The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.
"All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action." -Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, 12 March 2007, Opening of the 4th Human Rights Council SessionApparently, the UN has decided that the topic of human rights is important. Sadly, this is as good as it gets.
Here's a closer, cursory look at the 47 wonderful and humane State members of this "Human Rights Council."
The Worst Offenders
Sierra Leone, a country who went through a horrific civil war from 1991 to 2002, leaving 50,000 dead, over one million displaced, using large quantities of child soldiers. The Revolutionary United Front committed horrendous abuses, including rapes, limb amputation, and more. In 1999, the UN brokered a peace deal, but even that came under serious scrutiny because it gave amnesty to the rebel forces for their grotesque human rights violations.
Congo, another member of the HR Council, went through a civil war as well. More than 5-6 million people died since the civil war began in 1998 (nearly half the dead younger than 5 years old). If that weren't bad enough, UN peacekeepers themselves weren't interested in doing the job their name implied. Three years ago, there were mass rapes taking place in Congo just up the road from those "peacekeepers." Nothing was done. Why didn't that qualify as violations of human rights? We'll discuss that later. Another good question: Why is this extremely guilty country on the UN Human Rights Council? Sorry. I can't help you with that one.
Uganda, another of the 47 members, is the home of the Lord's Resistance Army and the infamous Joseph Kony. The LRA's "ranks are filled with boys who have been brainwashed to burn down huts and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars, as if they were grinding grain" (according to Jeffrey Gettleman, The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars, New York Times, 29 April 2007). How pleasantly appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council.
In the Ivory Coast, yet another member, the 2010 presidential election led to the 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis and the Second Ivorian Civil War. International organizations reported numerous human rights violations on both sides. In the first civil war, in 2002, child soldiers were used, often forcibly, by both sides.
Libya, a vacation destination in Northern Africa, saw such terrible human rights violations that their rights as a member of the UN Human Rights Council were suspended from March 2011 - November 2011. It was so bad that Libya's own UN delegation urged the UN to kick them out. Makes me wonder; if Libya's own delegation hadn't done so, the UN likely would never have done anything at all because...
Switzerland, one of our illustrious 47, has nominated Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the "Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize," for the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, to represent the Western group (election scheduled for September 27, 2013). He has publicly endorsed such infamous a**holes as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Colonel Mengistu, and other repressive rulers. Impressive, especially because we, in the West, always consider Switzerland as one of the 'good guys.' If you want to take action and oppose this election (as well you should), you can complete the form on this page. Perhaps someone will listen.
In the Philippines, children are recruited by rebel forces (MILF, ASG, NPA, acronyms explained below), but it is also reported that the government (Armed Forces of the Philippines) uses them in paramilitary units. It is known, even by the UN, that the rebel forces and the government subjects these kids to the most brutal violence, including killings, maimings, rapes, and other sexual assaults and human rights issues:
"There is a United Nations Security Council Report in 23 April 2010 that says that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF, yes, MILF), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), New People's Army (NPA), and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are among the groups around the world that recruit and use children. In the report, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) is not mentioned as a human rights violator.
In a separate corroborating report, the State Department of the United States of America also had a 2009 Human Rights Report and it has never mentioned MNLF as a violator.
On 28 October 2011, the Philippine Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo admitted that some members of the Abu Sayyaf are related to members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and even government officials."
I'm sure I could go into more detail about the 47 member States and their impressive human rights history, but that would turn this blog into a novel (as if it isn't approaching that already). There's no need. The two questions remain the same:
1) Why are the aforementioned countries members of the UN Human Rights Council?
2) Why is the UN only now looking into Syria for its human rights violations, especially when both sides (government and rebel forces) have been accused of gross, systematic, and wide-scale violations of human rights?
For as smart and clever as I am, I cannot explain or shed light into the thought processes of the UN. Perhaps they felt there were just too many offenders to have a truly humanitarian Human Rights Council. Or maybe, as I believe, they just don't give a crap and so remain intentionally blindly ignorant. As such, I'll stick to Question #2.
Why Syria? Why now?
Russia
Russia has never stopped being a communist country (though now I suppose it might qualify as pseudo-communist), and with our crazy ex-KGB Vladimir Putin in charge, he wants to become a super power again. He has gotten our attention and wants to remind us that he's a Someone we should all be worried about. We need to remember that he is no one's friend, least of all the U.S. or Israel's.
Putin has been angling for the power card for a while now. From 2000-2010 Russia sold $1.5 billion (with a "B") worth of weaponry to its ally Syria, making Damascus its 7th largest client. During the Syrian civil war, Russia threatened to veto any sanctions against the Syrian government (yes, they do have veto power) and continued to supply them with arms.
Some may argue that Russia is concerned about an Syrian overthrow further destabilizing the region which may then affect them, but it's more realistic to remember that Syria is in the heart of the Middle East and Russia has had four decades supporting the Assad regime. Further, Putin's tactics seem to be succeeding. Obama has capitulated and is letting Putin run the show. Somehow, we are supposed to trust that Russia, who has a long-term relationship with Syria and supplied them with billions of dollars in weapons, will finally force their customer to dispose of the weapons they just purchased because of the September 14, 2013 Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons.
Chemical weapons
Other countries, as mentioned above, have horrendous human rights violations (note that I only mentioned member States, not countries who have had violations but aren't currently Human Rights Council members), but they haven't been threatened with invasion and attack by the US or UN. This is because the violations in those countries were done the 'old-fashioned' way, so to speak (say, with machetes and such). The murders and attacks were not considered as brutal or cruel as those conducted by chemical weapons, which can be considered a weapon of mass destruction (though in a separate class from biological weapons, nuclear weapons, or radiological weapons).
We aren't talking about your run-of-the-mill mass murder... Chemical weapons are so brutal to the human body that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), held in 1993, made a legally binding worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, and international law has prohibited them since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23.
No. As unpopular and controversial as this may be to put in writing, I sadly believe that the crux of the matter is that the UN, European, and Arab countries feel that Africans are more tribal than organized and that, therefore, African countries are merely glorified tribes.
UN logic is that the Black Africans will continue to kill each other so there is no reason for the UN to go in and interfere unless it becomes so excessively brutal that they can literally no longer ignore it (e.g. against Liberia for the blood diamonds or Sudan, where it took the UN and International Criminal Court 16 years to step in, and immeasurable numbers of Darfuris are still suffering even today).
Though the Arabs are also of darker skin, they are viewed to be slightly more civilized than the Africans, and therefore, able to be manipulated (since that's what the UN tries to do anyway).
Israel isn't truly a reason but I wanted to address it since some might assume otherwise. Other than American news sources making the claim, there is no documentation proving that Israel actually asked for US assistance. In fact, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to Washington, emphasized that Israel was not pressuring or even recommending that the US engage militarily in Syria.
In that same article, Steinitz was quoted as saying that he has had to deal with categorically untrue statements from American outlets such as the NY Times and NBC News that Israel was encouraging action.
It's really too bad that the Human Rights Council is a joke (not surprising, though, since it is a outshoot of the UN).
It permits the very same human rights violators to be the watchdogs over other human rights violator countries, does a less-than-stellar job of watching over the countries who everyone knows is murdering and torturing its own citizens, and picks and chooses who it's going to "help" next.
It sets no bar for respectful countries to surpass (or even reach) and even allows so-called Western countries to make proposals that are laughable, at best.
Logic dictates that we wait it out and see how well the UN (or rather, Russia and the US) does with Syria. Then again, I haven't really been impressed with the UN's past track record, who they trust, or who they enlist as guardians of humanity.
Unfortunately, with this type of organization in charge, there's no reason to hope that the situation in Syria will turn out positively.
We aren't talking about your run-of-the-mill mass murder... Chemical weapons are so brutal to the human body that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), held in 1993, made a legally binding worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, and international law has prohibited them since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23.
98% of the world has signed, if not ratified, the CWC. Conveniently, Syria was one of only seven states in the world who weren't a signatory (until they were forced to several days ago), though it was a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons (but is silent about production, storage, or transfer of them-- I guess they didn't have lawyers back then).
For as far as we have come in this world, I believe that the UN and others feel, though won't admit, that Blacks are less human/humane than others. That's why there was, and still is, a delay in doing anything of significance in the African countries where human rights violations and atrocities are being committed daily. Some may claim that we only go into Arab countries because it's an oil issue, but diamonds, timber, and chocolate, all vital goods that the US and the world need/want, are all produced in Africa.
Racism
For as far as we have come in this world, I believe that the UN and others feel, though won't admit, that Blacks are less human/humane than others. That's why there was, and still is, a delay in doing anything of significance in the African countries where human rights violations and atrocities are being committed daily. Some may claim that we only go into Arab countries because it's an oil issue, but diamonds, timber, and chocolate, all vital goods that the US and the world need/want, are all produced in Africa.
No. As unpopular and controversial as this may be to put in writing, I sadly believe that the crux of the matter is that the UN, European, and Arab countries feel that Africans are more tribal than organized and that, therefore, African countries are merely glorified tribes.
UN logic is that the Black Africans will continue to kill each other so there is no reason for the UN to go in and interfere unless it becomes so excessively brutal that they can literally no longer ignore it (e.g. against Liberia for the blood diamonds or Sudan, where it took the UN and International Criminal Court 16 years to step in, and immeasurable numbers of Darfuris are still suffering even today).
Though the Arabs are also of darker skin, they are viewed to be slightly more civilized than the Africans, and therefore, able to be manipulated (since that's what the UN tries to do anyway).
Israel
Israel isn't truly a reason but I wanted to address it since some might assume otherwise. Other than American news sources making the claim, there is no documentation proving that Israel actually asked for US assistance. In fact, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to Washington, emphasized that Israel was not pressuring or even recommending that the US engage militarily in Syria.
"Israel and the United States are sovereign countries, and whether it’s with Syria or Iran, each country has the right to determine how best to act and defend itself,” Oren said. “I think it’s important to point out that Israel has a different red line than the United States.
Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu has stated that Israel’s red line is any attempt by Syria to transfer chemical or other game-changing weapons to Hezbollah. That is our red line, and we stand by it.”
-Sam Sokol, Michael Wilner; "Steinitz: Israel Didn't Ask For US Help in Syria." Jerusalem Post, 4/28/2013.Additionally, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz asserted that Israel never asked the US to take military action in Syria, "never asked and never encouraged the US to take military action." Id.
In that same article, Steinitz was quoted as saying that he has had to deal with categorically untrue statements from American outlets such as the NY Times and NBC News that Israel was encouraging action.
Conclusion
It's really too bad that the Human Rights Council is a joke (not surprising, though, since it is a outshoot of the UN).
It permits the very same human rights violators to be the watchdogs over other human rights violator countries, does a less-than-stellar job of watching over the countries who everyone knows is murdering and torturing its own citizens, and picks and chooses who it's going to "help" next.
It sets no bar for respectful countries to surpass (or even reach) and even allows so-called Western countries to make proposals that are laughable, at best.
Logic dictates that we wait it out and see how well the UN (or rather, Russia and the US) does with Syria. Then again, I haven't really been impressed with the UN's past track record, who they trust, or who they enlist as guardians of humanity.
Unfortunately, with this type of organization in charge, there's no reason to hope that the situation in Syria will turn out positively.
