Basic HTML Version
Why the United NationsWon't Act
1
n the face of the terrible suffering
which has taken place in Cam–
bodia for the last three and a half
years, one would think that a body
called the United Nations Commis–
sion on Human Rights would at
least have issued, in the name of
simple humanity, a condemnation
ofKhmer Rouge brutality.
But the Human Rights Commis–
sion's response has been feeble in–
deed. The body, which regularly
issues condemnations of the world's
"approved whipping boys"-Israel,
South Africa and Chile-recently re–
Juctantly managed to send the rec–
ord of "allegations" of human rights
violations to the government of
what is now called "Democratic
Kampuchea," inviting it to respond.
This action was the product of a
British-sponsored initiative origi–
nally calling in strong terms for a
"complete investigation" into the
atrocities committed by the Khmer
Rouge. Before the resolution could
be
passed, however, it had to be
considerably watered down to sat–
isfy the Third World block on the
Human Rights Commission.
For their own part, the Western
delega tes involved stress tha t getting
the Human Rights Commission to
take even the most emascula ted ac–
tion against any country other than
Israel, South Africa or Chile is a tre–
mendous step forward. They point
out that countries like the Soviet
Union and Uganda have seats on
the Human Rights Commission,
which makes it difficult to get any–
thing done.
In the Cambod ian case, the
Khmer Rouge surprised everyone
by even deigning to respond to the
grave allegations of genocide. But
the nature of their response was no
surprise. Ignoring the charges, they
instead accused the British of the
very crimes they have committed
themselves. The Kampuchean For–
eign Ministry said: "The English
imperialists, therefore, have no right
The
PLAIN TRUTH September 1978
to speak of the rights of man. More
than that, they are the ones who are
accused. The world knows well their
barbarous and abject nature. The
world knows that in Britain the
English imperialist monopoly capi–
talists are living in opulence on top
of piles of corpses, belonging to
those whom they have pillaged, ex–
ploited and oppressed . across the
centuries."
Why are the Third World coun–
tries so loathe to condemn the worst
horrors since World War
IJ?
A
member of a Western delegation
told
The Plain Truth
that the main
reason is that if the horrors in one
Third World country, Cambodia,
are exposed today, the horrors in
other Third World countries will
reach the light of day tomorrow.
The Third World delegates feel that
if a strong anti-Khmer Rouge reso–
lution carne out of the Human
Rights Commission, it would be
"their turn next."
Beyond this, Third World coun–
tries are very jealous about their sov–
ereign pride. They consider human
rights violations to be interna! mat–
ters, the exposure of which might
breach and infringe upon their
sovereignty. And, as one delegate
told us, Third World countries are
loathe to take any criticism of any
kind from their "former colonialmas–
ters," the Western powers. Ofcourse,
it is only the Western powers who a re
likely to bring up the matterofhuman
rights violations in Communist or so–
cialist countries.
For their own part, there is even a
reluctance among sorne Westem del–
ega tions , including that of the
United States, to really get vocif–
erous about the horrors in socialist
or Communist countries such as
Cambodia. Part of the reason for
this is Guilt (with a capital "G")
over participation by the United
States and sorne of its allies in the
lndochina war. Another major fac–
tor is cultural relativism. This is the
idea that human rights (that is, civil
and political rights) a re not really
universal, but only a concern of
"Western culture," and therefore
not really applicable to the Third
World. Certain nations are more or
less "expected" to deal harshly with
their populations.
Along this same line, it is st ressed
that the economic and social distri–
bution of goods in Third World
countries must take precedence over
such "luxuries" as human freedom
from governmenta l abridgement of
life, liberty or property. The prob–
lem with this thinking is that the
most gross dictator can justify the
torture or slavery of his suffering
count rymen on the grounds that it is
necessary to ensure th at "the
people"- meaning those left after
the bloody purging- get their eco–
nomic right to a "fair" distribution
ofwealth.
The Human Rights Commission's
limp response to the atrocities in
Cambodia also graphically reveals
the inabi lity of the United Na tions
and its related agencies to deal with
such issues. When, as one Western
official told us, it becomes "bad
manners" to criticize too strongly
the horrors committed by a Third
World regime, it is clear that the
U.N. itself has lost all sense of pro–
portion. This ugly reality is further
amplified by a recent and very vivid
example: In the face of the contin–
ued valiant efforts on the part of the
British delegates to bring human
rights violations in Communist
countries to the U.N.'s attention,
Third World delegates huffily voted
to deny Bri ta in its seat on the
Human Rights Commission!
A former American representa–
tive to the Human Rights Commis–
sion, William Buckley, summed up
the U.N .'s moral debility very well
when he said: "In the United Na–
tions. one is not permitted to tell the
truth, because protocol is higher
than truth."
41