Human rights and hypocrisy

[Argus]

Last month the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Israel for shelling Palestine and abusing their rights. It failed to mention any reason or provocaton for such shelling, in what has become typical of the UN's double-standard hypocrisy on human rights.

Yesterday, the General Assembly voted not to condemn Uzbekistan's brutal Stalinist regime for its barbaric violations of human rights. In what is surely a supreme irony for the UN - a body given to repeated, unconscious irony, otherwise known as hypocrisy, the argument against censuring Uzbekistan was that singling out specific nations for criticism of their human rights record is unhelpful and does not lead to change.

Naturally, those voting not to criticise Uzbekistan included Islamic nations, and the likes of China, Russia, Cuba, and other murderous human rights violating regimes.

Every year the UN votes on a couple of dozen anti-Israel resolutions. They're basically the same resolutions, repeated year after year, usually coming in batches, one-sidedly condemning Israel for its human rights violations. They serve no purpose except to provide propaganda ammo which they and their sympathisers use when they say "Israel is ignoring no less then six zillion UN resolutions!" or something similar. But can they find time to condemn Darfur? Oh no, because Sudan is an Islamic country and the Islamic countries won't allow condemnation of an Islamic country while other nations who want oil are silent or shrug their shoulders.

And speaking of human rights hypocrites - how hypocritical is it that all the lefties in Canada are whining about Harper criticising China's human rights record by whining about how it might cost trade and money. The CBC is endlessly interviewing reproachful businessmen, and the head of a CEO organization while even the NDP seems far more interested in critising Harper than concerning itself with human rights violations. Mind you, the NDP has rarely concerned itself with human rights violations in communist countries, only in those who are western aligned.

We take you now to a parallel universe, where Stephan Harper went to Vietnam, roundlly praised China, and spoke of the need for more trade, glossing over their human rights record. Now the CBC is carrying endless interviews with human rights campaigners, and the Liberals and NDP talking heads are indignantly claiming that the Tories are the party of Bay Street, and only care about money.

[Black Dog]

And speaking of human rights hypocrites - how hypocritical is it that all the lefties in Canada are whining about Harper criticising China's human rights record by whining about how it might cost trade and money. The CBC is endlessly interviewing reproachful businessmen, and the head of a CEO organization while even the NDP seems far more interested in critising Harper than concerning itself with human rights violations. Mind you, the NDP has rarely concerned itself with human rights violations in communist countries, only in those who are western aligned.

Cite? The NDP has been considerably more outspoken about China's human rights record than even the Tories.

NDP calls on Harper to take action on alleged human rights violations by Chinese government

Government must send urgent diplomatic delegation to China to save Celil’s life says Marston

Libby Davis was interviewed on the National last night and praised Harper's stance. So what are you basing this on? Or is your NDPDS flaring up?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

how hypocritical is it that all the lefties in Canada are whining about Harper criticising China's human rights record by whining about how it might cost trade and money

I agree, it is so hypocritical that it doesn't make sense. It is the 'right' that worries business could be lost, human rights be damned. I for one am happy that Harper had the guts to stand up and call China out on their human rights record.

and the Liberals and NDP talking heads are indignantly claiming that the Tories are the party of Bay Street, and only care about money.

That is what opposition parties do, muckrake, and why I think politics in general is such a cesspool, on all fronts.

[Argus]

And speaking of human rights hypocrites - how hypocritical is it that all the lefties in Canada are whining about Harper criticising China's human rights record by whining about how it might cost trade and money. The CBC is endlessly interviewing reproachful businessmen, and the head of a CEO organization while even the NDP seems far more interested in critising Harper than concerning itself with human rights violations. Mind you, the NDP has rarely concerned itself with human rights violations in communist countries, only in those who are western aligned.

Cite? The NDP has been considerably more outspoken about China's human rights record than even the Tories.

NDP calls on Harper to take action on alleged human rights violations by Chinese government

Government must send urgent diplomatic delegation to China to save Celil’s life says Marston

Libby Davis was interviewed on the National last night and praised Harper's stance. So what are you basing this on? Or is your NDPDS flaring up?

I've seen nothing from the NDP on this except for an interview with Jack Layton. I can assure you he had nothing good to say about Harper and China. He complained that he was "amateurish" that he was just trying to appeal to the domestic vote, and (echoing the Liberals) quiet diplomacy was the way to go, as opposed to making the Chinese lose face by publicly attacking them. Oddly, the quotes you cite above are from an NDP page, an NDP MP demanding the Tories criticise the Chinese more openly.

[jbg]

Naturally, those voting not to criticise Uzbekistan included Islamic nations, and the likes of China, Russia, Cuba, and other murderous human rights violating regimes.

You've just touched on the realproblem with multilateral organizations and treaties. They "bind" the civilized world. Countries such as Uzbekistan, China, Russia, Cuba, or Saudi Arabia couldn't care less about condemnation in some piece of paper emanating out of New York, whether resolution or news article. Civilized countries take such pieces of paper somewhat seriously.

That is why the UN, despite initially noble intentions, is a very bad idea.

[Black Dog]

I've seen nothing from the NDP on this except for an interview with Jack Layton. I can assure you he had nothing good to say about Harper and China. He complained that he was "amateurish" that he was just trying to appeal to the domestic vote, and (echoing the Liberals) quiet diplomacy was the way to go, as opposed to making the Chinese lose face by publicly attacking them.

Then surely you can come up with a citation, hmmm? Because I googled a number of terms, including "jack layton+quiet diplomacy+china", and came up empty.

Oddly, the quotes you cite above are from an NDP page, an NDP MP demanding the Tories criticise the Chinese more openly

Not odd at all given that has been the NDP's position. So far you've presented bupkis to show any change in that position.

[Higgly]

Last month the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Israel for shelling Palestine and abusing their rights. It failed to mention any reason or provocaton for such shelling, in what has become typical of the UN's double-standard hypocrisy on human rights.

Hmmm...

What came first, the Palestinian rockets, or the Israeli helicopters?

Seems to me that every time there has been a cease-fire, we have seen a lull in Palestinian violence, and a business-as-usual continuation of Israeli murder and mayhem. In fact this goes back to the start of the 2nd Intifada.

Could it be that the Israelis are counting on the American propaganda machine to get them out of trouble?

I breathlessly await the latest news from Anderson Cooper in his Atlanta condo

[Canadian Blue]

I've been impressed with the NDP thus far, they are actually offering constructive opposition instead of the constant screaming of "bloody murder" that the Liberal's have adopted.

[myata]

I agree that UN human rights agenda isn't very credible but for a different reason. Maybe in part, because the whole idea has been a bit premature, or too ambitious or both. Some of concepts such as e.g. political freedoms are relevant only in western societies and have little meaning in others. May be they this agenda should be limited to really fundamental and universal rights such as life, at least untill and unless there's a consensus to add other, more sophisticated rights.

[Rue]

"What came first, the Palestinian rockets, or the Israeli helicopters?"

For you to even ask the question shows your comments have no credibility. As usual you twist everything around to your hatred of Israel defending itself or existing. Its tiresome. The original post discussed China and Human Rights and the UN Record. Why is it being used by you once again to Israel bash?

Here is the point Argus and I regret the post went off on this tangent, there is a huge, collosal amount of hippocracy and double standards when it comes to discussing human rights and we all know why.

It is a fact, China is the world's worst abuser of human rights. My favourite was yesterday when it jailed someone for life for setting up a porn site on the inter-net, and I wish to be clear and state it was a soft porn site NOT a child porn site or one with violence.

The fact is MILLIONS each year are given unfair trials and used as cheap slave prison labour in China and the world is silent just as it is over Darfur, etc.

The UN is selective about Human Rights precisely because the majority of its members openly violate them but are quick to point the finger at others.

Everyone is silent on China because like Jean Chretien who went running like a pathetic sniveling groveling lacky with his patronage friends in toe, that is what people do. They snivel and grovel. Look at Tony Blair in Libya. When it comes to the almighty dollar its amazing how fast people get on their knees and suck and blow at the same time.

I will say this. The NDP and Liberals made a point of accusing Harper of being a right wing lackie of George Bush. He clearly states a policy completely different then the US policy on China, states openly China is a human rights violator and the same LIberals and NDP who are so quick to lecture the US and everyone else about human rights abuses ARE SILENT.

The NDP has zero credibility. It was quick to shit on Canadian troops in Afghanistan and say this is not the way to defend human rights and that Canada is just a U.S. lackie but when it comes to China? The Silence is deafening.

Harper does something principled and where are these human rights defenders? All they can say is oh no, you have to use a different approach.

Yah where have I heard that lecture before. Be nice with abusers. Pity them. Use a gentle approach. Approach them with your hands wedged up your butt and with saliva drooling out of your mouth. Never raise your voice. Whisper your concern. I mean come now. We are Canadians, we can't say things directly-we need to soft pedal and appease.

This appeasement is why thousands died in Rwanda and Burundi and is why so many Kurds died in Iraq,

and how terrorist organizations through-out the third world have killed their fellow third worlders but no one has said a thing about it.

It is why Iran and Libya lecture the world on human rights.

I think Harper has showed some bawls. I think it is hilarious to see the NDP and Liberals sputter and hum and haw over China. It is a joke. And this is coming from someone who is not a Conservative by any means-just willing to be fair and say-Harper has done some innovative things.

I personally think his looking Duceppe and the Liberals in the eyes and calling their bluff on this absolutely idiotic semantic debatre over Quebec nationhood was hilarious. You wanna be a nation-yah what-ever- that's nice. By being direct and using few words, they all now mut shaddup or risk the obvious.

I loved watching Duceppe try spin his way out like all the other hippocrates who select which human rights violations to harp on and which ones to ignore.

I will say this though. I do find Louise Arbour's comments the last day or so about the Palestinian conflict for the FIRST TIME, the first neutral words I have heard on the conflict. She did try hard to be balanced in her comments which is a distinct change.

However, I am disgusted with the UN and think it is morally bankrupt and I only have one word to see why I feel that way and it is DARFUR.

[jdobbin]

And speaking of human rights hypocrites - how hypocritical is it that all the lefties in Canada are whining about Harper criticising China's human rights record by whining about how it might cost trade and money. The CBC is endlessly interviewing reproachful businessmen, and the head of a CEO organization while even the NDP seems far more interested in critising Harper than concerning itself with human rights violations. Mind you, the NDP has rarely concerned itself with human rights violations in communist countries, only in those who are western aligned.

Seems like reproachful CEOs would be righties to me. You think they vote NDP?

[jdobbin]

You've just touched on the realproblem with multilateral organizations and treaties. They "bind" the civilized world. Countries such as Uzbekistan, China, Russia, Cuba, or Saudi Arabia couldn't care less about condemnation in some piece of paper emanating out of New York, whether resolution or news article. Civilized countries take such pieces of paper somewhat seriously.

That is why the UN, despite initially noble intentions, is a very bad idea.

So when is the United States pulling out of organizations like the U.N.? And why not? You'd had a right wing government for six years. Were they really lefties?

[Figleaf]

Complaining about the UN is like complaining about democracy -- The majority is always so stupid, at least when they vote against our own view.

[Rue]

Complaining about the UN is like complaining about democracy -- The majority is always so stupid, at least when they vote against our own view.

I think this is a bit more complicated then simply saying its a matter of disagreeing with the majority. The five permanent members of the Security Council, Russia, China, the U.S., France and Britain, coincidentally all are the leading military suppliers of the world. The countries that complain the most about other countries violating human rights are doing the same. The UN failed miserably in Rwanda, the Middle East and now in Darfur, because it has no authority, its allowed this majority rule as you call it, completely compromise any credibility it had. The UN required a strong leader willing to stand up to ALL nations and speak out for a world vision. It has not had one. The UN opts for the kind of person who is a technician, someone with no vision, who will simply do nothing and placate everyone and in fact avoid leading.

For the UN to have any meaning it has to take concrete actions against civil wars like Darfur.

Had the UN done what it was supposed to, it would have disarmed Hezbollah and enabled Lebanon to have free elections. If it had done what it was supposed to do, it would have sent in troops to prevent Arab terrorists, created a second nation in the West Bank and Gaza and disarmed Arab Terrorists,making the IDF

a moot point. The UN remained silent when China invaded Tibet. It did nothing when thousands were killed in Cambodia/Kampuchea. It has looked the other way when human rights violations are committed by third world leaders, especially Africans. Where is the UN with Robert Mugabe today?

On and on it goes. I think it is more then simply the majority of countries aren't doing what the US or Canada wants. Its a question of having no vision-no reason to exist-no role to play in preventing terrorism and promoting peace-allowing itself to be compromised so it just pays lip service to the environment or AIDS.

[Black Dog]

Had the UN done what it was supposed to, it would have disarmed Hezbollah and enabled Lebanon to have free elections. If it had done what it was supposed to do, it would have sent in troops to prevent Arab terrorists, created a second nation in the West Bank and Gaza and disarmed Arab Terrorists,making the IDF

a moot point. The UN remained silent when China invaded Tibet. It did nothing when thousands were killed in Cambodia/Kampuchea. It has looked the other way when human rights violations are committed by third world leaders, especially Africans. Where is the UN with Robert Mugabe today?

The UN only has as much power as its most powerful members allow it to have. Blaming the UN is easy, but it ignores the fact that its failures are our own.

[myata]

Complaining about the UN is like complaining about democracy -- The majority is always so stupid, at least when they vote against our own view.

On and on it goes. I think it is more then simply the majority of countries aren't doing what the US or Canada wants. Its a question of having no vision-no reason to exist-no role to play in preventing terrorism and promoting peace-allowing itself to be compromised so it just pays lip service to the environment or AIDS.

Or, that the agenda established by those same five dominant nations and their allies after WWII is by far too much self centered and self serving and fails to meet needs of most members. Maybe UN should be like a village meeting point - no central authority or power, all projects are created by consensus based on need and voluntary participation. I wonder, if such a UN would have made, in close to 50 years, greater progress than what we have now.

[Argus]

Complaining about the UN is like complaining about democracy -- The majority is always so stupid, at least when they vote against our own view.

On and on it goes. I think it is more then simply the majority of countries aren't doing what the US or Canada wants. Its a question of having no vision-no reason to exist-no role to play in preventing terrorism and promoting peace-allowing itself to be compromised so it just pays lip service to the environment or AIDS.

Or, that the agenda established by those same five dominant nations and their allies after WWII is by far too much self centered and self serving and fails to meet needs of most members.

You mean, like, how the dominant nations wanted to cite Sudan for genocide and attrocities in Darfur yesterday and the "membership" mainly consisting of murderous dictatorships decided not to?

So far the UN's "Human Rights Commision" has refused to cite ANY nation for human rights violations except Israel, which it has cited three times so far.

Maybe UN should be like a village meeting point - no central authority or power, all projects are created by consensus based on need and voluntary participation. I wonder, if such a UN would have made, in close to 50 years, greater progress than what we have now.

You wouldn't be wondering it aloud as you'd be in prison or excuted for questioning government policy by now.

[myata]

A side by side comparison with bodycounts from botched democratic experiments (Vietnam; death squadrons in Central America; Iran's shah; Chile; and recently, Iraq) may not be a favourite one; even that is not the point. The point is, it would do a lot of good to our (i.e, "West") credibility in the world to drop the moral superiority complex and the desire to teach and guide all and everyone (on which we, sadly, cannot deliver anyways) and let the other people live the way they used, desire and able to. We can then focus our efforts on solving problems one at a time and on consensus. Just think of savings (in life and resources) such a policy would yield, in just few instances like Vietnam, Iraq and possibly (and quite likely) 9/11.

[gerryhatrick]

If the UN is irrelavent then why does everyone make such a fuss over it?

All this BS about the UN being irrelavent from neo-con types reminds me of a child telling their parents they don't need them.

[geoffrey]

All this BS about the UN being irrelavent from neo-con types reminds me of a child telling their parents they don't need them.

What has the UN done for you lately?

In reality there is a few success stories from the UN, but really, law without teeth isn't really anything but rhetoric. The UN refuses to act with force (well, it has no forces to act with) to enforce it's laws. So really it's a hodgepodge of rulings that are enforced selectively by independant organizations.

I don't think it's irrelevant, but if it's not more willing to use force to enforce the decisions it makes, it's rather useless in it's original objective. What of Sudan? Rwanda? The UN has failed.

It's little niche agencies like UNICEF and to some extent the WHO do some good, but no more than other agencies, NGO's that is.

[Black Dog]

I don't think it's irrelevant, but if it's not more willing to use force to enforce the decisions it makes, it's rather useless in it's original objective. What of Sudan? Rwanda? The UN has failed.

Asking where the UN was/is is missing the whole point of the organization, which is really just an umbrellla under which nations gather. It's up to the member states to contribute and, as the example sof Rwanada and Sudan show, when the membership refuses to act, then the UN is powerless. Certainly it has it's failings, but the principles upon which it was founded, I think, are still needed today.

[Remiel]

Instead of blaming the UN, maybe people should start blaming the Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. They're the ones holding the leash on the " paper tiger " .

[myata]

That's right, I wonder if it'd do good to simply disband the UNSC structure (which, as was rightfully pointed out hasn't been very successful anyways - I mean when there's a need to act there's no will, and when there's a will(ing), they wouldn't bother about getting formal permission anyways). All projects will then be done on ad hoc and consensus basis.

[jbg]

Instead of blaming the UN, maybe people should start blaming the Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. They're the ones holding the leash on the " paper tiger " .

Do you seriously think that anyone with money (even the despotic leaders of these postage stamp countries) is going to fund an organization of the type the UN has evolved into, a coalition of febrile, insane, deranged and/or kleptocratic dictators? Anyone who thinks so is positively dreaming.

[Remiel]

Perhaps other countries would be more willing to pay some of the costs if they were not forever subjected to the Five Tyrants.