In an unusual, if not offensive, move, the United Nations General Assembly held a moment of silence on Thursday for the passing of Kim Jong Il. This move “paid tribute to the memory of the late Kim” and was boycotted by the United States, European Union members, Japan, and several other countries.
I believe that the UN is noble in purpose, even if it is not always the most effective in carrying out its own goals, but this recent move is simply offensive to everything the UN stands for and claims to defend. If the UN is to be remembering anyone, they should be paying tribute to the lives of millions of North Koreans that Kim cut short while living an extravagant lifestyle that ignored the human suffering under his regime.
While many nations rightly boycotted a tribute to a brutal dictator, how did the president of the general assembly justify such a reprehensible tribute? President Nassir Abudulaziz Al-Nasser claimed that he agreed to the North Korean request for the moment of silence because of “protocol” for the death of an acting head of state. His deference to protocol shows an utter lack of moral courage from the general assembly president, and in turn, the UN members who did not boycott the tribute.
Kim was the personification of a regime that knowingly defied the principles of the United Nation’s founding charter and Declaration of Human Rights. Especially egregious are his human rights violations. He violated nearly every article of the Declaration of Human Rights from Article 13, stating the right to leave and return to one’s own country, to starving his people in violation of Article 25, proclaiming the right to adequate food and social services. Kim led a regime that was a constant threat to stability in the Pacific and was reckless in his threats that were taken seriously because of his nuclear weapons.
Why get so upset over a seemingly minor tribute? Because it is a tribute to a man that instituted economic policies leading to the deaths of as many as three million people. When a man that ignored the pleas of suffering millions dies, the event should be a time to condemn such atrocities and make it known that such actions will not be tolerated. The UN is a body that represents the collective peaceful desires of “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms.” In paying respects for a man that was the antithesis of these desires, UNGA President Nasser proved to be weak and ineffective in upholding the moral authority that the UN is supposed to represent.
I hope that this is not representative of the UN as a whole. With actions like a moment of silence to a ruthless dictator, I can understand some of the harsh criticism that the UN garners in the U.S., especially among Republican candidates. Mitt Romney’s sentiment that the UN is often a forum for tyrants has proved true in this instance, even for a dead tyrant.
For the UN to be able to claim any moral legitimacy, it must commemorate the death of Kim with a denouncement of the atrocities that he oversaw and reaffirm an unwavering stance in the defense of human rights. Only then can I take this international body seriously and not right it off as some idealistic, ineffectual union.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Dillon, you're right. It's hard to take the UN seriously after what the GA did. For the organization as a whole, following protocol has definitely been more harmful than helpful.
It's ironic that an organization which was formed on the heals of the realization of the worse human rights crisis in modern history (the Holocaust) is now 'honoring' one of the most horrific human rights violators of our generation with a moment of silence yet the victims of Kim Jong Il continue to live in poverty stricken fear.
Thank you for bringing this to light.
This is one more example of the chasm that has developed between the "West" and all the other nations in the UN. The leadership of the organization knew this tribute to a megalomaniac would be an affront to the U.S. Why do we continue to support this useless organization? Why do we allow all of these diplomats from countries that hate us to enter our country? Our short term policy should be to move this incompetent organization elsewhere and radically decrease our payments to it.
3 Replies
Dillon ~
A well-written and informative article.
I agree with your sentiments, but I see the problem stemming from our own government's pick-and-choose approach when dealing with moral issues on the international stage. We want to use the bully-pulpit of the United Nations only when it suits our purposes, otherwise, we just go our merry way.
Anyway, the best was to fix a drifting vessel is to address the loose rudder and the leaking beam; not to abandon ship. The United States has a real opportunity here to double down on our commitment to, firstly, our own stated values, and secondly, to champion international norms of behavior. Both arenas could benefit from stalwart American attention.
The UN needs & deserves more support, not less.
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
A number of member states of the UN flagrantly throw aside the "Declaration of Human Rights" for the sake of what they consider to be "just" causes. I agree that the UN-sanctioned moment of silence for Kim Jong-il is regrettable- you can add it to the list of UN mishaps. For the UN to ever claim legitimacy, it must take clear stances as to what is morally wrong. They had an opportunity here. Instead, the UN tried to placate the DPRK.
In international affairs, outward showings of respect are necessary towards anyone (meaning any political regime) who wields power. I doubt there was a moment of silence for Qaddafi--he was a loser. Kim Jong-Il died a winner, and that is the greatest injustice.
2 Replies
1 Replies
it is very much welcoming in the light of China which has a pie of UNSC cake!
You're right to be outraged, Dillon. So was I when I read your headline...and then I began to think.
That's what the UN - and high level diplomacy in general - is for, you know. It is where the hypocrisy necessary to peaceful civilized intercourse among nations may be undergone in a formal setting without hindrance. Thus, if the North Koreans feel they MUST have some kind of international recognition for the passing of the "dear leader" (and he WAS head of state - no matter how despicable), it may happen at the UN among the other diplomats and before the television cameras. North Korean television may crow about it. The US diplomats may walk out and US television may crow about THAT. The point is that in the end, nothing violent has happened and everyone got what they wanted.
That's what the UN is FOR; that's what it does in its own peculiar fashion and most brilliantly, too.
2 Replies
1 Replies