Language of the UN

New Sisyphus recently posted his critiques of the Report of the Secretary-General.  His conclusions are not generous.  First this:

Nevertheless, the Secretary General proposes we set aside our bickering and agree to agree on his definition of “terrorism.” And what a definition it is:

"I endorse fully the High-level Panel’s call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

...If the U.S. signed on to this definition, it would be giving comfort to the “human rights” and “international law” organizations that have been itching to declare the U.S. a terrorist state. The fact that the Secretary General can propose a definition that would catch the U.S. in its net is more than evidence of bad faith, it speaks to a willful hatred of the United States and its military actions over the past years.

Then this:

If this report is the best the U.N can come up with in the face of the loss of confidence it it as an institution by the world’s leading democracy, founding member, host nation and most important contributor, then perhaps it is further gone than even American conservatives have guessed.

Is it any surprise?  Hardly.  But, one of the interesting things to note is how Kofi Annan's report relies on the language of the left, the language of deceit.  Beginning with the title we get euphemistic newspeak, "In larger freedom:  toward development, security, and human rights for all."  And what exactly are the larger freedoms?  Life?  Liberty?  Pursuit of happiness?  Well, no.

In a report that would make the most leftist of our academics proud, here are the larger freedoms.  They are presented in the form of report section titles.  There is the "Freedom from Want", which has such sub headings as "A shared vision of development", "Ensuring environmental sustainability", and "Other priorities for global action".  Along with his larger freedom from want, he addresses a need for "Freedom from fear", and "Freedom to live in dignity".  It's like it was lifted right out of George Orwell's 1984.

Early on, the leftists found success in co-opting the language of liberty. The term "liberal" use to refer to 19th century classical liberals who favored free markets, free trade, and unalienable rights.  These are things that border on evil according to today's liberals.  People shouldn't have property rights because there's a risk they might use their land in a way that could imperil the larger freedom for sustainability.  In the leftist view, one person's right to be free from want becomes the obligation on all people to waive claim on the money they earn, so it can be available for redistribution.  Another person's freedom from fear is the obligation on us all to give up the right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, right after a section on "Peacebuilding" (no kidding) Annan proposes "a legally binding international instrument to regulate the marking and tracing of small arms".

The language of the UN is the language of the left, and the language of the left has always been the language of deceit.  Is it any surprise that two of our leading leftists, Noam Chomsky and George Lakoff, are linguists?  To them language is a weapon in their fight for "social justice".  The strategy is to entice those they consider to be in the lower classes.  The lesser people must be persuaded to choose what is in their best interest, and in the leftist view, those interests would best be served if they chose security over liberty.  They argue that it's necessary to restrict, and they do it in the name of freedom.

And that is the core of the deceit.  Kofi Annan and the rest of the lefties would have you believe there is a legitimate trade off.  Give up a little liberty in return for security.  History says over and over, give up a little liberty, then give up a little more, and after a while you have neither liberty nor security.

Comments

[Ol' BC]

any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

I guess I can't recall an instance where this applies to the U.S. However, the rest of the post is right on target.

[Tom Bowler]

In the case of Iraq, the "international law" crowd would consider the U.S. guilty of "compelling the Government" of Saddam Hussein, and claim that civilian casualties were intended for that purpose.