From an outstanding piece of work by Hillel Neuer at UN Watch, comes coverage of the blatant hypocrisy of some of your favorite undemocratic regimes “objecting to resolutions criticizing the murderous regimes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, saying they rejected the very notion of singling out countries.”
Got that? They reject the notion of singling out countries. Clear? Crystal clear.
Then, moments later, the same horde adopt a resolution “which many of them also co-sponsored — singling out democratic Israel.”
Kazakhstan on behalf of the 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference opposed “the practice of submitting country-specific resolutions” on human rights “targeting developing countries.” This, said the dictatorship, “politicized human rights.”
Syria asserted a “principled position” that rejected “intervening in the internal affairs of any other State under the pretext of human rights.”
China “regretted” the resolution on North Korea,” as it “has always opposed imposing pressure through country-specific texts” and “interference in States’ internal affairs.”
Cuba opposed “all country-specific resolutions aimed at countries of the global South.” This, it said, was precisely the “politicization” that led to the disappearance of the old Commission on Human Rights.
Russia was “against one-sided and biased resolutions” which “did not promote resolution of human rights issues.”
Iran objected that “the proliferation of country-specific texts” breached “the principles of impartiality and non-selectivity” in addressing human rights issues. “Selective country-specific resolutions” would reduce noble human rights concerns to “manipulative devices of political rivalry.”
Venezuela opposed “individual and selective condemnation of single States.” Sponsors of the resolution on Iran had actually “violated human rights themselves,” showing “selectivity” and “double standards.” Rather, “dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation” should be the essential instrument for promotion and protection of human rights.
Nicaragua joined with Cuba in objecting to the resolutions on Iran, Syria and North Korea, and it rejected once again “the practice of selectivity on human rights.”
Ecuador rejected “the continued chorus of finger pointing at specific countries.”
Belarus said the draft resolution on Iran failed to “promote dialogue on support for human rights.” The draft resolution was “not objective,” and “ignored official sources of information” and “specific actions.”
Bolivia firmly supported the principles of “non-interference” and “sovereignty,” and therefore would vote against the resolution on Iran.
Somehow, this rhetoric went out the window when it came to Israel. I wonder why.
The UN: no honesty, no principles, no standing.
Perhaps the time has come to say to the UN, no more?
Alternatively, let’s reform the UN by giving every recognizably democratic state, full membership. And let’s give every non-democratic state its rightful place among the nations by affording it… observer status. To put it another way, let’s not give the vote to countries that don’t give the vote to their own people.
UPDATE I should also mention UN Watch’s report on the year’s activity at the UN.
This Year’s Tally: 21 U.N. Resolutions on Israel, 4 on Rest of World Combined
According to a comprehensive UN Watch study of all U.N. General Assembly draft resolutions of its current 67th session…the world body plans to adopt a total of 21 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism in one form or another and 4 resolutions for the rest of the world combined.
The four are: one on Syria, a regime that has murdered 40,000 of its own people, and one each on Iran, North Korea and Burma, whose government was largely praised in the U.N. text.
There will be no UNGA resolutions at all on China, Cuba, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela, Pakistan — and all the rest.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.