Charles Lane of the Washington Post editorial board (which has been silent on the Mary Robinson fiasco) finally weighs in. He writes:
I agree with those who say Robinson showed a prosecutorial attitude toward Israel when she was United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights between 1997 and 2002—and since then. That record includes her supervision of the U.N.’s Durban anti-racism conference in 2001, which was badly marred by “Zionism-is-racism” agitation.
But that is not what concerns him most. It is her lack of accomplishment and her absorption with unhelpful and destructive international “cant” that has Lane annoyed with the decision to honor her:
What I’m struck by is Robinson’s zeal for this gabfest in the first place. Even on the most benign view, the conference was an exercise in outrage-by-committee whose real-world impact on racism was bound to be minimal.
The final report, which Robinson found “remarkably good,” is 62 pages of unreadable cant: “Guided by the principles set out in the Millennium Declaration and the recognition that we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity and to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people, the international community commits itself to working for the beneficial integration of the developing countries into the global economy, resisting their marginalization, determined to achieve accelerated economic growth and sustainable development and to eradicate poverty, inequality and deprivation.”
And so on. Not exactly “I have a dream.”
Today Robinson keeps busy as honorary president of Oxfam and president of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, which she founded “to make human rights the compass which charts a course for globalization that is fair, just and benefits all.” What does it do? Under “Action Update,” the organization’s website displays a bunch of pictures of Robinson at various international conferences.
She hasn’t helped her cause by lashing out at Jews opposed to her medal. “There’s a lot of bullying by certain elements of the Jewish community,” she has said. “They bully people who try to address the severe situation in Gaza and the West Bank.” But when she tones down her defense, she bolsters the impression that she’s sort of an empty suit.
In sum, not only has she been a mouthpiece for anti-Israel and anti-U.S. rhetoric but she has never done anything of note to promote peace or human rights or much of anything else.
But this, after all, is an administration that places such a premium on talk that they declare Obama’s Cairo speech a “success” because it has already made such a difference. (Really? How?) So it shouldn’t be surprising that Obama and his team are impressed with Robinson. She elevates Palestinian suffering, ignores the terrorist provocation Israel must confront, decries robust American responses to Islamic terror, and loves to talk and talk and talk to the cheers of the anti-Israeli crowd at the UN and on the Left. Why wouldn’t Obama want to fete her?
