Newspaper response to UN denial of self defense right

> The right of self‑defence
> Bangkok Post (Thailand)
> Opinion; 8
> September 8, 2006
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/08Sep2006_news16.php
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/
> > > The new and supposedly improved version of the United Nations' focus on
> international human rights has hit the headlines again, in a startling
> manner. Reports bubbling up through the bureaucracy of the Human Rights
> Council, as it now is called, are addressing the supposed problem of
> so‑called small arms ‑ the term that bureaucrats use for rifles and
> handguns.
> > An astounding report by the world body's Special Rapporteur on the
> subject has gone far overboard. It suggests that it ought to be global
> policy that neither nations nor their citizens have the right of
> self‑defence. It is difficult to imagine a more obscure and tortuous
> route to reach the apparent goal of the Special Rapporteur, which is a
> ban on small arms.
> > Before even addressing the huge problems raised by the prominent UN
> office, it is relevant to wonder why the Human Rights Council is so
> deeply concerned with this subject. The Council, readers may remember,
> used to be the UN Human Rights Commission. This body routinely gave the
> thumbs‑up to the treatment of citizens by governments such as the
> Burmese military dictatorship, the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot and the
> Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic ‑ and all their ideological
> cousins. This state of affairs became so embarrassing that the
> Commission was executed, and the Council was formed by the UN members,
> who elected members like Saudi Arabia and China, judging them as
> superior in maintaining human rights to Thailand, which was rejected as
> a member. The world is still awaiting the first major report on human
> rights by the Council. Meanwhile, it has turned its attention to the
> local murders, uprisings and small wars in which small arms are used. It
> seems to consider a violent mugging in New York City or Moscow as a
> matter for the United Nations.
> > A few years ago, Prof Barbara Frey, an American academic, was a UN
> adviser on the subject; now she is the top official. She has produced a
> strong report against small arms. She has two basic recommendations.
> Nations must "prevent human rights violations committed with small arms
> and light weapons" and that the United Nations should oversee this.
> > The goals in themselves are puzzling. No civilised government currently
> supports or legally allows assault or actual attack by its citizens on
> others. Every nation on earth has rules, regulations and enforcement on
> the ownership and use of personal weapons. Laws against killing and
> wounding are universal, and apply far past the specific paraphernalia
> included in Ms Frey's report. While international cooperation in
> preventing and redressing violence is a strong necessity, it is
> difficult to see a role for the United Nations. Adding a layer of
> bureaucracy to the tracking, arresting and extraditing of a murder or
> bank robbery suspect, for example, seems counter‑productive. Putting in
> a special international law to punish, say, a Burmese police officer
> because he used a shotgun to violate the human rights of an arrestee
> instead of a rubber hose is also unhelpful.
> > More troubling is that much of her Special Rapporteur's briefing is
> dedicated to knocking down the principle of the right of self‑defence,
> for individuals and for countries. The lengthy and final report claims
> there is no international human right of self‑defence set out in the
> primary sources of international law. This is hugely incorrect, and
> indicates the Special Rapporteur has never even heard of a protective
> mother and a threatened child, let alone a small nation under attack
> from a large one. It is troubling that the world body and such a major
> group as the Human Rights Council would be associated with this idea.
> Internet bloggers have presented massive citations refuting Ms Frey's
> egregious error. To cite just one, from the great Cicero of Rome: "In
> case of a lawful defence... we act only with a view to our own safety;
> we make use of our right; and the aggressor alone is chargeable with the
> mischief which he brings on himself."
> > Self‑defence is a basic human right. The UN Human Rights Council, as its
> name implies, should spend more time investigating actual violations of
> human rights.