Dear Editor,

The UN, 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 and 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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 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, ethical, 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 hyper-critical focus on the West, wielding accusations of human rights abuses with a zeal which appears to be often absent when examining the glaring wrongs of the non-Western world. The ongoing enslavement of people in parts of Africa and the Middle East, 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 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, in my opinion, 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 whereby 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, seems to have become a stage on which 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 practices what I believe is 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.

Jillian Forbes

jillianforbes21@gmail.com