01 Feb Time for Richard Falk to Resign as U.N. Special Rapporteur?
Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton and U.N. Special Rapporteur for the situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, is rejecting calls for him to resign from his U.N. position due to alleged comments he made about a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
NEW YORK – Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, “flatly denied” recent allegations by Geneva- based NGO UN Watch that “he had endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the US government and not by al-Qaida terrorists.”
UN Watch called for Falk to resign last week, citing Falk’s personal blog posts. In response, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s office condemned Falk. In a letter to Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the secretary-general’s spokesman Vijay Nambiar wrote that Falk’s remarks were “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.”
Falk denies that he was endorsing a 9/11 “Truther” theory. He at least was sympathetic to it, though. Based on what I can tell, Falk was not making a full-blown endorsement of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, although he seems oddly open to it. In any event, I have never thought Falk was particularly well-qualified to be a U.N. rapporteur, both his background and political preferences make him a relentlessly one-sided advocate rather than an objective investigator. But then again, are special rapporteurs supposed to be objective?
Even the U.S. has had enough with Falk. From Amb. Susan Rice:
Mr. Falk endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who allege that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were perpetrated and then covered up by the U.S. government and media.
Mr. Falk’s comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. I have registered a strong protest with the UN on behalf of the United States. The United States has in the past been critical of Mr. Falk’s one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether.
Here is the quote from his blog, as quoted in the Jerusalem Post. Whatever else one thinks of Falk and his politics, this is hardly an endorsement of conspiracy theories, even if (as here) taken out of context:
“I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows – that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest.”
Falk’s own response (which Julian unfortunately does not report) is here http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/supplemental-blog-on-arizona-shootings/
I suspect a rather attenuated, tendentious, and ultimately indefensible notion of “objectivity” animates an assertion like Julian’s.
If we assume, with Nicholas Rescher, that “the essence of rationality lies in its factoring out of one’s deliberations personal predilections, prejudices, idiosyncracies, and the like that would stand in the way of intelligent people’s reaching the same result,” then Falk’s record as a UN special rapporteur is blameless. Falk’s reasoning and subsequent conclusions are consistent with what any other “reasonable” or “sensible” person might (or could) perform and arrive at were they in his shoes. The validity of Falk’s judgments are not destroyed by the fact that there are people who reject them, or even the fact that some, perhaps even many, may appropriately dissent from them.
Falk’s critics appear to have an insufficient appreciation of
the diversity in people’s experiences and cognitive situations
the variation of “available data”
the underdetermination of facts by data (all too frequently insufficient)
the variability of peoples’s cognitive values (evidential security, simplicity, etc.)
the variation of cognitive methodology and the epistemic “state of the art”
The aforementioned factors—and others like them “make for an unavoidable difference in the beliefs, judgments, and evaluations even of otherwise ‘perfectly rational’ people.”
Lurking in the background here may likewise be an insufficient understanding or appreciation of what Rescher refers to as the “experiential contextualism of rationality,” hence,
“Confronted with a pluralistic proliferation of alternative positions you have your acceptance determination methodology, and I have mine. Yours lead you to endorse P; mine leads me to endorse not-P. Yours is just as valid for you (via your methodology of validating principles) as mine is for me. The situational differences of our contexts simply leads to different rational resolutions. And that’s the end of the matter.”
In other words, “the fact that the cognitive venture as a whole incorporates other positions does nothing to render a firm and fervent commitment to one’s own position somehow infeasible or improper.” Or, put yet differently:
“Recognizing that others see matters differently in contexts of inquiry need not daunt us in the attachment to our own views of the matter. There is clearly no conflict between our commitment to the truth as we see it and a recognition that the adoption of a variant probative perspective leads others to see the truth differently. Given that we ourselves occupy our perspective, we are bound to see our truth as the truth. [….] The circumstance that different people see something differently does not destroy or degrade the thing as such.”
In conclusion to this point, “An experiential pluralism of cognitive positions is thus no impediment to a commitment to the pursuit of truth,” and a principle of charity that forswears a hermeneutic of suspicion together with obligation not to indulge in fallacious forms of abusive or circumstantial ad hominen arguments, should lead us to accord presumptive benefit of the doubt to Falk’s judgments befitting his considerable professional disciplinary expertise.
Objectivity does not entail the abandonment of values, the latter not reducible to personal tastes and preferences: “To be objective in evaluative contexts is not to suppress one’s evaluations but rather to conform them to the requirements of reason,” and what separates such evaluations from mere preferences is the reliance on appropriate standards and norms, and there is no reason to conclude that Falk fails to consistently apply the relevant standards and norms one finds in a morally cogent, intellectually coherent and therefore rationally defensible understanding of what counts for same in international law.
I can’t account for the italicization, sorry.
Julian, nice post. I think anyone who does not distance themselves from these crackpot conspiracy theories (which unfortunately and despite the lack of credible evidence, has reached a certain level of acceptance) is unquestionably unqualified. Regardless of whether he is embracing the nut job “Truthers”, at this point, having been accused of accepting the conspiracy proponents, he must condemn these nut job theories and disassociate himself from them. By failing to do so, he tacitly lends credence to them. For this reason alone, he should be dismissed.
Let’s be honest: the people calling for Falk to resign are motivated by dislike of his criticisms of Israel, not his (non-)embrace of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I agree, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and everything about his role as SR of the OPT. Whats more, this is old news. What is surprising however is that it seems Opinio Juris is now engaging in its own conspiracy theories and political rhetoric. Disappointing to say the least. Shall we return to the law?
Falk says he “never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11,” but rather merely calls for all facts to be known. Good — let’s look at the facts.here for HTML, and here for scanned copy.) Falk’s endorsement is printed on the book jacket, as the first one.
On January 11, 2011, Mr. Falk wrote on his blog that, “There are, to be sure, conspiracies that promote unacknowledged goals, and enjoy the benefit of government protection… The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008).”
In writing the above, Mr. Falk clearly asserted the existence of 9/11 “conspiracies,” and he unequivocally endorsed the notorious 9/11 conspiracy tract, The New Pearl Harbor as an “authoritative” book, and its author, David Ray Griffin, as a “devoted scholar of high integrity.” The main thesis of this book is that the World Trade Center was not attacked by terrorists, but was rather “an inside job.” (See book’s quotes here.)
Mr. Falk’s comments are only the latest manifestation in his years-long campaign to promote Griffin’s conspiracy tracts. In fact, Mr. Falk himself wrote the Foreword to The New Pearl Harbor, praising the book as “extraordinary,” “so special” and as having “the potentiality to become a force of history.” (Click
In the book’s Acknowledgments, author David Ray Griffin recognized the material role played by Mr. Falk in the publishing of the book. Griffin says that he is “indebted to Richard Falk for reasons that go beyond his gracious willingness to write the Foreword. It was through his influence that I first began working on global political matters… And it was through him that I became connected with Olive Branch Press of Interlink Publishing,” the publisher of the book. “I am especially grateful for this connection.” (Click here for original source.)
According to Griffin, Mr. Falk tried to promote the book by soliciting an endorsement from leading anti-American activist Noam Chomsky. “Richard Falk wrote to Chomsky and he said, ‘I think you should read this manuscript. My friend David Griffin has been a great admirer of yours; he’s built on your work. He would love to have a blurb from you. Chomsky wrote back and said Dick, ‘No, I will not read your friend Griffin’s book.’” (Source.)
Mr. Falk has used his UN imprimatur to promote the 9/11 conspiracy theory. In Falk’s November 2008 article entitled “9/11: More than meets the eye”, published in The Journal, a Scottish newspaper, he signed in his UN capacity, as “an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.” Falk’s article implied that the 9/11 attacks were committed by “the established elites of the American governmental structure.” The article praised the work of David Ray Griffin. (Source.)
Mr. Falk’s press release deliberately omits all of the above. By attempting to justify his despicable denial of Al Qaeda’s carrying-out of the 9/11 attacks as a mere call for “investigations,” Mr. Falk resorts to the same transparent tactics used by Iran’s Ahmadinejad and other hate-mongers who — each for their own twisted agenda — seek to deny other great atrocities of history.
On this matter, Falk is the victim of a cheap shot, as anyone who reads the essay from which that quote was pulled will immediately understand. The full text is at Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.
Richard Falk wrote the preface for a 9/11 conspiracy book by David Ray Griffin who argues that George W. Bush was complicit in the attacks.
Falk wrote of Griffin’s work: “no one until Griffin has had the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence to put the pieces together in a single coherent account.”
That was in 2004. It seems that Falk continues to peddle this nonsense today.
This affinity for conspiracy theory casts serious doubt on Falk’s ability to provide reasoned legal analysis of human rights issues.
The question is not, as Prof. Heller suggests, whether Falk’s opponents are motivated by his criticisms of Israel. The better question is whether it makes any sense for defenders of international human rights institutions to rally around someone with such questionable judgment. UNHRC criticisms of Israeli policy would not be so easily dismissed if they emerged from more credible sources than Professor Falk.
If Michael is correct (I have not read the preface but I presume Michael’s quote is accurate) Falk’s remarks are indefensible at best and at worst display a shocking disregard of the truth.
Jon, if Falk believes Mossad and the Bush administration conspired to bring down the Towers are you really going to defend his ability to be fair and impartial in ANY matter.
Here is a link to Falk’s preface to Griffin’s 2004 book, which includes the quote above, as well as Falk’s statement that “The official explanations of such historic events as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the assassination of President Kennedy have also not stood up to scrutiny by objective scholars.”: http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Falk_GriffinForeword.html
‘The official explanations of such historic events as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the assassination of President Kennedy have also not stood up to scrutiny by objective scholars’ – which is more or less true. The first (a breach of IHL) was aimed at intimidating the USSR, not at defeating Japan. As regards the second (clearly not the act of a lunatic/communist as the official explanation at the onset said), time has shown that there was likely much more involved – not proven, but enough to raise doubts about the official explanation.
BTW, for anybody who has read (or even skimmed through) the book in question, it is clear that its main message is not that Bush (or Israel, or others) were behind 9/11, but simply that the actions and inactions of the Bush administration, coupled inter alia with the twisted way the US works and how its ‘allies’ behave, have made it easier for Al Qaeda to carry out the attacks in question. Nothing too controversial. This is the main message, if one is not trying too hard to take sentences out of their context and misinterpret the suggestions.
Unsurprisingly, this is exactly how democracy and the concept of public accountability should work – what the Founding Fathers did when interpreting the actions of the King of England to suit their own interests, what the elites in the colonies did in the 1950s and 1960s to fight against colonial powers and so on. It is normal to try and reinterpret ‘given truths’ on most issues affecting our societies – as long as the new interpretation is not completely out there (such as claiming that the war in Iraq was inspired by God), it is fine.
I just read the link provided above. Totally indefensible. .
Falk refers to “official complicity” and says the book contains “electrifying revelations.” Falk points a conspiratorial finger at …the media…U.S. Congress…and asks why there have been no resignations from “principled public servants.”
Come on, “official complicity”…
This is much more than a simple innocent preface but a unquestioning endorsement. His failure to distance himself from the conspiracy camp is now fully understandable. After reading Falk’s remarks I fully agree and support the UN Secy General’s condemnation of his position.
What does “He at least was sympathetic to it” mean? Might it mean he at most was sympathetic to it?
Are we reading from the same text?
“There have been questions raised here and there and allegations of official complicity made almost from the day of the attacks, especially in Europe, but no one until Griffin has had the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence to put the pieces together in a single coherent account.”
Nobody could even suggest that Falk actually believes in official complicity from this excerpt – only that there is a need to put all pieces together in a comprehensive way to try and understand the whole story. Could anybody really object to that?
Guy, you just said it. According to Falk, regarding the theory of “official complicity” he (Falk) says that the author has put the pieces together based on his patience, fortitude, courage and intelligence.
If that is not a ringing endorsement I do not know what is.
Look, anyone interested should just read the link that Michael cited to.