decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt,
Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of
Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created
the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their
In this session we see the answer. Faced with
compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and
violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has
Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.
But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.
has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state:
Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this
session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest
of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191
countries—continue to go ignored.
So yes, this Council is doing
something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign
will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human
rights, Palestinian rights.
So too, the racist murderers and
rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of
Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and
the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed
by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were
the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and
November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad,
Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam
Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime
Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this
Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize
the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek
something else: To distort and pervert the very language and idea of
You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream?
Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of Rene Casssin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang,
Charles Malik, who assembled here in Geneva sixty years ago? With
terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
Thank you, Mr. President.
REPLY BY UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:
the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that
statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the
organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of
United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm
not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention
that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way
in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way
in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is
inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to,
founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human
rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some
minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make
in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
The UN denies its own people the freedom of expression.
It is 'inadmissible' to speak the truth at the UN.
Why does the US support such crap?
The US needs to withdrawal from the UN. The UN no longer follows its own Charter.
Powered by ScribeFire.