Human Rights Under Assault (Quotes from the UN Human Rights Council)

At its recent June 2007 session, the UN Human Rights Council concluded its lengthy reform process by voting, first, to drop Belarus and Cuba from its blacklist. New restrictions were imposed on the independent experts who report on country violations. The ability to introduce resolutions that name abusers was curbed. And Israel was singled out for permanent indictment—the sole country targeted by a special agenda item, and the sole country subjected to an investigation that examines only one side, is immune from review, and presumes guilt in advance.

The five-minute video below offers a glimpse into how the UN's highest human rights body—dominated by the worst abusers of human rights—is tragically being turned on its head, to attack democracies, destroy mechanisms of human rights protection, and assault the very idea of human rights.

The following sample of quotes from the UN Human Rights Council, many of which feature on the video above, offer a glimpse into how the UN's highest human rights body is tragically being turned on its head—to attack democracies, destroy mechanisms of human rights protection, and assault the very idea of human rights.

"The United States [is] the main enemy of international cooperation and human rights across the world." — Cuban Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, June 19, 2007.

"Cuba's election [to the Human Rights Council] epitomizes the victory of principles and of truth. . . The absence of the United States is the defeat of lies, it is the moral punishment. . ." — Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque, at inaugural session of Human Rights Council, June 20, 2006.

"They [Americans] are killing civilians, practicing torture, and other cruelty exhibiting those of Nazism." — North Korean Amb. Choe Myong Nam, Sept. 27, 2006. "Americans will always do the right thing—after they have exhausted all the alternatives." — Palestinian representative Mohammad Abu-Koash, Mar. 22, 2007. He did not mention that since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $1.7 billion in U.S. economic assistance, more than from any other donor country.

"Japan is a chauvinistic and xenophobic country." — North Korean Amb. Choe Myong Nam, Sept. 19, 2006.

"For the U.K., blood is always thicker than water." — Zimbabwe Ambassador Chitsaka Chipaziwa, June 11, 2007.

"For the Germans, the hangover from the Nazi past is self-evident." — Zimbabwe Amb. Chitsaka Chipaziwa, Mar. 29, 2007; "For Some the genes of Nazism run deep." — Zimbabwe representative Enos Mafemba, responding to Germany's critique of the Mugabe regime's human rights record, June 12, 2007.

"The United Kingdom. . . is spearheading the rabid, demonic forces against Zimbabwe." — Zimbabwe Amb. Chitsaka Chipaziwa, Mar. 29, 2007.

"Unfortunately. . . we witness a conspiracy against Sudan for political objectives" — Minister of Justice of the Sudan Mohamed Ali Elmardi, Mar. 16, 2007.

"We see through your machinations to re-colonize us. . . you want to re-colonize the continent." — Zimbabwe, Mar. 14, 2007.

"Is it a coincidence that the Secretary-General intercedes in this special session on Darfur that was initiated by the Western Group?" — Palestinian representative Mohammad Abu-Koash, Dec. 12, 2006, suggesting a conspiracy against Sudan organized by Western democracies and Kofi Annan.

"External parties [are] exploiting the situation [in Darfur] so that they can achieve their own objectives, in oil particularly. — Syrian represenative Abdul-Monem Annan, June 13, 2007.

"The Cuba she is trying to present to us is. . . concocted in the laboratories of the CIA and the White House." — Cuban Amb. Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, attacking Ms. Christine Chanet, the UN expert on human rights violations in Cuba, June 12, 2007.

"This exercise seeks to condemn, to indict, one of the most ethical and moral states that we see in the world today." — Sri Lanka representative Daya Jayalthilake, supporting Cuba's attacks on Ms. Chanet, and praising Cuba's Fidel Castro regime, which runs a police states that jails journalists and represses dissent.

"This report continues a practice of open distortion, false allegations, and absurd conclusions." — Belarus Amb. Sergei Aleinik, attacking the UN expert on human rights violations in Belarus, June 12, 2007.

"The report of the expert on Belarus is really a basket-case in terms of analyzing what can go wrong in special procedures." — Algerian Amb. Idriss Jazairy, June 12, 2007.

Advocating Elimination of Experts on Human Rights Violations in Specific Countries

"Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernandez. . . within a few days, together with you, we will celebrate the end of the mandate of this rapporteur [expert on Cuban violations], and we will listen together to Guantanamera." — Palestine representative Mohammad Abu-Koash, June 12, 2007. "My delegation is against country mandates." — Libyan representative Musnia Markus, June 12, 2007.

"All country rapporteurs should be dropped." — Palestinian representative Mohammad Abu-Koash, Mar. 12, 2007.

"Shed the institution of country-specific procedures." — Russian representative Sergey Chumarev, Oct. 3, 2006.

"Terminate all country mandates." — South African representative Glaudine Mitshali, June 12, 2007.

"Country mandates. . . should not be part of the agenda." — Venezuela representative Gabriel Salazar, June 12, 2007.

"Remove them [experts on country violations]." — Iran representative Mahmoud Khani, Oct. 3, 2006.

"We represent the conscience of humanity." — Sudan representative, Oct. 4, 2006.

"Sudan has demonstrated cooperation. . . exemplary cooperation." — Syrian Representative Abdul-Monem Annan, Jun. 13, 2007.

"Arafat, Castro, [Che] Guevara stand tall. . . in their worldwide influence, stature, and inspiration." — Palestinian representative Mohammad Abu-Koash, June 12, 2007. "It's become politically incorrect to be antisemitic against Jews while it is correct to be antisemitic against Arab peoples. Antisemitism is a form of racism that we've all experienced." — Algeria's Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, head of the powerful African Group at the Human Rights Council, June 11, 2007. Notwithstanding his degrees from the universities of Oxford and Harvard, as well as France's elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration, Ambassador Jazairy offers the childish argument, often repeated at the UN by Arab and Muslim states, that because Arabs are "Semitic" people, the universal term for hostility or prejudice against Jews ought to be gutted of its meaning. In so doing, the Algerian diplomat and his colleagues seek to deny antisemitism by redefining the very concept itself out of existence.

Video: The Daily Invective at the UN Human Rights Council
Below is the new prequel to the “No. 1 Top Rated” YouTube.com video of the March 23, 2007 debate at the UN Human Rights Council. This new 3-minute compilation reveals a small sample of the daily invective and truly offensive statements that are routinely welcomed by the UN Human Rights Council. Insults against ambassadors and mocking of human rights experts; justification of violence against women and gays; glorification of terrorism; Holocaust denial; demonization of Israel—the video shows how all of that and more was allowed by the Council.

However, as shown at the end of the video, only one statement was rejected as “inadmissible” and banned from ever being delivered again: UN Watch’s lifting of a mirror to the Council and exposing its shortcomings.

Admissible Invective as Shown on Video

The following quotes, many of which are on the video above, are a small sample of the invective and truly offensive statements that are welcome at the newly created U.N. Human Rights Council:

Insulting Council Members

“The distinguished delegate is ignorant...” — Zimbabwe delegate, speaking of his counterpart from Finland, and accusing him of “astonishing and astounding hypocrisy,” Sept. 20, 2006.

Insulting UN Experts

“This libelous report does not deserve any respect or credibility. We will send it to the same place that we have sent all previous reports: the paper-recycling bin... There is, however, Madame, a significant contribution that you might make—and that would be by quitting...” — Cuban Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, Sept. 26, 2006, insulting UN expert Christine Chanet after she documented abuses by Cuba. The chair’s defense of the expert was limited to noting “the importance of not personifying or personalizing comments that will only exacerbate difficulties before us,” and followed his “Thank you to the delegate of Cuba for his statement.”

“The one who has monopoly on the violation of human rights is Israel... the darling of the High Commissioner.” — Palestinian Ambassador Mohammad Abu-Koash, Dec. 1, 2006, mocking Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who dared to cite Palestinian obligations to stop terrorism in addition to her regular criticisms of Israel.

Violence Against Women

“Incidents of violence against women have been exaggerated.” — Sudan’s Farah Mustafa, Deputy Governor of the state of South Darfur, Dec. 12, 2006, after the Council heard reports of mass rape of Darfur women by the Sudanese-sponsored Janjaweed militia.

Attacking Gays

“Death penalty by stoning under Sharia law for unnatural sexual acts... should not be equated with extrajudicial killings and indeed should not have been featured in the report...” — Nigeria Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu, Sept. 19, 2006, challenging criticism by UN expert Philip Alston on Nigeria’s use of stoning to death as a punishment for homosexuality.

Glorifying Terrorism

“Hezbollah is everyday simple people resisting, resisting an occupation...” — Cuban Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, Oct. 4, 2006.

Holocaust Denial

“The Tehran Conference is not about denial of the Holocaust, it is rather an academic one that examines all aspects of the issue.” — Iranian delegate Forouza Ndeh Vadiati, Dec. 12, 2006.

The Holocaust is a “historical claim”, “the number of perished” is a particularly “legitimate question,” and there are “serious opposing ideas over the issue.” — Iranian Ambassador Alireza Moayeri, in letter circulated Jan. 11, 2007 by Secretariat of the Human Rights Council (under standard UN practice) “at the request of the President of the Human Rights Council,” which “has the honour to forward attached herewith a letter addressed to him by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The President expressed no objections in carrying out this duty.

Iran’s Holocaust denial conference of December 2006, “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision,” was “an academic event,” and Zionism is an ideology “charged with hegemonic racial desires.” — Moayeri letter, ibid.

Demonizing Israel

“Israel has not quenched its thirst for the blood of the Lebanese and has now directed it against unarmed civilians in Beit Hanoun.” Lebanese representative, Nov. 15, 2006, referring to Israel’s response to the Palestinian firing of Kassam rockets at the city of Sderot.

“The Holocaust is going on, and it is an Israeli holocaust against the Palestinian people.” Palestine Ambassador Mohammad Abu-Koash, Dec. 12, 2006.

“Furthermore, as the distinguished Ambassador of Palestine reminds us, there is an Israeli holocaust against Palestinian people on a daily basis for more than sixty years, which was already noted by three special sessions.” — Iranian delegate Forouza Ndeh Vadiati, Dec. 12, 2006.

“[Israeli] massacres against the displaced people, women and children, those were deliberate acts...” — Nord-Sud XXI, Libyan-funded organization that manages the “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize,” Sept. 29, 2006.

“A certain number of deliberate massacres of civilian populations” were committed by Israel.” — Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food (and 1989 co-founder and 2002 co-winner of the “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize”), Oct. 4, 2006.

“. . . civilian people were killed, massacred, by the invading forces who have come from the planet Mars which they now call the Israeli occupier.” — Syrian delegate, June 23, 2006.

I’m not sure about ‘has become’. I think it has always been.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1235065/posts?page=28#28
Creation of the United Nations

During August and September 1944, the representatives of Britain, China, Russia and the United States , met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington DC. At this conference the constitutional foundation for the United Nations was laid. In it Russia was not only made a full partner, but a dominant stockholder. A most significant development was the fact that, while other nations objected, Russia insisted on the right to exercise the veto power even if she were a party to the dispute. This violated the very foundation of international jurisprudence but the democracies consented. They were ready to pay almost any price to get Russia to participate.

(snip)(snip)

On April 25, 1945, 1,400 representative from 46 nations met in San Francisco, and after due deliberation agreed upon a United Nation Charter.

Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced. For example, the Russian Constitution provides for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article 126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a single roster of candidates. This, of course, renders completely meaningless all the high flown phrases dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots. (snip)

In precisely this same way the United Nations Charter provides for the “the sovereign equality of all its members” (article 1) and then sets up a Security Council which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France, and the United States) anyone of which can nullify the expressed desires of all other member nations by the simple device of exercising the veto power.

(snip)

This makes the Security Council the only legally binding legislative body in the UN. ...any nation which joins the UN must “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”.

(snip)(snip)

As some authorities have since pointed out, the UN provided for a world-wide police commission and then made the top international gangster a member of that commission.

(snip)

Page 174:

Communist Attitudes at the Close of World War 2

A clear indication of what the United States could expect from post-war Communism came May 24, 1945, when the leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos, wrote a letter on behalf of his Russian superiors demanding that the Communists in the United States be required to immediately abandon their policy of friendly collaboration with capitalism and return to their historic mission of world revolution. Back in 1940 the Communist Party of America had formally withdrawn from the Third International to avoid having to register as a foreign agent under the Voorhis Act. Later the Communist Party of America was dissolved in an attempt to attach the Communist membership to one of the major US political parties. For this purpose they called themselves the Communist Political Association.

All of this twisting and turning was in complete harmony with Soviet policy until 1945. After World War 2, the announced policy reverted to traditional Marxism. To justify the complete switch in policy, Earl Browder, the American Communist leader, was accused of being personally responsible for the “errors” of the former policy. He was expelled from the party.

The party leadership was immediately taken over by William Z. Foster. Foster had written an inflammatory book in 1932 called Toward Soviet America. Just before World War 2 he had testified before a Congressional Committee: “when a Communist heads a government of the United States, and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises, that government will not be a capitalistic government, but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

It is no longer difficult to understand why Moscow wanted men like Foster at the head of its Communist Parties throughout the world. We now know that the Russian leaders approached the conclusion of the world’s greatest war with the conviction that World War 3 might be in the near offing. In their secret circles they hopefully speculated that this next war might be Communism’s final death struggle with capitalism.

(snip)
(snip)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.