The U.N. faces an interesting conundrum…

A Memory of Nuremberg. The General Assembly calls upon the world body to adopt a resolution that would require both Hamas and Israel to do independent investigations into whether war crimes were committed  in Gaza.

¶ The resolution would:

• condemn all “targeting of civilians.”
• propose a 3-month deadline for the investigations to be started.
• require the Secretary General to work with the Security Council on enforcement action.

The point here is that both Hamas and Israel can shrug this off because *there is zero chance that the Security Council will take any enforcement steps whatever.

*The reasons for that are that:

1) the U.S. would veto the resolution, in keeping with its history of support for any and all Israeli actions.

2.) China would also veto it because of its brutal occupation of Tibet. and

3) Russia would veto it because of its actions in Chechnya and in other places.

So – the serious in-depth investigation of war crimes is really off the table - because so many governments, including the United States of America, have committed them.

We have indeed come a long from from Nuremberg.

Playing Politics with Public Safety

A Lament for A Loss of Moral Principle

Peter Kent was briefly a colleague of mine at the Canadian Television Network; I always respected his work as an objective journalist…

…but politics can have an impact on a person…and I think perhaps I’m seeing that impact on Peter in some of his recent comments on Canadian foreign policy.

For example, his critique of the report on Gaza by Mr. Justice Richard Goldstone – a report which Peter the politician – apparently has not read in its entirety – represents a certain lack of moral conscience, and a slavish adherence to a political party line.

(Peter the journalist would have read the entire report twice).

If Peter the politician had actually read the report, he would have known that Justice Goldstone found evidence that both sides had committed war crimes.

Moreover he would also have known that Justice Goldstone had refused to undertake the mission unless he had the power to examine the battlefield behaviour of both Hamas and Israel.

In addition, Peter the Secretary of State would have known that the Justice took account of the provocation by Hamas, which had launched many rockets toward northern Israel.

But, most importantly, an objective and fair Minister would have realized that Justice Goldstone’s mandate was not to define the war as just or unjust – as legal or illegal – but rather to analyze and investigate evidence pertaining to the behaviour of both sides during the conflict.

By all accounts, the South African jurist carried out his mission in a manner that was fair, thorough and unbiased. Goldstone has said repeatedly that he would accept an independent Israeli investigation of the evidence contained in his report. He has said that he would have confidence in such an investigation.

So the bottom line is that  I find that Peter’s statement in the House was delivered with a disappointing lack of contextual information and factual background.

(You can watch the video on Peter’s website here).

Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs) 

It seems that since he threw his lot in with the Conservatives, Peter has become the classic politician. His one-sided commentary on the Goldstone Report is odd…especially for a man of principle…and I believe he is one. But hey, you might say it’s just politics. But you might also say that we deserve something better from our elected representatives.

Peter rightly criticizes the U.N. Human Rights Council, (which – by the way – is no one’s favourite group); but he ignores the international respect for Justice Goldstone – one of the world’s most credible legal experts.

By his oblique condemnation of Justice Goldstone, Peter indirectly condones war crimes, which Goldstone strongly suggests were committed by both sides.

His words in the House of Commons are hurtful to fair-minded citizens and insulting to a man of Justice Goldstone’s standing:

“Mr. Speaker, I would remind this House that the so-called fact-finding commission was the creation of one of the United Nation’s most flawed bodies, the Human Rights Council, which includes some of the UN’s least democratic states.

In commissioning this study, the Human Rights Council pre-emptively assumed Israel’s culpability. This government has never equated Israel, a democratic state, with terrorist groups which seek to destroy both it and its people.

Mr. Speaker this government will continue to remind Canadians and members opposite that it is one thing to offer supportive words to Israel when it’s convenient, and quite another to stand firm in its hour of need.”

The errors in that statement prove that even a man of principle will, under certain circumstances, allow himself to be used as a political instrument; the statement as a whole represents a distorted assessment of an important report that is not going to go away.

Is it any wonder that most of us have serious reservations about the political process in this country?