at the mechanism at the heart of every decision reached by the UN, and what you've masterfully detailed in regard to genocide in Rwanda is repeating itself in regard to Iran: an inability to reach a decision and to act upon it decisively that originates with the domestic considerations of the different members, and their conflicting interests in dealing with the world.

In his book A War In A Time Of Peace, the late David Halberstam was quoting an interview with Canadian General Romeo Dallaire – the one commander that was left in the field in Rwanda whom you mention in your letter. "Rarely had a commander at such a tragic venue" writes Haberstam, "been so unsparing of himself, even though his superiors had not listened to his warnings." Here is what Dallaire had to say:

I haven't even started my real mourning of the apathy and the absolute detachment of the international community, and particularly the western world, from the plight of Rwandans. Because fundamentally, to be very candid and soldierly, who the hell cared about Rwanda? I mean, face it. Essentially how many people remember the genocide in Rwanda?... Who comprehends that more people were killed, injured and displaced in three and a half months in Rwanda than in the whole of the Yugoslavian campaign in which we poured sixty thousand troops and the whole of the western world was involved there?

So yes – in theory they are all against murder and rape and violence. I'm sure they are. But you'll have hard time convincing Dallaire that they care enough. Not enough for the Chinese to support a more robust response to stop the atrocities in Darfur, not enough for Russia to stop Slobodan Milosevic, and apparently, not enough for Bill Clinton to support a military response in Rwanda. Washington, wrote Halberstam, "wanted no part of Rwanda. The political fallout from Somalia had caused enough damage."

Damage – political damage at home. And Clinton didn't really move in the Balkans until he was certain that the political damage would be greater if he didn't act, than the possible damage if he did. Political considerations at home were always a decisive factor for any government. When the British government headed by Tony Blair was reluctant to deal with Darfur, you write, "several British members of Parliament began to press the Blair government, which had once proudly announced a new, ethical, foreign policy, on its unwillingness to take a robust stand."

Now, you highlight the fact that careers were not hurt by the failure to preventBill Clinton With Rwandan Children: Ballsy catastrophe, but why would they be if, as you write in the book, "the Secretariat takes its cues from the P5." On the one hand you blame the countries represented at the Security Council, but on the other hand – lacking the means to punish them for their deeds or lack thereof – you want the bureaucrats to pay a price.

So maybe the problem is with the way this system was devised. Maybe we should stop hoping that the UN will somehow miraculously improve, and be more realistic about it. Maybe genocide can only be stopped if someone is willing to pick up the tab and pay the price of stopping it. Maybe sharing the power in a parliament-like world institution is the less efficient way of dealing with the horrors of the world.

And if that is the case – no technical fine-tuning of the way the UN operates can fix the problem. This can only be fixed by an overhaul of the international system. It could be this old-new idea of League of Democracies now promoted by presidential candidate John McCain, or it could be a decision by powerful countries, like the US, or powerful organizations, like NATO, that preventing genocide is a cause important enough as to justify circumventing the UN. This means unilateral action – an idea that was discredited by the Iraq war and that people here have no appetite for.

My grim conclusion will be this: as soon as the next genocide starts to take shape, you can start working on your new book. Unfortunately, it will be very similar to the one you already wrote.

Best,

Shmuel

From: Adam LeBor

To: Shmuel Rosner

Dear Shmuel,

Many thanks for your thoughtful letter. Yes, you are right, Complicity with Evil is a very depressing book. Depressingly compelling, and even essential, I hope. It chronicles the United Nations' failures in Bosnia, Rwanda and, even as you read this, Darfur. So catastrophic are these that we may rightly ask what is the point of the United Nations' continued existence? It was founded by the Allies in 1945, in the shadow of the Holocaust, and with the noblest of ideals, as its charter details: to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" and "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights." The United Nations’ key documents—the Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and genocide convention—are the most advanced formulation of human rights in history. And they have been flouted by UN member states for decades.

Much of the blame for the UN's failures in Rwanda and Bosnia lies with theKofi Annan: Preferred "neutrality" to stopping genocide permanent five members of the Security Council: the United States, Great Britain, Russia, China and France—the victors of the Second World War. If they had wanted to stop the slaughter, they could have. Was there any more shameful decision in modern American history than President Clinton's demands that the UN actually pull out the 2,500 UN peacekeepers deployed in Rwanda in early 1994? None of whom were even American? After pressure from the Clinton administration just 250 remained, under the command of the Canadian General Romeo Dallaire.

To understand these tragic events we need to peer inside the UN building in NYC and examine the role of the Secretariat, the body of permanent officials who advise and serve the member states—for as you say, the devil is in the details. Secretariat officials often claim to be impartial. But they are not. And I wanted to investigate how, in the age of mass communications and transport, two genocides occurred: one lasting months, in Rwanda, and one that just took a few days, in Srebrenica, and how we—the world—could stand by and do nothing. No one involved can say they did not know; both genocides took place where the United Nations had deployed both peacekeepers and relief workers, in regular contact with their headquarters in New York.

Many of the answers were quite easy to find in the United Nations' own reports into Rwanda and Srebrenica. The reports on the UN's role in the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica are in the public domain; they are extremely detailed, offering a day to day, sometimes hour by hour, chronology account of these grisly events. The United Nations is no good at stopping genocide but its officials are skilled at recounting and explaining its failures. The Rwanda report details the decisions made by Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) officials in New York, led by Kofi Annan, then DPKO chief. It shows how his and his colleagues' obsession with guarding the UN's neutrality—rather than enforcing the humanitarian principles on which the organisation was founded—was part of the chain of events that led to the deaths of 800,000 people.

By January 1994 General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of UNAMIR, the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, had received detailed information about the planned mass murder of Tutsis from a source inside the Hutu militia, known as "Jean-Pierre." General Dallaire asked the DPKO for authorisation to raid the Hutu arms caches. On January 11 he cabled New York: "Since UNAMIR mandate the informant has been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis." Annan's office replied, in a cable signed by his deputy, Iqbal Riza: "No reconnaissance or other action, including response to request for protection, should be taken by UNAMIR until clear guidance is received from Headquarters." When Dallaire repeated his request, Annan again refused. "The overriding consideration is the need to avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated repercussions," his cable concluded.

Srebrenica was one of five UN-declared 'safe areas' in Bosnia, islands of besieged,The UN's Disgrace In Rwanda government-controlled territory, surrounded by the Bosnian Serbs. The term had been agreed after much finely-calibrated diplomatic wrangling in the Security Council, but was meaningless. The Serbs launched their final attack early on Thursday 6 July 1995 and Srebrenica fell the following Tuesday. UN commanders refused the Dutch peacekeeper's repeated requests for air-strikes—on one occasion because they had completed the form incorrectly. It was common knowledge at the DPKO in New York that Srebrenica was not viable. DPKO officials had even been briefing the UN press corps that something might happen. They said that the Serbs might attack the southern part of the enclave, and attempt to capture a road. So it was not surprising that initially, the Serb attack on Srebrenica caused few ripples at the half-empty DPKO office.

Despite the judicious leakings, Annan was away as the Serbs advanced. So was Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, traveling in Africa. Shashi Tharoor, the DPKO team leader on Yugoslavia, was on leave. So was General Rupert Smith, the British commander of peacekeepers in Bosnia. On Saturday July 8, Boutros-Ghali, Annan, General Smith, and other senior UN officials met in Geneva. They barely discussed Srebrenica. Incredibly, they sent General Smith back on leave. By the time Shashi Tharoor finally returned to his desk on the Monday, Srebrenica had virtually fallen. The killing started immediately and over the next few days up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered by the Bosnian Serbs.

None of which hindered the careers of any of the DPKO officials. Annan, as we know, served two terms as secretary general. Shashi Tharoor was repeatedly promoted, and with Annan's behind the scenes backing, nearly succeeded him as secretary general. Iqbal Riza, who signed off the cable to General Dallaire, became Annan's chief of staff, one of the most influential positions in the UN. So in answer to your question, Shmuel, as to whether I would like a more efficient UN, or a more robust response to genocide from countries like the US, I would first of all like to see a system of internal UN accountability that calls to account those officials involved in the UN's failures. And one which stops promoting them.

Very best,

Adam

In researching Complicity with Evil, Adam LeBor discovered that the three great killing fields of the last decade—Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur—were not only ravaged by murderous convulsions (still ongoing in the case of Darfur), but abetted in doing so by the appalling negligence of the United Nations, which sat idle without shutting the killing fields down. LeBor's bleak conclusion is that the UN, at present, is simply incapable of fulfilling its foundational obligation to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz's chief U.S. correspondent, has seen his share of war-zones as well, and explores the questions of genocide, the duty to stop evil, and the legitimacy of international institutions with LeBor in the dialogue below.

From: Shmuel Rosner

To: Adam LeBor

Dear Adam,

That is one depressing book.

Complicity with Evil you call it, but it is also complicity with hypocrisy, withMass Graves At Srebrenica cynicism. "The United Nations in the age of modern genocide" is an example of complicity with mediocrity. Your book is the story of an institution incapable of doing the one task that is important enough to justify its less than obviously justified existence. A depressing book. I will recommend it to anyone who's still idealistic enough, or naïve enough, or stupid enough, to think that the United Nations has the power of moral authority. Amazingly, I do meet such people from time to time.

This story has been told before in many ways. How the world failed to defend the people of Srebrenica, and the people of Rwanda, and the people of Darfur. Samantha Power, in her masterful work, A Problem From Hell, was pointing at America and asking, essentially, the questions you're asking now. Her work was extraordinary, but I find yours more persuasive in at least one respect. That is, one can claim that America has no duty to stop all evil, and that its policies are justifiably aimed at maximizing American interests. But one can not say the same of the United Nations.

You make this point right at the beginning of this book: "If the United Nations, whose very raison d'être is the maintenance of international peace and security, does not bare some responsibility for failing to stop the slaughters… than who does?"

The power of this book is the way it assembles the details, the everyday decisionsRwanda's Killing Fields that made genocide possible. "Bosnia could not be saved because it was small and mountainous. Darfur cannot be saved because it is large and flat." A couple of months ago, writing for Slate about Darfur, I angered some activists by stating that "The campaign to save Darfur is alive, but it is no longer kicking. You could say that it has achieved all its stated goals: public awareness, international pressure, congressional action, the administration's involvement. Well, all but one: The crisis in Darfur is not yet solved, and the campaign to save Darfur is running out of options."

Sadly, I do not see a reason to change even one word in that paragraph. But after reading your book I now understand even better why this campaign—to save Darfur—was probably doomed to fail before it even started.

When I was interviewing President Bush in mid May at the Oval Office, one of the questions he was asked referred to recent events in Lebanon: "We have in place U.N. resolutions, Security Council resolutions that were meant to deal with the problem of Hezbollah. Nevertheless, it has not seemed to help." Unfortunately, only by translating the President's body language to words can one convey his response. "If you're going to pass a resolution, you better mean it," he said. In the case of Lebanon—a country suffering from the aggression of Hezbollah, but that cannot be compared to a country in which a genocide in taking place—the UN has proved incompetent. In many ways, this incompetence is no different in nature than the ones you describe in your book. The UN is hesitant whenever there's an aggressor involved, whenever there's a threat of violence involved. The UN can only keep the peace in places of—well—relative peace.

But here is the question I have for you, the expert on UN incompetence. It is actuallyRemnants Of Darfur a dilemma on which I also wrote in the past. Reading your book, one might conclude that what the world needs is a more vigorous, more determined world body. But I have my doubts, and the reason is simple: I do not believe such body will be more moral—and if I do not trust it to be more moral, why would I want it to be more competent?

Here is the way I framed it, writing to an Israeli audience about the Security Council, Lebanon and Iran:

A powerful and effective Security Council is a double-edged sword. More than once in the past Israel benefited from the fact that the council did not press for the implementation of resolutions less favorable to it. The U.S. administration, which has a complex relation with the UN and its institutions as well, also faces a similar dilemma… Use the Security Council for your needs, but do not seek to make it more powerful than necessary so that it will not turn around and bite you.

So: this will be my question for this first session of our dialogue: Do you want a more efficient UN, or would you prefer a more robust response against genocide from countries like the US, while giving up on this righteous-UN idea once and for all?

Best,

Shmuel

Monday's rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN attracted the full spectrum of New York Jewry, from Conservadox to Hasidic and everything in between. I went during lunch hour and took some photos.

Continue reading...

Time's Massimo Calabresi probably didn't come up with the headline "Idealistic Synergy" to describe the point of congruence between the most revolutionary conservative American president of the last quarter century and the most hidebound liberal institution of the last half century. But given that both are beholden to global corporate concerns  yet still speak in the lingua franca of human rights is a fact well worth appreciating:

Maybe Bush is just toying with the U.N.; employing the rhetoric of the left for the policies of the right is something of a signature move for the President. His compassionate conservative agenda famously undercut Democratic claims to superior humanitarianism. Bush has boosted foreign aid throughout his presidency, but has conditioned it on adherence to conservative principles, like those on abortion. In Latin America last spring he spent much of the trip talking about social justice and promoted the idea of Bolivarian revolution, even as he held the line in trade negotiations and on foreign aid.

David Kuo, formerly the president's faith-based outreach honcho and now a macher at BeliefNet, might twist and shout about Bush's failure to follow up on his promises to faith-based programs. But isn't it interesting that one area of executive largess in which the money-mouth relationship has held steady has been AIDS relief?  To my knowledge, neither the Vatican or the National Association of Evangelicals are vocal supporters of retroviral drugs.

As Dan Turner of the L.A. Times reported months ago (and Joey linked to months ago),

Bush upped the ante by asking Congress to double the size of his AIDS program, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, to $30 billion over five years. That is a vast commitment that dwarfs past efforts and provides real hope that humanity will in the near future be able to stop the spread of AIDS—an accomplishment akin, at least in scope, to putting a man on the moon. This disease has killed 25 million people so far and is still raging out of control, especially in Africa. PEPFAR has come in for its share of criticism because of some rules that seemed based more on evangelical ideology than science, but most of its critics have quieted down in the face of its obvious successes.

You know you're on the right track when Bob Geldof and Bono give you credit where they claim your Democratic predecessor only ever gave them the grief of empty promises.

• Britney goes gangster on photographer. [TMZ]
  
• UN approves 26,000 peacekeepers for Darfur. [The New York Times]
• "There's no guarantee yet that (a) the UN member countries will actually come though with the troops or (b) Sudan will allow the troops to be deployed. But it's a start." [The Washington Monthly]
• Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, discloses a broader spying program conducted by the Bush administration. [The Boston Globe]
• Cheney admits he was wrong. Come again? (Don't worry, it's not about spying.) [Reuters]
• Clinton won the battle; Obama will win the war. [The Politico]
• But the polls show Hillary moving ahead. [Breitbart]
  

There's a vigil right now at UN Plaza for Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American professor who was tossed into Evin Prison as a "spy" after visiting her aged mother in Tehran.

SPEAKERS TO INCLUDE SHAUL BAKHASH, HUSBAND OF HALEH ESFANDIARI, AND ZAINAB AL-SUWAIJ OF THE AMERICAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS

WHERE: Dag Hammarskjold Plaza at 1st Avenue and 47nd Street across from the United Nations Plaza. Noon - 1 PM.

Strawn and I will be there with camera. Blogging to follow.

So now Hamas is virtually in control of the Gaza Strip, having seized key PA security outposts there. According to one spokesman for the Islamist group, Fatah intelligence and operations documents have been seized proving that Israel and Fatah are in cahoots to destabilize Hamas's electoral hold on the region, which of course hasn't stopped Fatah spokesmen from claiming that Israel is up to no good all by itself.

"If we release these documents, the entire world will be shocked, not just the Palestinians. The dozens of armored vehicles, RPG launchers and rockets, the hundreds of thousands of bullets we have – they are all nothing compared to the documents and data discs we uncovered.

So let them release the documents already.

We hear from an international chorus every day of how the chaos in Iraq means the struggle for establishing a civil society there is lost, yet there has not been any analogous foreboding about Palestine's internal agonies. Shall we call it, too, a failed state unworthy of our continued attention?

Evidently not, as the conventional wisdom is now that the so-called "Quartet" -- comprised of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia -- has, through benign neglect of the Hamas government, subverted every chance at a peace deal. Correct-thinking liberals are appalled that the Quartet would deny funds to the region and refuse to engage diplomatically with the Haniyah leadership until it has met certain "benchmarks," most notably the recognition of Israel. But are these not similar to the prerequisites correct-thinking liberals now demand be fulfilled by the Maliki government in Baghdad? Why is it wrong to hold one democratically elected regime hostage to its own intelligence and competence, but not another?

This is admirable, though insufficient. The United States has a moral responsibility to accept as many refugees from Iraq as choose to emigrate here.

Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner general of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, said Thursday no specific country has offered to receive Palestinian refugees in Iraq, "but I know the United States confirmed it can take 7,000 of them."

She told United Press International in Damascus that while there were no plans to permanently settle Palestinian refugees, "some live in difficult conditions, especially those from Iraq and who are stranded on the Iraqi borders" with Syria and with Jordan. The UNRWA chief noted her agency and the U.N. high commissioner for refugees have requested third countries to grant refuge to Palestinians from Iraq.

Interesting, that 7,000 figure. According to the State Department,

Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Ellen Sauerbrey told reporters at a Washington briefing March 23 that previous reports about the United States accepting an additional 7,000 Iraqi refugees in the coming months are inaccurate.  She said this figure simply reflects the number of U.S. referrals the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) feels it realistically can expect to make in the coming months.

“UNHCR, which has the international mandate, if you will, to do the protection and make referrals for resettlement has indicated … that they had the capacity to be able to register, identify the vulnerabilities and make referrals of about 20,000, and that they anticipated that they would refer 7,000 to the U.S. resettlement program,” she said.

Does mean that the UN is only concerned with Palestinians fleeing Iraq? Not that Palestinians don't deserve safe haven, but what about native-born Iraqis? 

Or is the figure just a coincidence?

Ban Ki-Moon is undergoing a bapitsm by fire in his new role as UN Secretary-General. He was visibly fazed by a mortar round that exploded today outside the UN complex in the Green Zone, where he'd been giving a televised news conference with Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki shrugged off the shaking walls and curtains, as if to say, "Welcome to my world, Ki-Moon."  In other, more propitious news:

Elsewhere in Iraq, American forces said they had captured a senior aide and several other associates of Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric and militia leader. The aide was said to be involved in the kidnap and murder of American soldiers, according to Reuters, which cited an American military spokesman.

Sadr's cooperation with Operation Enforcing the Law (the Iraqi-designated policy that now accompanies the surge) has been truly remarkable. Shortly after the announced U.S. troop escalation, he ordered the Mahdi Army militiamen not to wear black uniforms or face masks or to carry weapons. The Mahdi also proceeded to withdraw checkpoints from certain areas in Baghdad, like Talbiyah and Hurriyah. Confrontation with Multinational Forces was also expressly prohibited during the religious month of Muharram.

So far, "rogue" elements of the Mahdi have been rounded up and nabbed by the coalition, including Sadr's former media chief Sheik Abdul al-Darraji and the director of Sadr's political office in Baqubah. The fat cleric himself has fled to Iran, the better to let the government and Americans do their job.

Just what kind of perceptible change in strategy has occurred on the ground in Baghdad. According to the Weekly Standard's excellent biweekly Iraq Report [I'd link but their site is down],

U.S. forces conducted 20,000 patrols in the second week of February, up from 7,400 in the first week of the month.

Joint American-Iraqi patrols have begun (respectfully) knocking on doors in Sadr City, talking to local residents and getting the skinny on weapons caches and other illegal activities. 

Let us stress, however, that with these discernible improvements, it's still way too early to pass judgment on how the new counterinsurgency plan will pan out in the long-term. Nonetheless, Petraeus' educated predictions for the start of such a campaign are coming true.

You'll have by now heard that at its 51st session on March 9, the UN Commission on the Status of Women condemned exactly one state for human rights abuses: Israel.

Anne Bayefsky at NRO mordantly observes:

The same week the commission focused specifically only on the state of Israel, 33 Muslim women engaging in peaceful protest outside a courthouse in Tehran were abruptly arrested on charges of “endangering national security.” Their goal? To put an end to polygamy and to child-custody laws that strip mothers in Iran of the right to raise and protect their own children. On March 8 — International Women’s Day — 700 women’s-rights activists again gathered in front of the parliament building in Tehran, demanding fair trials for the women jailed a few days earlier. Iranian security forces and ranks of baton-wielding police once more descended on the women, driving them back with physical force, verbal obscenities, and threats of more to come.

In Saudi Arabia, during the first week of March, a 19-year-old girl who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped, and then beaten by her brother for having “allowed” herself to become the victim of a rape has been sentenced to 90 lashes. Her crime? Meeting a young man who was not a family member. Indeed, one of her judges told this young woman she was lucky to have not gotten jail time.

And Gene at Harry's Place strikes the same chord:

Number of resolutions criticizing Israel (pdf) for its treatment of Palestinian women approved by the UN Commission on the Status of Women at its 51st session: 1

Number of resolutions criticizing the Palestinian Authority for the situation of Palestinian women: 0

Number of resolutions criticizing Iran for beating and imprisoning women's rights demonstrators or approving the stoning to death of alleged female adulterers: 0

Number of resolutions criticizing Saudi Arabia for prohibiting women from driving, traveling unaccompanied by male relatives or voting in municipal elections: 0

Number of resolutions criticizing Sudan for supporting the Janjaweed militia, which engages in mass rape of women in Darfur: 0

Number of resolutions criticizing any country other than Israel for anything: 0

Number of countries with worse women's rights records than Israel: Substantially >0

The resolution singling out Israel was approved by a vote of 40 to 2. The US and Canada opposed it.

All of which can be summed up by the late, great Patrick Moynihan's famous law: Complaints about human rights violations bear an inverse proportion to the actual violations committed.

In open societies like those of the United States and Israel, scrutiny of inexcusable acts is as easy as breathing. We hear about sweat shop labor conditions, instances of rape, institutional racism, torture, and murder all the time in these countries. But in countries where information is the exclusive commodity of the state -- North Korea, prewar Iraq, Hamas-controlled Palestine -- nary a peep is heard about how awful are day-to-day conditions for the entire populace, let alone one demographic of it. Palestine is now ruled by a party that may be split into a "pragmatic" foreign policy wing and a messianic domestic-military one, but that party's founding charter still defines women as chattel. Why the UN's unwillingness to take such a statement of purpose seriously?

What would be the reaction to, say, a policeman who ignored somebody with an expressed interest in commiting murder in favor of shadowing an outwardly ethical person who might one day succumb to the act himself? How long would he patrol the streets, do you think?

Yet another reason to rethink the clever idea that came together at Dumbarton Oaks.

John BoltonSo Spring cleaning comes at the start of winter in the Bush White House. It's the legacy thing:

“I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate,” Mr. Bush said. “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.”

Bolton's nomination as America's representative at the U.N. was always considered only slightly better than that of Harriet Miers (remember her?) to the Supreme Court. Only a handful of conservative stalwarts -- Bolton friend Bill Kristol among them -- thought this ambassadorial appointment wise, let alone as "tough-minded" as those who think alienating everyone in one's workplace connotes toughness or mindedness at all.

That said, prepare for another doppio shot of "realism."

Michelle Malkin, Pam at Atlas Shrugs weep like fans of "Arrested Development."

Kofi Annan lashes out at the UN Human Rights Council for singling out Israel while ignorinKofi Annan: Wherever he stands, he stands with Israelg greater human rights abusers. According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency breaking news alert,

The outgoing U.N. secretary-general said in a statement to the third session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Wednesday that its attentions would be better invested in major humanitarian crises such as Darfur.

Hordes of Annan-despising Zionists suffer immediate brain explosions.

That's what Peter Beinart says in the new issue of Time.

There's only one way to save Darfur: tell Sudan it can either accept the U.N. force or face war against the world's most powerful military alliance.

As he points out, NATO didn't prevent the genocide of the Albanian Kosovars by sending in a small peacekeeping force. They did it by bombing Belgrade and preparing for a ground invasion.

He goes on to say,

You could fill volumes detailing the geopolitical reasons America should abandon Darfur to its fate. The argument for military action, by contrast, rests on just two tarnished words.

Those words, of course, are "Never Again."

For someone else who thinks those two words are tarnished by our inaction in Darfur, check out Jewcy's Tikkun Olam Radical, Ruth Messinger.