War of words

While we wait for history to judge the decision of the Security Council, words place themselves as judges.

The war in Libya is not virtual but very real. Then the outcome depends a lot on the war of words. Prudence dictates to wait for a positive outcome (with a free Libya at the end of the tunnel) or a disastrous issue instead (with a Muammar el-Qaddafi stronger and more upset than ever) for the decision of the UN Security Council to be judged in the light of history And while we wait for the history words place themselves as judgeswords used to judge what is happening in Libya.

The purpose of resolution 1973 of the Security Council was to protect the Libyan people against the tyrant, but as this reality bothers the tyrant he relieves all sorts of conceivable semantic tricks to transvesty reality and attempt to pass for a victim. Seeing is believing. Muammar el-Qaddafi vows to protect his people against the foreign invader when in fact it is about protecting the very people from the aggression of the tyrant. The crasser is the lie the more likely it is to pass through as true. And it would be a mistake to trifle with it because although the colonel’s propaganda is particularly rough and fallacious, his misinformation affects those whom such propaganda is flattering given their self-interest or ideological reasons. Such as in the case of some countries, headed by China (whom Muammar el-Qaddafi has promised concessions in the Libyan oil if they look the other way – thus allowing him to get out of trouble), as in the case of other regimes - Arab or not - who have no desire for the UN interfering in their affairs to ensure compliance or not with human rights in their respective countries.

But there is a category even more revolting: that of narrow-minded and dumb ideologists  for which any intervention involving Western countries is imperialist by nature. These zealous advocates suffer from true migraines because if, by any chance, Westerners were not a horde of unkind and greedy people, then the imposture  would not fit into their lowbrow straitjacket. It has to be particularly indigestible for them to witness how Western and Arab countries assume jointly undeniable risks to save Libyan rebels – including those who are shouting “Allahu Akbar “. The more if you believe upside down in the war of civilizations and that you deem the intervention hides, as usual, other unlawful and guilt-producing interests.

What then is the alternative to doing nothing?
Muammar el-Qaddafi counts on that unfortunately widespread – ominous approach. That’s why it is essential to avoid falling into the trap by describing this coalition as a typical western one and try on the contrary to associate the largest possible number of Arab countries. It was not easy to reach an agreement and this alliance will not last long, we know that. As soon as the first air strikes took place, the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, started disassociating oneself. In fact, this former Mubarak minister, greeted by some Egyptians for his hostility to Israel and his support to the revolution, has just one thing in mind: to become the next president of Egypt. And in this case, Mr. Amr Moussa wanted to bet on all winning horses to seduce western countries by giving support to the resolution draft, but without having to accommodate and assume the consequences in the eyes of the Arab citizens in general and in Egyptians’  in particular. The dude in fact bet on Russian and Chinese veto power. But it was not so. Hence his current confusion and hardship, especially having regard to the Egyptian people sensitivity, whose solidarity with the suffering of the Libyan people is more than obvious. The opportunism of Mr. Amr Moussa is currently blamed by Egyptians: he wanted to flatter the people and adulate their demons. He got the wrong war and marched out of step as Libya’s events have nothing to do with the war in Iraq: rebels yell in Benghazi without blushing: “Merci la France, Thak U America” (which for sure would not last long, we know that): indeed, many who now criticize the military intervention would make a great fuss if the United Nations had been passive not facing the massacres of Muammar el-Qaddafi. If the UN would have done so, now Benghazi would have fallen into the hands of the tyrant, the people would have been crushed and probably the Arab spring would have come to an end.

While we wait for history to judge the decision of the Security Council words place themselves as judges.

The war in Libya is not virtual but very real. Then the outcome depends a lot on the war of words. Prudence dictates to wait for a positive outcome (with a free Libya at the end of the tunnel) or else a disastrous issue (with a Colonel Gaddafi stronger and more upset than ever) for the decision of the Security Council of UN to be judged in the light of history And while we wait for the history words set themselves up as judges, words used to judge what is happening in Libya.

The purpose of resolution 1973 of the Security Council was to protect the Libyan people against the tyrant, but as this reality bothers the tyrant he relieves all sorts of conceivable semantic tricks to transvesting reality and attempt to pass for a victim. Seeing is believing. Colonel Gaddafi vows to protect his people against the foreign invader when in fact it is about protecting the very people from the aggression of the tyrant. The crasser is the lie the more likely it is to pass through as true. And it would be a mistake to trifle with it because although the colonel’s propaganda is particularly rough and fallacious, his misinformation affects those whom such propaganda is flattering given their self-interest or ideological reasons. Such as in the case of some countries, headed by China (whom Gaddafi has promised concessions in the Libyan oil if they look the other way – thus allowing him to get out of trouble), as is the case of other regimes - Arab or otherwise - who have no desire for the UN interfering in their affairs to ensure compliance or not tof human rights in their respective countries.

But there is a category even more awful: the narrow-minded and dumb ideologues for which any intervention involving Western countries is imperialist by nature. They suffer from true migraines because the opposing would not fit into their intellectual straitjacket. It should be particularly indigestible for them seeing how Western and Arab countries assume jointly undeniable risks to save Libyan rebels – including those who are shouting Allahu Akbar “. Even more if one believes in the war of civilizations upside down and says that the intervention hides other unlawful interests.

What then is the alternative to doing nothing?
And the colonel Qaddafi counts on that unfortunately widespread – ominous approach. That’s why it is essential to avoid falling into the trap by describing this coalition as western one and try on the contrary to associate the largest possible number of Arab countries. It was not easy to reach an agreement and this alliance will not last long, we know that. As soon as the first air strikes took place, the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, started disassociating oneself. In fact, this former Mubarak minister, greeted by some Egyptians for his hostility to Israel and his support to the revolution, has just one thing in mind: to become the next president of Egypt. And in this case, Mr. Amr Moussa wanted to bet on all winning horses to seduce western countries by giving support to the resolution draft, but without having to accommodate and assume the consequences in the eyes of the Arab citizen in general and Egyptians in particular. The dude in fact bet on Russian and Chinese veto power. But it was not so. Hence his current confusion and hardship, especially having regard to the Egyptian people sensitivity, whose solidarity with the suffering of the Libyan people is more than obvious. The opportunism of Mr. Amr Moussa is currently blamed by Egyptians: he wanted to flatter the people and adulate their demons. He got the wrong war and marched out of step as Libya’s events have nothing to do with the war in Iraq: rebels yell in Benghazi without blushing: “Merci la France, Merci l’Amérique “ (which not last long, we know that): indeed, many who now criticize the military intervention would make a great fuss if the United Nations had been passive not facing the massacres of Gaddafi. At present Benghazi would have fallen into the hands of the tyrant, the people would have been crushed and probably the Arab spring would have come to an end.

Libya, the international community and the responsibility to protect

The situation in Libya requires the international community to get involved early. In such cases, the problem of sovereignty must give way to the responsibility to protect. The international community cannot accept that the government of Muammar el-Qaddafi keeps on insisting that these are facts that relate only to Libyan domestic policy, then to be managed in terms of domestic policy.

The international community’s response must be fast, firm and effective. The history of Rwanda in 1994, Srebrenica and Darfur does not allow us to be very optimistic about the effectiveness of the international community when responding to emergency situations. But we must try it. A special meeting on Libya took place at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday February 25. The next day, the Security Council of United Nations met in New York in this regard. This last resort has ultimately a role and in particular the International Criminal Court – once the ICC is entitled to act at the request of the executive organ of the UN.

The fact that the Security Council of United Nations recognizes that the Libyan issue is of its concern, portends a significant point. At most if the Council just requested the ICC to take hand in the matter. Libya is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (1). Conversely, the Security Council can always promote preliminary investigations: in the case of Darfur, the Council established an investigation committee headed by Italian jurist Antonio Cassese (2). The work of the commission allowed the ICC to be aware and to have jurisdiction on the atrocities committed in the Darfur region.

Such a committee would be useful in elucidating the events in Libya and would be a quick reaction faster to materialize in situ. Its presence and implementation would largely stem the state of violence and abuses that run on the ground at the moment. There are precedents.

So, can the UN act effectively? What can be done?

Both much and little. Because the United Nations are States. The ones that might be fully involved and committed. There has been progress lately, yet the UN machine still remains slow-moving today. The Security Council meets permanently and the Human Rights Council can be in session urgently. Obviously a watchdog having a streamlined executive resolving power would be more effective, but the reality of the current international relations does not allow a real quick response in dealing with such concerns.

Since Monday 28 February, the Human Rights Council shall be meeting for 3 weeks. Surely Libya shall be at the center of the debate. Last Friday, during the Council special session, while the Libyan seat remained empty in the morning, the second secretary at the Libyan embassy in the UN announced in the afternoon, amidst loud applause, that from that moment the Libyan delegation in Geneva represented « the free people of Libya. »

________

(1)  The treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998, and that 139 countries have now ratified.

(2) Antonio Cassese was the first President of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. He is Professor of International Law at the University of Florence and Editor in Chief of the Journal of International Criminal Justice

Related Posts:

· The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in the spotlight

Obama gives way to recognition of a Palestinian state

Impressive Speech from Barack Obama at the UN on the Israeli-Palestinian issue: either we act as in the past – great speeches without changing anything – or everyone rolls up his sleeves. The whole meanwhile, bearing in mind that in 2011 the UN General Assembly might welcome a new member: the Palestinian state.

“The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here next year, as we have for the last 60 years, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. And we can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life. We can do that.

Or, we can say that this time will be different — that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.

This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”

Palestine at the UN – where Palestinians have just now an observer status – new idea or recycling? This wish of President Obama reminds a provision in the “roadmap“, the peace plan finally endorsed (with reservations) by Israel and the Palestinians. The plan, which would lead to a Palestinian state by December 2005, included in the transition phase (June-December 2003) the following measure:

“Quartet members promote international recognition of Palestinian state, including possible UN membership.”

Then it was about recognition of Palestine in temporary borders, but 2003 passed as 2004 and 2005, and nothing happened. Suffice to say that the wish of the President of the United States, which coincides with the publication in France of a book under a deliberately provocative title – There will be no Palestinian state, Ziyad Clot, Ed. Max Milo – will no doubt be greeted with caution by those most affected.

Related Posts: The Impossible Palestinian State

______________________________

South is the First Victim of Global Warming

Several surveys confirm that poor countries will be the first victims of climate change, even if, being low emitters of greenhouse gases, they are less responsible.


cc_report_mapA report published early September 2009 by Maplecroft –  a British cabinet expertise on global risks – shows that the most vulnerable countries to global warming are Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Twenty-two of the 28 countries exposed to “extreme risk” are located in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the meantime, the Asian Development Bank presented in Manila the results of a conclusive report: melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the food security and water availability of 1.6 billion inhabitants of South Asia. In New York, Rob Vos, director of the UN  Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ruled that ” If we do not reduce significantly GHG emissions, the damage to the [economies of] poor countries as a percentage of GDP[ gross domestic product] will be up more than ten times greater than in the United States and most other developed countries ” [1] . Mr. Vos commented on the report by his department. According to the conclusions, investments should be done every year in climate change mitigation and adaptation to its effects by 1 % of world’s GDP, i.e. more than 500 billion dollars.

A few months earlier, in May 2009, the United Nations had issued a report about the international strategy on risk reduction -launched in 2000. The document operates the first synthesis of knowledge about natural disasters that have occurred between 1975 and 2008. Even if he admits the document is not exhaustive, the text nevertheless represents a unique body of knowledge.

Between 1975 and 2008, 8.866 disasters have killed 2.284.000. Regarding flooding, the risk of death increased by 13% between 1990 and 2007. The picture is not, if we dare say, equally catastrophic. The absolute number of human or economic losses increases throughout the period, but it remains proportionately stable because of demographic and global GDP growth.

But according to UN experts, the situation would deteriorate because of climate change and ecosystems degradation. The latter is a factor too often ignored. Albeit not apple to apples, ecosystems manage to cushion the impact of natural disasters. Regarding climate change, it will increase the risk of disasters. The vulnerability of populations is one of the other factors that accentuate the risks. Action by Governments (earthquake standards, etc.) becomes crucial: Japan and the Philippines suffer roughly the same number of typhoons, but they cause 17 times more deaths in the Philippines than in Japan.

Have a look on Mr. Rob Vos’ press conference here enclosed:

[1] 2009 World Economic and Social Survey: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet.

Terrorism and Justice

The Need to Compensate Victims of Terrorism

Arecent terrorist attack in Pechawar (Pakistan)   Euskadi-Ta-Askatasuna   twins collapse

>> Haga click aquí para la versión en Castellano

Victims of terrorist acts, such as the DC-10 UTA [1], or Baghdad or Kabul have several nationalities: Congolese, Algerians, Spanish, Chad, French, Iraqis, Americans, Afghans… Some have been compensated, others not; some were able to file a claim for civil damages in a criminal proceeding, while others will never have such a chance. It is this disparity between the nationalities that criticizes professor Ghislaine Doucet [2], a specialist in international humanitarian law. Solutions do exist:

The first alternative would be to set up  an international global fund to compensate victims, just like the Fond de Garantie (Guarantee Fund) existing in France. I firmly believe that there are ways for such a fund, so as not to leave the victims in distress. Because too many victims of terrorism, since they are seriously injured, physically as morally, can not find a job – for those who have one – and they are therefore in utter destitution. And then the second option is a universal criminal justice response, because all victims of terrorism have no chance to face the perpetrators of the crimes they have suffered or that their relatives have suffered.

Access to justice is key element but when national justice systems are unable or unwilling to judge the International Criminal Court could take over. However, it has been decided at the ICC’s foundation that it would have jurisdiction to try war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but not terrorism. However, a crime of terrorism may, in some cases be considered a crime against humanity. Mariana Pena [3], specialist and IFHR/FIDH Liaison Officer with the ICC in The Hague:

These conditions should not be widespread or systematic [...] But an attack should have been instigated against the civilian population – with or without knowledge of the attack, which is often the case when a terrorist hit occurs.

And then the question of defining terrorism has long been an obstacle to further discussions on reparation and justice. According Ghislaine Doucet obstacles to the definition is a false debate [2]:

Terrorism on the international level is clearly defined. In times of armed conflict, acts of terrorism are explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Beyond the act of terrorism, such as hostage taking, are prohibited. Attacks against civilians are prohibited. So these are prohibited acts and then punishable. Conversely, in peacetime, we have thirteen international instruments [4] which prohibit the use of terrorism. And that furthermore require states that are parties to these instruments to punish these acts. [...]

So if you are able to classify internationally, such as acts of terrorism and therefore these acts were punishable under criminal law, why the phenomenon of terrorism is not defined?

It is however clearly defined because otherwise we would not have all these international instruments. [...] All acts of terrorism in their different facets are almost covered by these international instruments. The crux of the problem is not so much defining but to determine its scope (that is, competency areas). [2]

And that’s what the UN faces for years, seeking to establish an international convention banning terrorism. Some wish that the actions undertaken by the armed forces of a State do not fall within the definition of terrorism. Others would exclude acts of resistance on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination. These are questions that also face the victims of terrorism and their relatives.

_____________________

[1] 19 September 1989 a UTA DC10-30 aircraft,crashed near N’Djamena, Chad, as a result of an explosion in flight due to a bomb. All 156 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

[2] Terrorisme, victimes et responsabilité pénale internationale. (Terrorism, Victims and International Criminal Responsibility). Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 2003

[3] IFHR (International Federation of Human Rights) special representative at the ICC, The Hague

[4] UN Treaties and Protocols

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in the spotlight

During a session of the UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper [1] (which inspired this post) that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect“, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed force units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and keep observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

  • The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).
  • Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).
  • Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 1

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 2

.

[1] ‘Responsibility to Protect‘, by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at UN General Assembly), 23 Jul 2009

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility to Protect

At a session of UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect”, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed forces units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and maintain observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

  • The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).

  • Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).

  • Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

Durban-II, Another Summit to Forget

dry-bonesI still want to think that it has been a huge hoax, one of these happenings that  colored so much the flower adolescence of many of us. To be exact, I would like to believe what happened in Geneva on late April has not been the inevitable consequence of a chain of incredible and irresponsible manners on the part of  the UNO High Commissioner for Human Rights, but only an innocent slip-up dyed of  black humor. I still want to think all this, because I do not want to think that the UNO should have turned into such a lamentable caricature itself.
What would be Eleanor Roosevelt’s concern on the current UNO, she who so much fought to get done an organization aimed to preserve international law, the woman who headed the committee that recorded the statement of Human Rights? What would say all those who believed that this organization would strengthen freedom and democracy throughout the world? If this was the target, it has been smashed to smithereens after giving voice to brutal dictatorships all through thirty years; that is indicative of an utter failure to defend victims, and even demonstrating kindness towards most anti-Semitic sermons. It is a long time since UNO is not the white hope of the international law yet, but likely the privileged loudspeaker for satraps from anywhere proclaiming their delirious dreams. A UN totally caught within a General Assembly full of tyrannical governments, trying shamefully to apparent neutral. In spite of all this, in spite that the very same president’s Gadafi headed the Commission of Human rights, and in spite of some other similar cheerful moments, it is hard to realize that these inconsistencies were committed in a summit against the intolerance. Either it is a bad joke, or simply the UNO has fully lost its way.
How could the UN justify the invitation to a president of a fanatical dictatorship –Ahmadineyad– which sentences to death homosexual and dissidents, enslaves women, that has been declared responsible by international justice as the person in charge of the terrorist attack to Amia, Buenos Aires, which caused 85 death, the same who finances terrorist groups? How could one understand that the man who organized a congress denying the holocaust, which threatens destroy neighboring countries, who is openly anti-Semitic, have the word in a forum on racism, the very same day the holocaust tragedy is honored? Is it cynicism, cruelty, disorientation?
Is it unconsciousness? What were thinking the governments that attend the summit? That the man would behave well, would iron his shirt and his conscience, would speak in a reasonable way and would there turn himself into a lifelong democrat? Were they hoping that Iranian women would not suffer any discrimination? That we would come across the miracle of Fatimah, in version cuckoo clock?

The truth is the situation is so crazy and absurd, that one must acknowledge with Martin Luther King assessment: “nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity “. Once again the recurring lack of common sense, as in Durban-I, in 2001: an authentic anti-Semitic festival denounced by many organizations of human rights, as the Center Simon Wiesenthal absolutely scandalized by the anti Jewish hate that breathed the summit. Durban-II got now the same schemes, inviting some of the most notable dictators of the planet.

Another UN summit to forget, another success of intolerance. The way human rights go.

I still want to think that it has been a huge hoax, one of these happenings that
colored so much the flower adolescence of many of us. To be exact, I would like
to believe what happened in Geneva on late April has not been the inevitable
consequence of a chain of incredible and irresponsible manners on the part of
the UNO High Commissioner for Human Rights, but only an innocent slip-up dyed of
black humor. I am still want to think all this, because I do not want to think
that the UNO should have turned into such a lamentable caricature itself.
What would be Eleanor Roosevelt’s concern on the current UNO, she who so much
fought to get done an organization aimed to preserve international law, the
woman who headed the committee that recorded the statement of Human Rights? What
would say all those who believed that this organization would strengthen freedom
and democracy throughout the world? If this was the target, it has been smashed
to smithereens after giving voice to brutal dictatorships all through thirty
years; that is indicative of an utter failure to defend victims, and even
demonstrating kindness towards most anti-Semitic sermons. It is a long time
since UNO is not the white hope of the international law yet, but likely the
privileged loudspeaker for satraps from anywhere proclaiming their delirious
dreams. A UN totally caught within a General Assembly full of tyrannical
governments, trying shamefully to apparent neutral. In spite of all this, in
spite that the very same president’s Gadafi headed the Commission of Human
rights, and in spite of some other similar cheerful moments, it is hard to
realize that these inconsistencies were committed in a summit against the
intolerance. Either it is a prank of bad taste, or simply the UNO has fully lost
its way.
How could the UN justify their invitation to a president of a fanatical
dictatorship –Ahmadineyad– which sentences to death homosexual and dissidents,
enslaves women, that has been declared responsible by international justice as
the person in charge of the terrorist attack to Amia, Buenos Aires, which caused
85 death, the same who finances terrorist groups? How could one understand that
the man who organized a congress denying the holocaust, which threatens destroy
neighboring countries, who is openly anti-Semitic, have the word in a forum on
racism, the very same day when the holocaust tragedy is honor? Is it cynicism,
cruelty, disorientation?
Is it unconsciousness? What were thinking the governments that attend the
summit? That the man would behave well, would iron his shirt and his conscience,
would speak in a reasonable way and would there turn himself into a lifelong
democrat? Were they hoping that Iranian women would not suffer any
discrimination? That we would come across the miracle of Fatimah, in version
cuckoo clock?
The truth is the situation is so crazy and absurd, that one must acknowledge
with Martin Luther King when he said that “nothing in the world is more
dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity “. Once again the
recurring lack of common sense, as in Durban-I, in 2001: an authentic anti-
Semitic festival denounced by many organizations of human rights, as the Center
Simon Wiesenthal absolutely scandalized by the anti Jewish hate that breathed
the summit. Durban-II got now the same schemes, inviting some of the most
notable dictators of the planet. Another UN summit to forget, another success of
intolerance. The way human rights go.