Share
Resources updated between Monday, September 24, 2007 and Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
When President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly this week "the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council," his words could not have been more timely or deserved. He pointed out "This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran - while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel." On Friday, the Council piled the dung heap higher. It wrapped up another session in Geneva by adopting two more resolutions against Israel and no resolutions critical of the human-rights record of any of the other 191 U.N. member states.
This brings the total of anti-Israel resolutions and decisions adopted by the "Human Rights" Council - in only the first 15 months of its operation - to 14. Another four very weak decisions and resolutions have been applied to Sudan. And the Council finally decided to hold a special session of the Council on Myanmar. So adding up the highly selective concerns of the U.N.'s lead human-rights agency: 74 percent of the Council's moves against individual states have been directed at Israel, 21 percent at Sudan, 5 percent at Myanmar, and the rest of the world has been given a free pass.
European diplomats openly predict that within a year all U.N. special investigators dedicated to uncovering and reporting on human-rights violations in specific states will be abolished by the Council. These key mechanisms for human-rights protection were created with enormous difficulty over the past two decades. The axe wielded by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was first used in June to terminate the human-rights investigations on Cuba and Belarus. Then came the dithering over Sudan. While genocide continues in Darfur, the Council couldn't decide this week whether a Sudan investigator was worth keeping. The matter was deferred for another three months. All other such investigators are on the chopping block - all that is, but one.
The only exception to the "rule" is the investigator assigned to Israel. The Council has extended the life of the Israel rapporteur until Council members deem the occupation to be over - notwithstanding that the controlling faction believe all of Israel to be occupied land. At the same time, there is no shortage of outbursts from the OIC railing against any other human rights investigator. With great indignation Egypt sputtered: "...decisions to create, review or discontinue a country mandate, should take into account the principles of cooperation and dialogue with the country..."
Israel-bashing, the sport of choice for U.N. diplomats the world over, presents a special conundrum for European diplomats. In its first month of operation the Council took a decision to hold a special session on Israel and then adopted a resolution containing a vitriolic attack on Israel, alone. The date was July 6, 2006 - a time when Hezbollah was making plans for a war it started shortly thereafter. The EU voted against both the decision to hold the special session and the resolution.
The 24-hour United Nations propaganda machine, however, never sleeps. There soon sprouted new resolutions to "follow-up" the first. The EU boldly held out when faced with the first such test - by abstaining on a follow-up item in December 2006. A few months later, and again today, the role of opposing the OIC was apparently too much to bear. The EU voted in favor of following-up a resolution with which it vehemently disagreed in the first place.
The justification which the EU provided for this about-face speaks volumes about the unique U.N.-pathos. Speaking on behalf of the EU, the Slovenian representative said:
When President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly this week "the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council," his words could not have been more timely or deserved. He pointed out "This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran - while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel." On Friday, the Council piled the dung heap higher. It wrapped up another session in Geneva by adopting two more resolutions against Israel and no resolutions critical of the human-rights record of any of the other 191 U.N. member states.
Our Dead Are Our Fault -- Why are we funding the U.N.'s "human rights" nonsense? Editor's Note
Friday, September 28, 2007
Anne Bayefsky
September 28, 2007 UN Human Rights Council Reaches New Low Another two anti-Israel resolutions: Adopted Resolutions criticizing any other state: None |
* * * *
Human Rights Council Resolutions and Decisions Critical of the Human Rights Records of Specific States
TOTAL: Israel -- 14 (74%). Sudan -- 4 (21%). Myanmar – 1 (5%) Rest of the world -- 0
Israel: | 10 resolutions, 4 decisions, in addition to holding 3 special sessions | |
Sudan: | 1 resolutions, 3 decisions, in addition to holding 1 special session | |
Myanmar: | 1 decision, to hold a special session (October 2, 2007) |
State | Date Adopted | Title of Resolution Decision | Voting Record | UN Symbol Number |
Israel | September 25, 2007 | Religious and cultural rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem | Adopted 31 for, 1 against, 15 abstentions Against: Canada Abstaining: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom | (A/HRC)6/L.4 |
Israel | September 25, 2007 | Resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council Resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 | Adopted without a vote | (A/HRC)6/L.2 |
Israel | March 27, 2007 | Resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council Resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 | Adopted without a vote | (A/HRC)Resolution 4/2 |
Israel | December 8, 2006 | Resolution on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon | Adopted without a vote | (A/HRC)Resolution 3/3 |
Israel | December 8, 2006 | Resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council S-1/1 | Adopted 34 for, 1 against, 12 abstentions Against: Canada Abstaining: Cameroon, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | (A/HRC)Resolution 3/1 |
Israel | November 27, 2006 | Resolution on the human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan | Adopted 32 for, 1 against, 14 abstentions Against: Canada Abstaining: Cameroon, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | (A/HRC)Resolution 2/3 |
Israel | November 27, 2006 | Resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and in the Occupied Golan | Adopted 45 for, 1 against, 1 abstention Against: Canada Abstaining: Cameroon | (A/HRC)Resolution 2/4 |
Israel | November 15, 2006 | Resolution on the human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent one in northern Gaza and the assault on Beit Hanoun | Adopted 32 for, 8 against, 6 abstentions Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: France, Guatemala, Japan, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine | (A/HRC)Resolution S-3/1 |
Israel | November 10, 2006 | Decision to hold a special session on November 15 | Request of 24 states | |
Israel | August 11, 2006 | Resolution on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations | Adopted 27 for, 11 against, 8 abstentions Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Switzerland | (A/HRC)Resolution S-2/1 |
Israel | August 7, 2006 | Decision to hold a special session on August 11 | Request of 23 states | |
Israel | July 6, 2006 | Resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory | Adopted 29 for, 11 against, 5 abstentions Abstaining: Cameroon, Mexico, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Switzerland Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | (A/HRC)Resolution S-1/Res.1 |
Israel | June 30, 2006 | Decision to hold a special session on July 5-6 | Request of 21 states | |
Israel | June 30, 2006 | Decision on the Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories | Adopted 29 for, 12 against, 5 abstentions Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: Cameroon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Republic of Korea | (A/HRC)Decision 2006/106 |
Sudan | March 30, 2007 | Resolution on Follow-up to Decision S-4/101 | Adopted without a vote | (A/HRC)Resolution 4/8 |
Sudan | December 13, 2006 | Decision on the Situation of human rights in Darfur | Adopted without a vote | (A/HRC)Decision S-4/101 |
Sudan | November 30, 2006 | Decision to hold a special session | Request of 33 states | |
Sudan | November 28, 2006 | Decision on Darfur | Adopted 25 for, 11 against, 10 abstentions Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: Argentina, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Japan, Mauritius, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia | (A/HRC)Decision 2/115 |
Myanmar | September 28, 2007 | Decision to hold a special session | Request of 17 states |
UN Human Rights Council Reaches New Low
Another two anti-Israel resolutions: Adopted
Resolutions criticizing any other state: 0
New Total: 74% of all the country-specific criticism made by the "Human Rights" Council has been directed at Israel
UN Human Rights Council Reaches New Low Editor's Note
Iran's Friendly Audience Article
September 27, 2007
September 26, 2007
Saffron Rebellion Article
How UNRWA Supports Hamas Article
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Anne Bayefsky
The global platform which will be handed today to President Ahmadinejad by the United Nations is not as shocking as first meets the eye. The U.N. and the poster boy for state sponsors of terrorism have a long and cozy relationship - and one that threatens civilization as we know it.
Take, for example, the Iranian president's single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons. Over three years ago, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to have violated its Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty obligations. Ever since, the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, an Egyptian, has assigned himself the role of running interference for Iran. He first focused on keeping Iran off the agenda of the Security Council, a delay tactic that worked for a few precious years. When the matter finally got to the Council, ElBaradei railed against sanctions.
In January 2007 ElBaradei suggested a "time-out" on the "application of sanctions." In July 2007 he concocted a deal between the IAEA and Iran "on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues" - double-talk for keeping the development of another Islamic bomb within the family. Two weeks ago he again called for a "time-out" and a cessation of sanctions, breathing whole new meaning into the bored diplomatic concern that the U.N. might "talk us to death."
Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki called on conference-goers to "modify" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the "Islamic world" wasn't present when it was drafted. Ms. Arbour, at pains not to offend her hosts, called for the promotion of "Universal human rights ... in a contextually sensitive way" since "Universality need not be considered in an inflexible and rigid manner."
Needless to say, her Iranian hosts were thrilled with her visit and the very next day felt sufficiently empowered to give the world a display of the human rights "context" in Tehran - by executing 21 people, many publicly and stringing their bodies up for display. Under the flexible legal code in Iran, people are executed for charges like "enmity against God" or "being corrupt on earth."
A week prior to Ms. Arbour's visit, the U.N. handed Iran a leadership role on the planning committee of the next global U.N. anti-racism conference - Durban II - notwithstanding that its president has called extermination of six million Jews during World War II "a myth."
And this isn't the only U.N. leadership role given Iran. Nuclear proliferator Iran is the vice-chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Treaty violator Iran is a member of the U.N.'s Wider Appreciation of International Law Advisory Committee.
The U.N. also has gone to extraordinary lengths to fete Iranians - like handing Iranian Massoumeh Ebtekar the 2006 Champion of the Earth award for her "creativity, vision and leadership, and the potential of her work and ideas for replication across the globe." Among her creative acts, "Screaming Mary" - as she was dubbed by the world's press - performed as the spokesperson for the Iranian terrorists that took 66 Americans hostage in 1979.
Over the years, the U.N.'s courtship with Iran has had other odious consequences. In 2002 the U.N. Human Rights Commission terminated the post of U.N. investigator into human rights abuses in Iran. Outnumbered and outmaneuvered, Western democracies have never attempted to reinstate it.
In July and August of 2006 Iranian-backed Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets at the Israeli civilian population, and in the midst of the war on August 3 Mr. Ahmadinejad openly declared: "The main solution is the elimination of the Zionist regime."
Only four weeks after attempting genocide and the destruction of a U.N. member state, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan flew to Tehran of his own volition, shook hands with Mr. Ahmadinejad, and proclaimed: "The international community should count on Iran, not isolate it."
One of the more bizarre annual U.N. spectacles is the Iranian U.N. Ambassador piloting through the General Assembly a resolution on "human rights and cultural diversity." Nobody mentions that cultural diversity in Iran includes stoning people to death for adultery by first burying them waist deep - a legal punishment inflicted as recently as July 13, 2007.
This is what the U.N. of the 21st century does for terrorists, dictators, and despots. Mr. Ahmadinejad will wrap himself in a U.N.-provided human rights flag, and proceed to talk about peace, truth, justice, and freedom. The veneer of human rights will confuse many about the evil that lurks within.
Though dangerous gibberish from beginning to end, his words will be translated into five languages, broadcast on the U.N. Web site around the world and archived for permanent consultation. And the power of peace, truth, justice, and freedom will be all that much weaker as real impediments to his barbarism are nowhere in sight.
This article was first published in the New York Sun.
The global platform which will be handed today to President Ahmadinejad by the United Nations is not as shocking as first meets the eye. The U.N. and the poster boy for state sponsors of terrorism have a long and cozy relationship - and one that threatens civilization as we know it.
Take, for example, the Iranian president's single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons. Over three years ago, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to have violated its Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty obligations. Ever since, the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, an Egyptian, has assigned himself the role of running interference for Iran. He first focused on keeping Iran off the agenda of the Security Council, a delay tactic that worked for a few precious years. When the matter finally got to the Council, ElBaradei railed against sanctions.
In January 2007 ElBaradei suggested a "time-out" on the "application of sanctions." In July 2007 he concocted a deal between the IAEA and Iran "on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues" - double-talk for keeping the development of another Islamic bomb within the family. Two weeks ago he again called for a "time-out" and a cessation of sanctions, breathing whole new meaning into the bored diplomatic concern that the U.N. might "talk us to death."
United Nations Fails... Editor's Note
Cash for Cambodians Article
September 24, 2007
The tyrant's friend Article