Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘flaunting UN human rights Charter

Frequently, you have this revolting impression that the United Nations is not consistent and loyal to its Charters and conventions; you feel there is this dealing of two measures two weights against States that refuse to go along with unjust deals and not equitable consensus. You feel that the UN is but a symbol and a repository of resolutions that have been quickly shelved under pressures from the veto power “rights” of the five superpowers agreed on in 1946, when the UN included only 58 independent States.

The Charters for human rights were voted on in 1946.  Most States had no intentions of conforming to most of the articles in the Charters, but they signed on just to be among the victor States in the historical joint pictures.  Currently, the UN comprises 192 States and the conventions have accumulated and the Commission  was replaced in 2006 by the Council for human rights and headed by judge Mohammad Bedjaoul.  For example, the Goldstone’s report on crimes against humanity committed by Israel in Gaza in 2008, and the investigation of crimes in Guinea (Africa) in 2009 were commissioned by the UN Council.  There is also a Committee where individuals and groups can depose complaints and then, the Committee formulate recommendations, but the states are not obligated to conform or comply.

The International Penal Court was instituted in 2002 with competence of judging international crimes against humanity.  Its Attorney General Luis Moreno-Ocampo is studying the Goldstone report (that the US sided with Israel to denouncing the report!), the report on the State of Guinea, and the investigations into Darfur (Sudan).  The International Penal Court has already handled the criminals of ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

There have been many conventions related to armed conflicts, genocide, torture, cluster bombs, land mines… Ironically, the US steadily refused to sign on to these conventions.  Thus, since members who did not sign on to a treaty cannot be prosecuted or investigated or controlled then, only the good member States are punished when the superpower States decide to dust off shelved resolutions.  The UN has established measuring sticks to accounting for the effectiveness of its various programs such as in human development (HDIndex), eradicating famine in 2015, assuring primary education, promoting equality between genders, reducing infantile mortality, improving health for mothers, combating common tropical diseases, preserving biodiversity, and investing in renewable energy resources, monitoring environmental degradation, and deforestation…

The UN had to be reminded of its responsibilities and obligations by civil mass protests in England concerning the case of the Chilean ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet and the mandated arrests of Israel Tzipi Livni and other Israeli leaders relevant to their roles in crimes against humanity in Gaza.  For the time being, international relations prime over violations on human rights.  For example, England and Belgium have rescinded and retracted their laws on apprehending State criminals.

The UN had been hijacked by the superpowers in selecting what States should be categorized as “rogue States and rogue organizations”.   During the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, the US protected rogue States such as Tito of Yugoslavia, apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (current Zimbabwe), Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Shah of Iran, Saddam of Iraq, Sudan, Morocco…  The Soviet Union protected Albania, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Egypt, Algeria…

The current rogue States are mostly the same with different political dictators, oligarchies, and theocracies.  For example, why Islamic Iran, Venezuela of Chavez, North Korea, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza (Palestine) are targeted as rogue States while Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Putin of Russia, George W. Bush, Blair of England, and Burlosconi in Italy are to be safe from concerted maligning?

Why western States that bring up fresh political attacks at immigrants and minorities at every election campaign should not be reprimanded by the UN and allowing millions to cowing and suffering psychologically and physically?

Question: “If the superpowers with established institutions and financial means are flaunting basic human rights (such as torturing, using cluster bombs, land mines, chemical products, waging preemptive wars…) then, how can we expect weaker and unstable political States to complying with the UN Charter?  Shouldn’t the UN target first the big offender to give an example and be a catalyst for the smaller nations to outdo the larger States in compliance?”

Note: The UN is composed of 192 States and its overall personnel for all its many institutions is 85,000 employees (double the police force of the city of New York).  The General Secretary employs 40,000 and divided as follows:  Peace operations (excluding the Blue Helmets task force) are taken in charge by 22,000; those posted in key cities such as New York, Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi about 12,000; working in regional commissions about 2,600, and those recruited by the International Penal Court about 2,000 salaried.  The budget for 2009 was 2,5 billion (lower than any medium-size city in the US).  Most of the superpower States are frequently late for years in paying their dues (the US has yet to pay up its dues of 250 million).  The Blue Helmets task force keeping the peace in 15 operations (in Cyprus, Lebanon, Western Sahara, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Chad, Haiti, East Timor, Liberia, Sudan, Afghanistan…) numbers 100,000; half the task force is recruited from only six countries (Bangladesh,Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Egypt, and Nepal (mostly English speaking countries and poor).




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,125 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: