Sunday, October 24, 2004

Terrorism's UN Partner

I Love Jet Noise gives us a hint about the UN and terrorism (from the LA Times) Terrorism's Silent Partner at the U.N.: covers why the UN cannot pass a resolution condeming terrorist attacks (whether 9/11 or Beslan)
The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the U.N.'s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.
What, the UN supports terrorism?
For eight years now, a U.N. committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all — but only against bad causes.
And the left still wonders why many of us choose not to view the UN as the source of international peace and justice.

There is of course another motive behind this stance. If the OIC took a stance against terrorism - as defined by most of the world - they would be taking a stance against Palastinian suicide bombers and (indirectly) in favor of Israel. Illegitimi Non Carborundum

No comments: