Sir, – US ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz’s recent speech at the UN condemning Iran’s threats to freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz was filled with appeals to international law, humanitarian access and the protection of global commerce.
On its own terms, much of what he said is correct. Mining international waterways, obstructing shipping and punishing civilian populations are unacceptable under international law.
However, the speech rings hollow when viewed alongside the consistent actions of the US at the UN regarding Israel and Gaza.
The US repeatedly invokes international law when condemning the actions of its adversaries, yet routinely blocks or dilutes UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, even amid widespread international concern over civilian deaths, humanitarian access and collective punishment in Gaza.
RM Block
This selective application of principle damages the credibility not only of the United States, but also of the UN system itself. International law cannot be treated as something that applies rigorously to enemies while becoming negotiable when close allies are involved.
If freedom of navigation, protection of civilians and humanitarian access are truly universal principles, then they must be defended consistently whether the alleged violator is Iran, Russia, Israel or any other state.
Otherwise, appeals begin to sound less like universal values and more like instruments of geopolitical convenience. – Yours, etc,
PETER MALBASHA,
Booterstown,
Co Dublin.
