Banned UN Speech: "Human Rights Nightmare"
tags:
Stumble ThisUnited Nations Watch member speaks at the UN and exposes the monumental hypocrisies, terrible lies and moral inversions of the new and supposedly reformed UN Human Rights Council: Millions of victims and 191 countries ignored. Darfur atrocities outright denied. Self-proclaimed defenders of Palestinian rights -- Assad, Ahamadinejad, Khaddafi and UN expert John Dugard -- care only about scapegoating Israel.
Ultimately Council President Luis de Alba of Mexico responds with unprecedented announcement that he rejects the speech as "inadmissible" -- and issues a ban on any speech that similarly criticizes the council or its member states.
Ultimately Council President Luis de Alba of Mexico responds with unprecedented announcement that he rejects the speech as "inadmissible" -- and issues a ban on any speech that similarly criticizes the council or its member states.
Although they advocate a “just application of UN Charter principles,” UN Watch's preoccupation with Middle East affairs is almost exclusively focused on violations committed by Islamic extremists and anti-Semitism. Among the 13 joint letters and statements posted on its website between April 2004 and September 2006, nearly half are concerned with issues of anti-Semitism and threats to Israel. Not one mentions abuses committed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories or Lebanon.
The UN is powerless. Am afraid the unilateral actions of many nations is the result of that. How exactly do you run a Human Rights commission with dubious membership in the first place? How exactly do you have a security council of 5 members who each counter voted on another, usually the trisect of US and Russia and China.
There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.
The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.
*ducks back out of debate*
As such, this video disturbs me, as it seems to be just a singly biased view of the UNHRC's resolutions, using the President's claims of "this is inadmissible" as "this is being covered up" for people who are unlikely to actually read the actual UNHRC's resolutions(just my thoughts).
As such, if you'd like to read them yourself, go here: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/mainec.aspx and select Body: Human Rights Council, and Type: Resolution.
Like mentioned above, IANAL, so all of this is just the little bit that I am able to understand and read, so please read there and inform me if I have misinterpreted anything.
That is all I really have to say. Thank you.