UN shamed again as "Genocidal, misogynistic and tyrannical” Sudan gets new rights role

As Obama gets a new term, yet another scandal breaks out at the United Nations

by Robin Shepherd, Owner / Publisher on 9 November 2012 08:46

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again: You couldn't make it up, but when it comes to the United Nations you just don't have to. The latest debacle is the election of, wait for it, Sudan to the 54 member Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) which has a crucial oversight and regulatory role over human rights, women's rights and other freedom related issues.

The indefatigable Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, rightly described the move as an "outrage", adding in a press release from his organisation:

"On the same day we hear that Sudan is killing babies and burning homes in Darfur -- precisely the kind of dire situation ECOSOC should be urgently addressing -- the U.N. has now made vital human rights protection less likely than ever.

"It's inexplicable that 176 of 193 U.N. member states voted to support the blood-soaked regime of Omar Al-Bashir, failing to recognize that electing genocidal Sudan to a global human rights body is like choosing Jack the Ripper to guard a women’s shelter."

All this is made worse by the paucity of the response from the Obama administration and may be a sign of things to come as President Obama looks forward to a second and final term unfettered by the need to keep centrist Democrats happy in the manner that constrained some of his worst instincts in his first term.

As the UN Watch press release put it:

"Although the U.S. took important action in September to pressure Sudan into withdrawing from this Monday's elections to the 47-nation Human Rights Council -- boosted by a massive campaign led by film star Mia Farrow and UN Watch -- the Obama Administration has been surprisingly silent on [yesterday's] vote.

"By contrast, in 2004, the U.S. ambassador famously walked out of ECOSOC after Sudan was elected.

"According to insiders, Washington's silence on Sudan may stem from fear of upsetting African and Arab states in advance of America's own fragile bid for a [United Nations Human Rights Council] UNHRC seat in the Nov. 12 vote."

This is very bad news for genuine human rights supporters around the world. But then again, the UN's commitment to human rights is hardly one of its top priorities, as we have seen many times before, especially on the UNHRC which spends most of its time bashing liberal-democratic Israel rather than going after dictatorships.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus