| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights was so dishonest, so packed full of brutal dictators and oppressors, and had made so many biased decisions, that even the U.N. could no longer tolerate it, and it was disbanded in 2006. From Wikipedia:
The New York Times, in its editorial The Shame of the United Nations, praised those intent on "reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission." The Times said that the Commission was composed of "some of the world's most abusive regimes" who used their membership as cover to continue their abusiveness. On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace UNCHR with the UN Human Rights Council.
...The Commission was repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves had dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission.
Another criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks.
Activist groups had long expressed concern over the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam on the Commission. These countries had extensive records of human rights violations, and one concern was that by working against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights violations, they indirectly promoted despotism and domestic repression.
On May 4, 2004, United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the Commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an "absurdity" in light of Sudan's ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region. One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the Commission was the lack of willingness for some countries to work through the commission. Indeed, on July 30, 2004, it was the United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed a resolution - by 13-0, with China and Pakistan abstaining - threatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the following 30 days. The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan.
The U.N. replaced the Commission, with the United Nations Human Rights Council. This new Human Rights Council almost immediately proved that it intended to conduct business as usual. From the NY Times in March 2007:
UNITED NATIONS, March 12 - A United Nations Human Rights Council mission to Darfur said Monday that the Sudanese government had organized and taken part in human rights crimes against its own population, and that international action to stop the killings and rapes had been inadequate.
...The rights council has been widely criticized for being no more effective than the discredited Human Rights Commission it replaced this year. Taking action on Darfur is seen by rights groups as a measure of whether the council can start to build credibility during its formal session, the fourth it has held, which began Monday.
So far, all eight of the condemnations of human rights performance it has issued since its creation in June have been against one country, Israel.
The UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations is currently meeting with the intention to eject one particular NGO from the UN - the World Union of Progressive Judaism. The reason? WUPJ representative, Mr. David Littman, a friend of this site, dared to suggest to the Human Rights Council that it was derelict in its duties. From the Daily News, Monday:
...the UN is on a warpath against one particular NGO. It is poised tomorrow to revoke these basic access rights from the World Union of Progressive Judaism. Yes, the WUPJ - which represents more than 1.7 million reform, progressive, liberal and reconstructionist Jews all over the world - is about to have its privileges to attend and speak at UN events erased.
What was its sin? Daring to speak clearly against UN human rights hypocrisy.
Bureaucrats at the UN trace the problem back to a statement made by the WUPJ during a Jan. 24, 2008, session of the Human Rights Council. The meeting marked the fourth time the UN's lead human rights body had convened an entire session to condemn Israel. That brought the total to four special sessions on Israel - compared with six sessions to address human rights in the other 191 UN member states.
As the council conducted its predetermined witch hunt, WUPJ representative David Littman made the mistake of referring to Hamas' genocidal charter. He began three times, quoting the charter's words that "Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it," and calling upon the council to invoke the Genocide Convention.
Each time, the council president interrupted and warned him to "focus on the issue." Littman stood his ground: "The issue is what Hamas and the government in Gaza wishes to do to Israel." Bang, bang, bang went the gavel. Stymied, Littman recalled his Shakespeare and said: "There is a general malaise in the air. A feeling that something is rotten in the state of this council."
That was the last straw. Those words were "disrespectful" to the Human Rights Council, the diplomats from the Muslim world declared.
That brings us to the present day - tomorrow, actually - when the UN committee charged with ensuring NGOs' equal access rights is set to expel the WUPJ from the premises.
Chairing the committee is that bastion of civil liberties, Sudan. Vice-chairs include Pakistan and Cuba. Among the other 16 members are serial free speech abusers Angola, China, Egypt, Qatar and Russia.
At this past Thursday's committee meeting, Sudan - currently committing genocide - expressed concern that the WUPJ's behavior "violates the spirit and the letter of the charter of the UN." China - where you're arrested for logging on to the Internet and typing in "human rights" - was upset because "We respect civil society and NGOs."
Absurdly, the chair of the UN Committee on NGO's is that very same nation - Sudan - whose election to the Human Rights Commission was a key factor in publicizing the illegitimacy of the Human Rights Commission, and causing it to be disbanded. Sudan - which is committing genocide, and which still permits slavery! From the NY Times, February 2008:
The Sudanese government started the first genocide of the 21st century in Darfur, and now it seems to be preparing to start the second here among the thatch-roof huts of southern Sudan.
Yet Sudan is chairing the committee which is seeking to eject the WUPJ from the UN! This is the UN writ large - an organization controlled too much by oppressors, dictators, slave-holders and even committers of genocide.
The mere fact that ejection of the WUPJ from the UN is under consideration, has the makings of international scandal - even more so since the head of the committee that is to rule on it is Sudan.
If the WUPJ is ejected, the illegitimacy of the UN will be underlined in gigantic letters for the world to see.
The vote is expected today.
