The title of my post was a fatuous, smarmy expression during its heyday in the 1960s. With the UN “peacekeepers,” though, it’s taken on a whole, horrible new meaning:
Sexual abuse of children as young as six by aid workers and United Nations peacekeepers has continued unchecked despite repeated promises to stamp it out, according to a 12-month investigation.
More than half of the children interviewed in three countries, Ivory Coast, South Sudan and Haiti, knew of cases of forced sex with aid staff or peacekeepers.
The assaults were often in return for the very food or protection supposed to be provided to the vulnerable in a crisis.
Similar allegations have dogged UN missions since the organisation sent peacekeepers to Cambodia in the 1990s. However, today’s report, from Save The Children, is the first to point the finger at civilian aid staff, including those working for British charities, as well as soldiers.
[snip]
Elizabeth’s case [gang raped by 10 UN workers when she was 12] is not unique among the 341 children interviewed.
A third claimed that they knew of someone in their community who had been sexually attacked by a peacekeeper or an aid worker.
More than half claimed to know of cases where penniless children, some as young as six, were forced into sexual acts in return for money or food.
If you’re interested in more information about where UN dollars get spent, read the rest here.
Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous,” it said.
The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.’s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.
Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts “are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism.”
But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism — and especially lampooning — of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.
The IHEU statement and Ligabo’s report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against “defamation of religions.”
You can read the rest — which, surprisingly, emanates from al Reuters — here.
I’ll say again what I’ve said before: a religion that is frightened of the marketplace of ideas (that would be Islam) is a religion whose loudest adherents know that it has so many conceptual, theological and practical problems that it cannot compete in that marketplace. And if you can’t compete, and if you’re a totalitarian fanatic, you kill the marketplace.
The mainstream media turned a deaf ear to Canada’s conservative government as they withdrew support for a United Nations led anti-racism conferenceon charges that the conference itself is a “a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry”. One Canadian official called the U.N. Durban II conference a “gong show” as Ottawa withdrew all support in protest of the escalating rhetoric against Israel. This of course comes as no surprise considering that the United Nations, in all its limited wisdom, elected Libya to chair the conference, Cuba as the vice chair and named Iran to the organizing committee. (h/t Girl on the Right)
The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.
“Canada is interested in combatting racism, not promoting it,” Mr. Kenney told The Canadian Press. “We’ll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance.
“Our considered judgment, having participated in the preparatory meetings, was that we were set for a replay of Durban I. And Canada has no intention of lending its good name and resources to such a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry.”
Not one mainstream media newspaper outlet bothered to cover Canada’s walk out with any in depth analysis despite this being an election year where foreign policy in the Middle East, the politics of race and racism and the war against radical Islam are key issues. Instead most outlets deferred to the brief feeds of the AP, Reuters and the AFP to provide scant mention. The New York Times managed to miss the story altogether; feed or otherwise.
Notable events that escaped the scrutiny of the majority of the selectively scrutinizing members of the news media:
The next two key preparatory meetings have been scheduled on the Jewish holidays of Passover and Yom Kippur. This is a deliberate move by organizers to prevent Israeli officials from participating.
Iran has been named to the organizing committee despite statements from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel.
The U.N. Human Rights Council was created to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights yet 14 of it’s 15 resolutions charging human-rights violations were against Israel according to statements by Canada.
The United Nations held its first World Conference Against Racism in Durban way back in 2001. That conference was marred by anti-Semitic bigotry that eventually led the United States Israel to walk out of the conference. Some non-governmental organizations had been reported to have posted pro-Hitler posters yet each of the non-governmental organizations that were invited to the 2001 conference have been invited back to Durban II.
The most complete accounting I could find came from the Canadian Press as found in the Globe and Mail.
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban turned into “a circus of intolerance,” Mr. Kenney said.
One government official on Wednesday called the conference “a gong show.”
Arab and Muslim countries ganged up in their criticisms of Israel. Israel and the United States walked out in protest; the Liberal government of the day remained in an effort to decry the attacks.
With Libya elected to chair the next gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair and rapporteur, and anti-Israel rhetoric and actions building, Mr. Kenney said his government was left with no choice but to abandon the preparatory process for the followup meeting.
B’nai Brith Canada applauded the government, saying Durban I “degenerated into a hate-fest directed at Israel and the Jewish delegates attending the conference.”
The group’s executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, said Ottawa has acted “clearly and decisively by refusing to participate in a venue that pays lip service to anti-racism but in fact provides a platform for the promotion of hatred and bigotry.”
Mr. Kenney noted important preparatory meetings have been called on Jewish high holidays, preventing Israeli officials from participating.
The UN gave planning oversight for the conference to its Human Rights Council, which has targeted Israel in 14 of its 15 resolutions charging human-rights violations in its first two years of existence.
“We’ve tried to influence it so that we would not revisit the overt expressions of hatred which came out of the original conference,” said Mr. Kenney. “But we unfortunately ran into a brick wall.
“The process has been hijacked by those who would seek to replay the terrible experience of the first Durban conference.”
Iran was named to the organizing committee, Mr. Kenney noted.
“This is a country whose government has publicly expressed its desire to eliminate the only Jewish country in the world,” he said.
Furthermore, all of the non-governmental organizations invited to the first conference have been invited back to the second, including those that were at the “forefront of the hatred,” some of which posted pro-Hitler posters at the 2001 gathering.
The statements by the Canadian government are damning indeed. They come at a time when liberal Democrats are calling for U.S. law to be diluted by international standards. These standards would no doubt be influenced by the same world wide bodies that allow human rights abusers and state sponsors of racism and terrorism to prop up their anti-Semitic views with the legitimacy of world governments behind them. That news is as important today as it should have been in the not so distant past when such actions were ignored to the detriment of millions who died to prevent this from ever happening again.
Actions tomorrow will speak louder than words today, but something interesting came out of the mouth of a UN representative — namely, the admission that the UN is focusing a disproportionate amount of its attention on condemning Israel. You don’t believe me? It’s true:
The UN Human Rights Council has failed to handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a balanced fashion, the council’s chair Doru Costea said in an interview published Saturday.
Costea suggested in the interview with the daily Le Temps that the council was concentrating too much on human rights abuses by Israel, adding that he was dissatisfied.
“On this point, the council has failed,” he said, days after US President George W. Bush attacked the body for perceived anti-Israeli bias.
“The council must remain simple, and concentrate on the human rights dimension, but it must look at the stance of all sides, not only one country.”
Costea said that the majority of the 47 seats held by Asian and African countries on the council “gives a certain power, but that does not mean that this power is always used wisely.”
It’s entirely possible that President Bush had something to do with this, since it was he who said:
This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.
Hear! Hear! And maybe, just maybe, someone in the UN heard! heard!
Despite its numerous calls for Israel’s destruction, and repeated denials of the Holocaust, Iran has been selected by the United Nations for a leading position in a committee that will plan the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism.
The planning committee, which will meet for the first time in Geneva on August 27, will be made up of an inner circle of 20 UN member-states, to be headed by Libya.
The decision to include Iran in the committee has been slammed by UN watchdogs. “As a UN spokesperson against racism, Iran will invert totally the message and mission of the United Nations,” Anne Bayefsky, senior editor of the New York-based Eye on the UN, said in a press release.
***
Bayefsky explained that the structure of the UN’s Human Rights Council has effectively been taken over by the countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), allowing Iran and Libya access to key roles.
“The states were selected by the UN Human Rights Council and the Council is controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The majority of seats on the Council are held by the African and Asian regional groups and the OIC has a majority of seats on each of these groups. Western states do not have the votes to block this outrage and it is another example of the hijacking that has occurred of the UN’s lead human rights agency,” she said.
***
According to Bayefsky, “Israel needs to point continually to the dangerous role played by the UN in undermining the welfare of the Jewish state and its people. The veil of legitimacy of the organization as a leader in human rights protection must be lifted.”
A U.N. ship carrying food for Somalians is refusing to leave a Kenyan port because of fears of piracy from terrorists:
MOGADISHU, Somalia - A ship carrying 850 tons of food to impoverished Somalis refused to leave a Kenyan port Monday because of piracy off Somalia’s lawless coast and Islamic insurgents appeared to step up attacks in the capital of Mogadishu.
The shipping agency contracted by the U.N.’s World Food Program demanded the Kenyan government provide security for travel into Somali waters. On Saturday, pirates launched a failed hijack attempt on a food program boat, killing a Somali guard.
“We need some sort of security to ply into Somali waters … because (Somali pirates) are everywhere. Now they are ashore, very far off into the sea. It is becoming too much,” said Inayet Kudrati of the Motaku Shipping Agency. The ship had been scheduled to sail Sunday.
How much more evidence is needed for people to realize that terrorists are on every front including being modern day pirates. People of free nations need to get tough and allow our governments and militaries to start aggressively dealing with this problem; especially if we in free nations want to hang onto those freedoms.
The United Nations does it again. They have placed Iran as vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission and elected Syria as its rapporteur, according to Maggie’s Notebook
Not only is the U.N. Civil Rights Council discontinuing the examination of human rights in Iran, it is forbidding any “reference” to the state of Iranian human rights “in the public debate.” In other words, in the simplest terms: Don’t you dare tell what you know. Absurd: Iran’s re-election to the post of Vice Chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. [snip]
Speaking of the British hostages, [William R.] Hawkins [FrontPageMag] says:
“…the incident has not been put into the larger context of Tehran desire to expose the weakness of UN Security Council Resolution 1747, and the supposed coalition behind it.”
[snip]
Definition of ‘rapporteur: a person responsible for compiling reports and presenting them, as to a governing body.
As I have said before, the United Nations is known for its terrorist-loving, America-hating members. Stratfor recently published a report by George Friedman dealing with ‘the nature and limits of American military power‘. Perhaps they should have included the nature and limits of American diplomacy options.
During the detention of the 15 British sailors and marines, an idea floated by many people was that the United States should impose a blockade against Iran. The argument was driven partly by a lack of other options: Neither an invasion nor an extended air campaign seemed a viable alternative. Moreover, the United States’ experience in erecting blockades is rich with decisive examples: the Cuban missile crisis, barring Germany’s ability to trade during World War II or that of the American South during the Civil War. The one unquestionable military asset the United States has is its Navy, which can impose sea-lane control anywhere in the world. Finally, Iran — which is rich in oil (all of which is exported by sea) but lacks sufficient refinery capacity of its own — relies on imported gasoline. Therefore, the argument went, imposing a naval blockade would cripple Iran’s economy and bring the leadership to the negotiating table.
I wonder what the United Nations would say about that? According to Stratfor, ‘Washington never seriously considered the option.’ How would other countries in the region take a naval blockade of the region? What is the downside to a naval blockade?
1. Iran could mount strategic counters to a blockade, either by increasing anti-U.S. operations by its Shiite allies in Iraq or by inciting Shiite communities in the Arabian Peninsula to unrest. The United States didn’t have appetite for the risk.
2. Blockades always involve the interdiction of vessels operated by third countries — countries that might not appreciate being interdicted. The potential repercussions of interdicting merchant vessels belonging to powers that did not accept the blockade was a price the United States would not pay at this time.
A blockade was not selected because it was not needed, because Iran could retaliate in other ways and because a blockade might damage countries other than Iran that the United States didn’t want to damage. (more)
What more can we do about Pakistan? Pakistani officials are corrupt, they support the taliban, according to Muhammad Khurshid, Khar, Bajaur Agency Tribal Areas Pakistan, who wonders why the United States continues to support these leaders. Mohammad reports in a letter to Peace and Freedom, that in the Peshawar and other parts of the North West Frontier Province, the taliban threaten English-language schools, warned schoolgirls to veil themselves, banned music and are telling men not to shave their beards; remove cassette players and cassettes from vehicles and destroy them, … Mohammed says, “Rulers of Pakistan have changed all the limits of hypocrisy …”, in that they claim to be a ‘front line state in the war on terrorism, but now they are reluctant to take action against taliban.’ Go read it all here.
Is the United Nations concerned about events in Pakistan? Probably not.
As you watch this amazing video, in which a UN Watch spokesman unloads on the “Human Rights” Council, keep in mind the fact that the first thing the council did when he was finished was try to erase the speech from the record. Then, remember what Winston Smith’s job was in Orwell’s 1984.
You can’t make this stuff up. After showing a graphic video of scores of bodies in trucks and in piles on the street… all charges against Saddam were dropped. Amazing.
The court’s first order of business Monday was to dismiss all charges against Saddam. His co-defendants — including his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali” — remain in the dock for allegedly killing 180,000 Kurds in the 1980s as Iraq fought a protracted war with Iran.
Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon aired graphic video during Monday’s court session of scores of bodies in trucks and in piles on the street, overlaid with a voice purported to be that of al-Majid saying, “I will hit them with chemical weapons.”
“Damn the international community if they say anything. I will strike them all with chemical weapons,” the voice continued.
Another audiotape had a voice identified as Saddam’s warning, “These weapons are only used at my orders.” He also reassured colleagues that the weapons “kill by the thousands.”
“It will force them out of their homes without water or food. It makes them evacuate their homes naked,” the voice said.
In court, Al-Majid described the video as “painful,” but said it showed the work of Iranian troops, not Iraqis. As for the audio, al-Majid did not deny the voices were his and Saddam’s.
The tapes “not only condemn me, but the whole path that I was part of — the path of Saddam Hussein,” al-Majid said. (source)
If you don’t like videos of Saddam’s victims, you can now listen to Homeland Security Radio.
Washington-area public radio station begins airing next week a weekly magazine show dedicated to homeland security.WAMU will broadcast the hour-long program, “Homeland Security: Inside and Out,” on Wednesday evenings, the station said on its Web site. (National Terror Alert)
If you prefer television you can now watch Al-Qaeda television. In the Bullpen reports, “Al Qaida has a television station and it’s being aired on a satellite owned by the Egyptian government, The Weekly Standard reports.
John Bolton will resign from his United Nations post when his term expires because Democrats, the ones who were going to do away with partisanship, blocked President Bush in his attempts to formally appoint Bolton to the post of U.N. Ambassador.
There are many reasons that Bolton failed - most of them due to the fact that he was an adamant proponent of reforming a United Nations that he viewed as being overly bureaucratic and a bit too anti-American with its agenda. He hurt peoples feelings with his “brusque style”.
All the blame can’t be placed on Democrats. Republicans failed to gather support when it came time to push him over the edge. Most notably we can thank Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, a maverick by all definitions in the MSM. Translated, Republican turncoat. He was adamantly opposed to putting someone with backbone in a position to counter anti-American elements within the U.N. Chafee is now out of a job and he just happens to be one of the front runners for Bolton’s soon to be vacated post. Democrats would love him.
Others who are possibly in line for the job include Zalmay Khalilzad who is the current U.S. ambassador to Iraq. He is a Muslim and apparently that would be a gesture of good will from the United States to the Muslim friendly United Nations. (see there is room for religion in liberal politics) Of course Iraq is probably more important to the Bush administration at the moment so we will have to wait and see.
There is no shortage of Republicans looking for a job so I am sure the list is going to get longer.
For Bolton’s part he isn’t liked by many on both sides of the aisle. But what do they expect? The United Nations is a virtual sink hole of American dollars and its track record is horrendous. They have effectively worked to sweep their own misdeeds under the rug by attacking the United States as the evil menace to the world. Should Bolton simply ignore this and play “get along” to made Democrats feel better with themselves?
Critics who solely blame Bolton for the the U.N.’s poisonous anti-American atmosphere are full of it. The U.N. was a problem long before Bolton stepped up to the plate as evidenced by its choices for human rights advocates, the oil for food scandal, charges of rape by U.N. peacekeeping forces, redundant committees, vast mismanagement of money and years of criticism that have simply been ignored. Bolton came in with the intent to change these things and he was opposed at every corner. Not because of his intent or knowledge mind you; it was his “style”.
Despite Bolton’s criticism he has made progress on many fronts including pushing through a Lebanon peace keeping force and opposing Iran and North Korea on nukes.
Bolton also opposed the newly formed Human Rights Council because it included Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, China and Russia. None of which are known to be big advocates of human rights. The Canadian Free Press hit this one right on the mark.
Bolton opposed the new Human Rights Council because he saw, beneath its attractive packaging, the farce that it really was. He turned out to be right. Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, China and Russia were elected as members. They are all ranked “not free” by Freedom House. Six of these countries will serve on the Human Rights Council for the maximum three year term. At the same time, the entire number of seats on the Human Rights Council allotted to the more democratic “Western European and Others Group” (including North America, Australia, and New Zealand) was limited to seven nations, only three of which will have three year terms. The first official session of the Human Rights Council turned into an Israel-bashing exercise. The Council approved a one-sided resolution demanding that Israel end its current military operations in Gaza, which the Council blamed for the deteriorating humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people without a single mention of the Palestinian provocations that caused the crisis in the first place.
Was Bolton wrong to want to avoid the mistakes of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights that the new Human Rights Council was intended to replace? Should Bolton have simply played along in order to win friends in the UN establishment by pretending that all major problems were adequately addressed when the opposite was so glaringly obvious? Apparently, his opponents think so.
On Darfur, Bolton argued that the Security Council had sufficient legal authority to send foreign troops in to halt atrocities. It was Bolton who engineered the 22,500 U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur and he is continuing to pressure the Sudanese government to accept them.
Bolton also fought to limit the definition of terrorist actions to true acts of terrorism as opposed to the expanded definition being sought by Arab nation members that included “military activities that are appropriately governed by international humanitarian law”. How ironic.
Democrats are concerned that Bolton had criticized the United Nations at a time when everyone else was working to placate them. This from a group that has spent their political lives as critics of anything and everything that doesn’t have a progressive label attached to it.
Rich. This is just one more example that the voting public of the United States is screwed. Republicans blew their opportunity to lead the party into 2008 and Democrats are proving that they simply aren’t up to the task of making the hard decisions needed to protect our national interests. Talk about taking it on both ends.
Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
Actions tomorrow will speak louder than words today, but something interesting came out of the mouth of a UN representative — namely, the admission that the UN is focusing a disproportionate amount of its attention on condemning Israel. You don’t believe me? 
A 
You can’t make this stuff up. After showing a graphic video of scores of bodies in trucks and in piles on the street… all charges against Saddam were dropped. Amazing.
John Bolton will resign from his United Nations post when his term expires because Democrats, the ones who were going to do away with partisanship, blocked President Bush in his attempts to formally appoint Bolton to the post of U.N. Ambassador.