The UNHRC is apparently set to consider resolutions relating to the "organ theft" charges recently leveled against Israel, upon the submission of a Libyan NGO. Now, obviously, simply making spurious accusations against Israel isn't grounds for contesting the accredition of an NGO body -- that treatment is reserved for Jews who don't display the proper degree of reverence towards a body that views them with the respect of a spit bucket. Likewise, the High Commissioner on human rights cannot be expected to review or screen the language of such NGO submissions -- that practice, too, seems restricted to Jewey-Jew organizations with their offensive Jew language.
But I keep on hoping -- maybe this will be the "contradiction-closing case". A phrase coined by Derrick Bell, it refers to a case by a generally prejudicial body that goes in favor of the party it spends most of its time subjugating, normally because the case is such an outrageous departure from generally norms of equity that even the subjugaters can't help but notice it. The decision is proof that the body is fair, the system is just, and that it rules "merely according to law" and facts. The credibility gained by the case then can be drawn upon as it goes back to its standard operating procedures of maintaining an oppressive sphere.
It won't be, though. Despite the UNHRC's demonstrated track record of being a one-track Israel-bashing machine, whose concern for human rights is 8,522 square miles wide and an inch deep, there has been little substantive pressure on them to modulate their stance even a teeny bit. I'm genuinely curious if there has ever been an anti-Israel resolution forwarded to the council that they've voted down. I doubt it. Maybe this will be the first. I doubt that too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
David,
I could not agree more.
Left out of your discussion although, perhaps, implied, is that the the US voice on the Human Rights Council which ought to be acting to stop the sort of abuse that is occurring.
One has to think, given the approach of the Obama administration, that their presence on the the Council is not to reform it but merely to advance US relations with Israel's enemies.
The US votes against all these ridiculous resolutions. It just has but one vote. Moreover, we're starting at a disadvantage: countries like Libya and Cuba have made directing the human rights bodies of the UN their top foreign policy priority, whereas the US has, until recently, mostly ceded the field. We're starting in a massive deficit, which the Obama administration is only just now working to climb out of (that's why we joined the UNHRC in the first place -- to try and build up the institutional credibility to challenge its abusive practices. But it was never going to happen overnight).
David,
Your interpretation of US activity would mean something if, in fact, the US was making any changes on the Council. So far, its presence has not resulted in any change. And, by being on the Council, there is the impression of the US giving its seal of approval to the Council as a whole.
Were our President a liberal, rather than an vindictive ideologue - I like Diehl's description - who is not a liberal, I would think he would make a huge stink. Instead, his administration worries about apartments in Jerusalem in a neighborhood that will never be ceded by the Israelis anyway. So, I would add the word "narrow minded" to my collection of Obama attributes. He has his mind narrowly focused on matters of no importance while ignoring places where human rights are under real attack - i.e. on the countries which sponsor most of the Council resolutions.
Ah, Green Laterninsm strikes again. Forget the fact that the US is only one vote on a council dominated by the NAM bloc. If only Obama displayed sufficient Will of America, we could accomplish whatever we wanted, instantaneously!
David,
If the US is only one vote, why be on the Council?
I think that yours is a naive view. His reason for being on the Council is to show solidarity with the Arabs. While he shall not allow a vote to condemn a Western country, his administration's support of it shows that he does not care about the substance of what the Council does.
That's sophomoric. Why participate in any body where we can't assure the outcome by our mere presence? That's the mentality that has let these counterbalancing coalitions build themselves up unchallenged by the US in the first place. We're never going to get anywhere in multilateral institutions so long as American participation is governed by whiners who are perpetually threatening to take their ball and go home.
I think yours is a paranoid view; one that isn't backed up by any logical analysis, just some backhanded psychoanalyzing paired with unwarranted priors about Obama's supposed fealty to anti-American regimes.
David,
You misinterpret my view.
My view is that an organization as corrupt as the Human Rights Council requires reform, if not dismantlement. I might recommend a good book about the UN. The author, Pedro Sanjuan, was a member of the Reagan administration assigned to the UN. The book is entitled The UN Gang: A Memoir of Incompetence, Corruption, Espionage, Anti-Semitism and Islamic Extremism at the UN Secretariat. It is really an eye-opener of a book about the politics and petty hatreds - most particularly, the widespread Antisemitism (and not just from Middle Easterners) in the UN.
From the book review in the above link:
Expressions of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism occur regularly within the halls of the United Nations Secretariat in New York. According to Sanjaun, whose first encounter with Soviet Undersecretary-General Viacheslav Ustinov began with a question: "So your father was Jew, yes?" Through rumors and word of mouth, it had reached all levels of the UN that the new American "spy" was Jewish, and should be regarded as a hostile threat. Though he isn't Jewish, Sanjuan found himself in the position of defending himself against anti-Semitic remarks in encounters with other UN diplomats.
The book was endorsed by the ADL as well.
My view is that the US is in the UN for a purpose, not to sit by smiling while bigots behave like bigots. I do not expect that we shall win votes. I do expect, however, that we shall attempt to improve things. However, as with all foreign policy things pushed by the Obama administration, things do not improve; they get worse.
So, I am not being sophomoric. I do, however, expect that there is a purpose to hanging out with bigots. The alternative is to work to eliminate the Council and to undermine the effort of the UN to turn human rights into politics. Again: where is Obama on this? I know: he's fighting with Israel over apartments in a neighborhood that is surrounded on all sides by a long-standing Jewish neighborhood. And, evidently, you are with him in this idiocy.
My view of the UNHRC, as you can gather by reading the posts with the relevant tag, is one of complete, utter contempt. I think it is a genuine force for evil in the world, and I am skeptical that the US can do much to fix that, particularly over the short-term. Nonetheless, the only way we can even lay the groundwork for future changes is to build up the credibility so that folks will listen to us when we provide an alternative. We tried simply ceding the field, and that's what gave us horrific bodies like the UNHRC.
David,
Has it occurred to you that the structure of the UN makes the sort of reform from within impossible?
Yes. I oscillate between saying "fuck it", and recognizing the value of damage control.
Post a Comment