Bill 78 as bad as Syria? The power of press distortion

After a six week absence, I find I once again have the necessary time and energy to research and write my opinions again properly. I will most likely not be continuing this blog as a weekly feature, but I will post my thoughts on the UN from time to time.

Today I will focus, by means of an example, on an issue that has bothered almost since I first started studying the United Nations. To most who have not studied it, the function and politics of the UN are deeply misunderstood. I will focus on a recent example of this and attempt to rectify this problem at least among the few who will read this.

My example is from a few weeks ago when Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights delivered her annual address to the Human Rights Council. For this speech she was heavily criticised in the press, in particular in Quebec, for addressing the on going student protests there and human rights implications of bill 78, while neglecting to even mention human rights situation in Syria. To the uniformed observer, this will undoubtedly seem strange, even outrageous, but the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the speech are simply not understood, or even considered in the press.

First one must consider Madam Pillay's audience. These people are Permanent- and Deputy Permanent Representatives the UN Offices in Geneva. Not only did all of them know in advance what Madam Pillay would say, but are sufficiently well informed to be aware of almost any fact she could included in her address. As such, one must conclude that purpose of this speech was not informative, making the gravity of a situation not the only, and certainly not the foremost inclusion criteria. 

What has to be understood, is that the High Commissioner is essentially a lobbyist. She has little to no executive authority, and has an incredibly limited means with which to implement an agenda of improving human rights. What influence she has, she draws from using her credentials as a human rights expert and the legitimacy given to her through her appointment by the Secretary-General and confirmation by the General Assembly, to convince those with actual power to make decisions in line with goals of her office. One can therefore conclude that purpose of her speech was persuasive, her choice of words weighed against the substantive affect of saying or not saying them.

In the case of Syria, one must also consider, in addition the High Commissioner's work, the other UN initiatives in that country, the so-called Stabilisation Mission, Kofi Anan's work as Joint Special Envoy, and to a lesser extent the mediation process regarding the Golan Heights. The Syrian government has on numerous occasions, quite vocally expressed its displeasure at Madam Pillay's work. Just shortly before this speech, the General Assembly voted to extend her mandate, which was set to expire at the end of August, by a count of 192 in favour to 1 against, Syria's being the only voice of dissent. Considering these circumstances, an inflammatory speech condemning Syria's actions, while undoubtedly warranted, would have provoked a strong negative response, and would have done more to undermine than to advance the UN's interests in Syria, and would have done more harm than good to the human rights situation on the ground.

In stark contrast to Syria, Canada is a democracy where public perception of leaders is vital to their ability to function, a country in which “name and shame” is a viable lobbying strategy. Obviously, Navi Pillay is not well known in Canada and her addressing the current situation in Quebec will have little affect, but it will the overall affect will be positive. Given the of the Canadian federation, the High Commissioner's contact with the Quebec government is fairly limited, and as hostile as the current government is to the United Nations, I have to think that the federal government is to invested in the aims Madam Pillay's office to care if she criticises a Canadian province, especially when some of criticism is due. 

The second advantage of addressing bill 78 is that in criticising a western country, the High Commissioner demonstrates, in particular to the developing world, that she is not subordinate the interests of rich, and will gain some small amount of political capital to expend where her work is more urgently needed.

In conclusion, I have to say that I deeply concerned by the willingness in the press to take the words of one of the most competent human rights experts on the planet and misconstrue them, without any regard for how they were chosen, to form a statement that is patently ridiculous, that the violence in Syria and the student protests in Quebec are of comparable gravity. Though I have to admit I can understand why. Outrage sells.