President Obama’s decision to place the United Nations at the center of his foreign policy took another hit Friday as the U.N. Human Rights Council ended its latest session in Geneva. One of the president’s primary justifications for joining the notorious council shortly after he assumed office was its mandatory five-year review process; if the U.S. was a member, the administration claimed, it could influence this process. The process, which quietly unfolded in back rooms in Geneva over the past six months, has been exposed to be a total fraud, taking the administration’s cover down with it.
Starting last fall, the Obama team was a very active participant in a working group of the council that had been set up to tackle reform. At the end of February, the working group produced a document summarizing its decisions, and on Friday the council passed a resolution adopting that document by consensus — that is, without a vote. Regardless of the fact that every serious recommendation of the United States was rejected, Obama’s diplomats refused to call for a vote on the resolution so that they could vote against it.
Advertisement
They did play a little game intended to fool uninformed listeners by claiming to “dissociate” the administration from the resolution. However, since the resolution has been adopted by consensus, it will proceed unimpeded to the General Assembly, where it will be rubber-stamped. The U.S. could not have stopped the resolution, but an American vote against the measure would have been a major blow to the credibility of the Human Rights Council. It also would have set up the U.S. to leave the council as a logical consequence of the failure to reform it.
The slap in the face to President Obama is painfully clear from a short list of American demands for reform and the council’s responses.
The council has an official, permanent agenda that governs all its meetings and consists of only ten items. One of those items is reserved for condemning Israel, and another is assigned to human rights in the other 191 U.N. member states. This session, for instance, produced six resolutions condemning Israel, one resolution each on four other states, and nothing at all on the remaining 187 countries. The American delegation huffed and puffed that this obvious discrimination — which characterizes every meeting of the council — must come to an end, and proposed that the two agenda items be rolled into one. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed creating easier trigger mechanisms for convening special sessions on specific countries when serious human-rights concerns arise. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed abolishing the council’s make-work “Advisory Committee.” It is currently populated by such human-rights luminaries as former Sandinista leader and suspended priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. (Brockmann once served as president of the U.N. General Assembly and is best remembered for a series of anti-Semitic outbursts and for coming down off his podium to hug Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.) The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed making public pre-screened complaints of gross and systematic violations of human rights that are received by the council. Specific cases, which have poured into the U.N. for over half a century from poor souls around the world, have never been revealed. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed expanding the time allocated to discussions of abuses in specific countries. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed that states running for a seat on the council should engage in a public dialogue with General Assembly members on their human-rights record, as measured by specific criteria. The proposal was rejected.
The US should get out of the UN,
and the UN should get out of the US...
1) Immediately stop paying US dues to the UN.
2) Give UN one year to reform itself, or suffer consequences.
3) After 1 year of expected non-reform, US pulls out of UN, and forces it to move to new non-US location (suggestions: Darfur, Harare, Srebenica, Gaza, Antarctica).
4) Turtle Bay site razed to allow room for new apartment buildings and park for crowded New Yorkers.
I have to say that, although I am familiar with the absurdity of the HRC, I did not realize some of these specifics, like the fact that there is an agenda item focused solely on Israel. I just read up on HRC, and the anti-Semitism and utter hypocrisy is morbidly hilarious. Or at least it would be, if the UN didn't give its already suspect imprimatur to the ugliness.
Thank you for your revealing article. Sometimes reality is stranger or worse than fiction. I wrote my very first goofy satire article in April, 2009 about the U.N. Human Rights Council.
It was titled "Ward Churchill to Accept UN Appointment" in which Mr. Churchill was traded from the Univ. of Colorado to the U.N. in exchange for an Oil for Food Program official. It now seems like that silly idea would have been at least as effective, and would have had a much higher entertainment value, than what actually was done. And it probably would not have done as much harm to our international standing. At least we could later say that sending Churchill was just a joke, or a statement about the absurdity of the Council.
If you like - check out my old post from April 3, 2009. Just Google "Pundit Pete" and scroll down to the end of the older posts.
The sad thing is, we are the ones that allow this nonsense to continue by remaining in the UN.
If it wasn't for our tax dollars and our US military the UN would have collapsed long ago (or never got off the ground to begin with). We had the sense to stay out of the League of Nations, we didn't after WW2.
The same would happen if we got out of the UN. No US no UN, it would collapse pretty quickly without us. So lets get out.
I really try and find some good in the UN and I know that it is at least a place where everyone can talk and see each other. However when I read an article like this it really, really makes just want to get out and be stopped paying these useless jerks one penny of American tax dollars. I know, I know it wouldn't balance the deficit but it would feel very good! Man these people are nuts...
The problem is our progressives believe the UN is the functional government of Internationalism.
The reality the UN is merely a tool for nations to pursue their nationalist interests is beyond them.
Member state leaders are smart, crafty, experienced, ruthless and brilliant salesmen to boot articulating a message that meets their nationalist/political agenda wrapped in a cloak of feel good liberal progressivism.
You'd think the super smart, message savvy Obama/Clinton/Rice team would be bright enough to distinguish UN message from UN agenda.
The world laughs at our foolishness believing in and aspiring to their well crafted UN myth. How easy they manipulate us to achieve their goals (at our expense).
Aside from the fact that Israel is not permitted to sit on this Human Rights Council while terrorist and criminal nations are, all that the U.N. does is waste space and be destructive. Can't we just stop funding it and move it to Iran or somewhere else?
I just finished Donesh D'Souza's book, The Roots of Obama's Rage and I understand more then I used to about Obama's motivations. Obama's using the U.N. instead of U.S. sovereignty fits neatly within what D'Souza describes. I encourage all to read this book.
So, if somebody disagrees with you, you shouldn't talk to them anymore, right? Y'all remind me of kids who stomp their feet, grab their toys, and take them home.
I can't believe our Ivy League president wasn't able to produce a better showing. That's it iPods with more Obama speeches to the UN pronto. Didn't they see the Cairo speech? Masterful, the smartest guy ever to hold office...
