Sunday, November 20, 2016

Wrongheaded General Assembly Resolutions

Wrongheaded General Assembly Resolutions

by Stephen Lendman

On November 15, the General Assembly’s Third (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) Committee approved four resolutions on the state of human rights in North Korea (DPRK), Crimea, Iran and Syria.

Venezuela and Belarus objected, arguing against politicized country-specific human rights resolutions. A motion to adjourn debate was rejected by a 101 - 32 vote with 37 abstentions.

A Saudi Arabia-introduced resolution on Syria was approved by a 116 - 15 margin with 49 abstentions. It called on “the Syrian regime” and ISIS to cease using chemical weapons. 

No evidence suggests Damascus used any throughout the conflict. Under Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon’s supervision, it destroyed its entire CW arsenal. US/Saudi-supported terrorists were caught red-handed using CWs numerous times.

The Saudi resolution also demanded Damascus stop attacking civilians, mocking its liberating struggle, combating imported terrorists, recruited from scores of country - Syrian forces targeting them, not civilians they’re protecting as best they can.

In response, Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari blasted what he called “this sinful (Saudi) draft resolution,” supported by Qatar. 

Both countries supply weapons, munitions, equipment, vehicles and other material support to ISIS and other terrorists, committing daily atrocities in Syria.

What right do these egregious human rights abusers have to accuse other countries of inhumane practices, al-Jaafari stressed. Are they ready to admit culpability for their own ruthless actions?

Their sponsorship of regional terrorism is well known. Clear evidence proves it. Riyadh’s behavior is “mafia-like,” saying it’ll stop funding UN programs unless the world body disregards its (genocidal) war on Yemen, complicit with Washington and other rogue states.

Al-Jaafari also objected to the term “regime,” revealing a politicized resolution, his remarks suggesting Ban Ki-moon supported it, likely yielding to US pressure.

The DPRK resolution was approved by consensus - denounced by Pyongyang as politicized, designed to support the collapse of the state and its social systems.

The Iran resolution was approved by an 85 - 35 vote, 63 countries abstaining. It called for greater accountability for alleged human rights abuses without indicating any, along with calling on Tehran to ensure transparent and inclusive 2017 presidential elections. Its political process shames other regional states.

Numerous UN member states living in glass houses should think hard about throwing stones at others - US pressure likely involved.

Tehran rejected the resolution for good reason, citing grievous human rights abuses by countries supporting it - targeting Iranian sovereign independence, not abusive practices.

The Crimea resolution was adopted by a 73 - 23 margin, 76 countries abstaining. It called on the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on its state in the Russian Autonomous Republic.

Kiev objected, falsely calling Crimea Ukrainian territory. Moscow strongly disagreed.

Separately, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said his government began communicating with Trump’s representatives on Syria.

He expressed hope for better bilateral relations, including cooperation in resolving Obama’s war - my words, not his.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 


Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.