Dear Editor,
The United Nations, that grand stage of global diplomacy, was once conceived as a bastion of international law. Yet, it seems to have evolved into a theatre of the absurd, where political performance often trumps legal precision. The ongoing debate over applying the term “genocide” to the Gaza conflict is a prime example of this dramatic shift. A careful look at the facts—and at the UN’s own rulebook—suggests this weighty term is being used not for its legal heft but for its rhetorical punch.
It’s a bit like calling a parking ticket an international war crime: the language is certainly powerful, but it’s divorced from reality. The British government, for its part, has already made a formal and refreshingly sober statement that no genocide is occurring in Gaza.
The Fine Print of “Genocide” and the Double Standard
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide is the legal cornerstone here, defining the act as a crime committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” That last part—the intent to destroy—is the crucial, and often inconvenient, detail. It’s the difference between a tragic outcome and a calculated act of evil. The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, after a rigorous review, found no evidence of this specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people. This clinical assessment stands in stark contrast to the emotionally charged discourse that dominates the UN’s chambers, where a more dramatic narrative is clearly in demand.
This performative application of international law is particularly pronounced when applied selectively. The UN and its attendant chorus of activists seem to possess a hypercritical focus on the “West”, wielding accusations of human rights abuses with a zeal often absent when examining the glaring wrongs of the “non-Western” world. The ongoing enslavement of people in parts of Africa and the MENA region, the systemic oppression of women and minorities across vast swaths of Asia, and the brutal internal conflicts that have displaced millions are often met with a peculiar silence or a diplomatic shrug. The stage lights seem to be aimed exclusively at democratic nations, leaving the more troubling acts to occur in the shadows.
The politicisation of this issue is so complete that even the term “genocide scholar” has lost its lustre. Consider the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), a group frequently cited in media reports. One must wonder about the academic rigour of an organisation that, as alleged, offers membership to anyone who pays a $30 fee – without credential/background verification. It’s a low barrier to entry for what should be a high-minded field of study, and it raises a serious question: is this academic authority or just a cheap veneer of credibility for a political declaration?
A Global Theatre of the Undemocratic
The UN’s structural flaws are, perhaps, the most glaring part of this production. With a majority of its member states being non-democratic dictatorships, the organisation’s claim to be a bastion of universal justice is, at best, a hollow echo. As legal scholar David P. Forsythe notes, “Human rights are not a panacea for the world’s ills but rather an ongoing and contested project.” This dynamic transforms a legal framework into a theatrical prop for propaganda, with unelected officials making declarations that are often more about scoring political points than upholding justice. It’s a peculiar form of international law where the stage is populated by performers, not prosecutors.
Ultimately, the application of “genocide” to the Gaza conflict appears to be a profound legal mischaracterisation, devaluing a serious term through its political misuse. The UN, once envisioned as a serious institution, has become a stage where accusations can be levelled without the burden of proof. It is time for democratic nations to re-evaluate their role in a system that rewards theatrics over truth and one that practises a deeply concerning double standard. Instead of a global stage populated by unelected officials with their own agendas, it is strong individual nation-states, where citizens hold their elected governments accountable, that remain the most reliable guardians of justice.
I am,
Jillian Forbes