Monday, 12 March 2007

THE UN 'HUMAN RIGHTS' COUNCIL

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that the United Nations has a "human rights council"?  Well, it does. 

And who would be in such a council?  What kinds of countries? 

Ok, I'm probably getting ahead of myself here.  Let me describe the UN itself first, so we can understand how a "human rights council" could possibly be constructed the way it is.

The UN is an international organization consisting of 192 members, which is to say virtually every country in the world.

The world is an international entity consisting of countries and territories, most of which are interested in little other than themselves and their cultures.  

Additionally, most UN members are non-democratic and do not have freedom; not as people in western civilization know the term.  Islamic countries are the worst offenders by far.  Most have national religions.  Some make it a crime to openly practice religions other than Islam.  Some make it a crime, even a capital crime, to convert from Islam to any other religion.  And every one of these countries has one vote in the UN general assembly, just like the USA.  Lovely, just lovely.

Now let's talk about the UN "human rights council".   

 The "human rights council" was created last year to replace the "human rights commission".  Why?  Because the human rights commission was infested with countries that have exactly zero regard for human rights:  countries such as zimbabwe, sudan, cuba and syria to name just four.  THEY were supposed to be judging others on THEIR human rights performance.  You can't get more bizarre than that.

Obviously for there to be any credibility at all in the "human rights council", a new group of countries had to be selected.  But hold on for a second, who would be selecting the new countries?  Why the UN of course.  The same organization that selected the lunatic-asylum "human rights commission" in the first place.

Do you think that a new human rights group selected by the same people who gave us the last one would do it any better the second time?  Not if your IQ is over 23.    This is the UNITED NATIONS, pilgrim.  You would have to be a potato to believe things would come out any better.

In "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", I noted that Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  What does that make the UN selection process?  Exactly -- see, I KNEW your IQ was higher than Don Mattingly's uniform number.

And that, folks, is why the UN's new, ostensibly improved, "human rights council" includes such paradigms of human rights as Iran, China, Cuba, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.  Again, this isn't the old group that was disbanded because it didn't have even a small acquaintance with human rights, this is the new one.

So what do you suppose a human rights council that is created this way would do?  Do you think it would address the horror shows in places like Darfur or Zimbabwe or North Korea?  If so, let me rethink that IQ assessment from before.

Here are excerpts from an (uncharacteristically) thorough article in yesterday's the New York Times, about how the UN 'human rights council" is performing.  (The maroon print is the article, the blue print is my commentary):

The commission was long a major embarrassment to the United Nations, with former Secretary General Kofi Annan, who first proposed its replacement in 2005, commenting that it "cast a shadow on the reputation of th United Nations system as a whole." (Kofi Annan calling the council an embarrassment is like Shaquille O'Neal calling someone a tall Black NBA center).

When the 47 members of the new council were elected last March, tighter entry requirements succeeded in keeping the most notorious rights abusers off the panel, and there was some hope of less politicized behavior.  (electing Iran, China, Cuba, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to the human rights council is keeping the most notorious rights abusers off?  Woody Allen couldn't write a more ironically funny punch line than that)

But member countries from Africa and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 57 states promoting Muslim solidarity, have dashed those hopes by voting as a bloc to stymie Western efforts to direct serious attention to situations like the killings, rapes and pillage in the Darfur region of Sudan, which the United Nations has declared the world's worst humanitarian crisis. (You expected this bunch to honestly judge other countries on human rights abuse? I want to smoke what you're smoking).

Most notably, as happened with the commission, the council has focused its condemnation almost exclusively on Israel  It has passed eight resolutions against Israel and the Islamic group is planning four more for the current session.  The council has cited no other country for human rights violations....(Yeah, that's the ticket.  Mass genocide in sudan, zimbabwe turned from a prosperous African country to mass starvation due to racism and cronyism, dozens of schoolgirls burned to death in Saudi Arabia because when their school caught fire they tried to run out without first getting their burqas on and were FORCED BACK IN, zero rights in dozens of other countries, and the only human rights problems worth talking about are in Israel, which is trying to survive against people who want it destroyed, preferably with every Jew dead)

...In another potential blow to the council's effectiveness, a proposal is circulating that would do away with many of the council's 44 rapporteurs, the experts who produce sometimes graphic reports of abuses in individual countries.  The proposal specifically ensures the continuation of the mission that monitors the Palestinian territories. (There you go.  Get rid of the people who can actually assess human rights abuse, they might embarrass your effort to suppress it.  But make sure those nice folks who do not recognize Israel (which was created BY the United Nations) and who name their streets and soccer tournaments after suicide bombers, have a friend on the premises to advocate for them)

Now that you've read this, I have a question.  If someone - like me, for example - were to say to you that the United Nations is morally, spiritually and ethically dead, how would you answer? Would you give me an argument?  Would you have a series of facts to refute my claim?

If so please feel free to reply.  I would love to understand your reasoning.

 

BOB WITKIN THE UN IS A USELESS ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOTHING BUT WASTE TIME AND THE TAXPAYERS OF THE UNIDTED STAES MONEY. IT HAS NO CLOUT AND HAS SEEN BETTER TIMES. IT IS TIME FOR THE US TO PULL IT OUT OF NEW YORK- AND STOP FUNDING IT LET OTHER COUNTRIES FOOT THE BILL. IF THE MEMBERS HAD ANY BALLS AT ALL IT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE US AGIST THE TERROR OF SADAMM. IT DEMANDED INSPECTIONS AND THEN FOLDED UP LIKE A CHEAP SUIT. TELL ME ONE THING THE UN IS GOOD FOR OTHER THAN THE DIPLOMATS TAKING UP ILLEGAL PARKING SPACES IN NEW YORK (03/12/07)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!