In this final debate, Syria powerfully seconded Pakistan, arguing that the UDHR “was not the work of a few representatives in the [General] Assembly” but rather “the achievement of generations of human beings who had worked to that end.” Joining Pakistan and Syria in voting for the UDHR were all the other Muslim-majority states then represented at the U.N.: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
In abstaining — there were no negative votes cast — Saudi Arabia was hardly in distinguished company: Only apartheid South Africa and the six-member Soviet bloc (led by Vyacheslav Molotov, Josef Stalin’s foreign minister) joined the Kingdom. In total, there were 48 votes in favor, eight abstentions, and two absentees (Honduras and Yemen).
That was then, and this is now. Today, the UDHR survives mainly as the historical artifact of a bygone consensus based on the hard lessons learned in the brutal fight against the Axis Powers. Its core principles, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, are under sustained attack in the name of political Islam by the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference. This Saudi-based and -funded outfit has commandeered every available international forum — from the U.N. General Assembly to the Human Rights Council to the upcoming Durban II hate-fest — to press for the codification of Islamic blasphemy law as a new international legal norm (see here, for instance). The aim is to prohibit or even criminalize any expression deemed disrespectful to Islam, as defined by Muslims themselves (including analyses like this one, ultimately).
This fact is the proper context for reflecting on this week’s anniversary.
It is a fact of life that when states practice religious persecution, they inevitably foster religious extremism and violence that spills over into other countries, as happened most recently in Bombay.
And it’s also a fact that Saudi funding and Wahhabi ideology, combined with similarly extremist homegrown ideologies (Deobanism), have radicalized Pakistani society and destabilized the Pakistani state to the point where its civilian authorities merely reign without actually ruling. Extremist groups like al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and others are filling the power vacuum, operating with impunity. And, of course, there are the innumerable Saudi-funded Pakistani madrassas busily churning out jihadists for the fight next door in Afghanistan — and beyond.
Last week the respected foreign-policy commentator Robert Kagan
raised the following question in response to this abject admission of impotence by Pakistan’s hapless civilian leader:
"We don't think the world's great nations and countries can be held hostage by non-state actors," Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said yesterday. Fair enough. But what is the world to do when those non-state actors operate from the territory of a state and are the creation of that state's intelligence services?Kagan raises the grim prospect of armed intervention by the civilized world in the Pakistani badlands. Such intervention may be just one more mass-casualty atrocity away — especially if such an atrocity takes place in London, New York, or Washington.
Meanwhile, this week’s bittersweet anniversary is an opportune moment to reflect on some underlying causes and effects.
National Review— John F. Cullinan, a regular NRO contributor, is an expert on international religious freedom.
