There has been a lot of criticism of late about Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, whom President Obama selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Some writers in recent days have cited my 2002 National Review Online column as the basis to criticize Robinson but, admittedly, I wrote that column with my tongue in cheek to attack the concept of “indirect responsibility,” which was in vogue at the time. It was important to show just how arbitrary and political the idea of prosecuting statesmen for indirect responsibility could be.
That said, Robinson is a poor choice to receive the President Medal of Freedom. She may have dedicated her career to human rights, but she is also responsible for accelerating the politicization of that field and the growth of moral equivalency. She was a headline-seeker, rather than a sincere devotee of causes. Her stewardship of the Durban conference was atrocious and single-handedly blessed the resurgence of anti-Semitism. Omitted from many articles, however, is that she also blessed the banishment from Durban of nongovernmental organizations working on combating the janjaweed in Sudan. Had she not caved to the Organization of Islamic Conference and some of her UN colleagues, perhaps Sudanese ethnic cleansing would have gotten a more serious look before the Darfur crisis could blow up to its present proportions.
The White House has said that it chose Robinson because of her support for women’s rights. If that’s the case, then there are many more sincere advocates of women’s rights who have faced a greater struggle and who have not engaged in fanning populist hatreds. Iran’s Mehrangiz Kar, for example, who many women’s activists believe was more deserving of the Nobel Prize than Shirin Abadi, could have been the choice. Likewise, the president might have selected Rola Dashti, who led the fight for women’s suffrage in Kuwait and recently broke through the glass ceiling with her election to parliament. Neither of these women has cheapened her work with base politicization and hatred the way Mary Robinson has.
The biggest issue for me, however, hanging over Robinson’s selection is her stewardship of the UN Human Rights Commission in 2002. At the April 2002 session, the commission voted (and passed) a resolution endorsing “all available means, including armed struggle” to establish a Palestinian state. Put aside whatever one thinks about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. International law bases itself on precedent, and the UN Human Rights Commission chose specifically not to exempt suicide bombing—a plague of which had erupted in 2001–2002—from “all available means.” While the question on Robinson’s agenda may have involved Israel and Palestine, the answer was just as relevant to Sri Lanka, Great Britain, Pakistan, and Lebanon. This is why Canada, Britain, and Germany voted against the measure. Basically, under Robinson’s stewardship, the commission decided to recognize the murder of non-combatant men, women, and children on buses and in cafes as legal.
When American troops are being targeted in Iraq and Afghanistan by suicide terrorists, and when these same terrorists target Iraqi and Afghan civilians, is President Obama really going to present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a woman who believes such tactics are legal and legitimate under the international human rights regime?