A press release from the International Humanist and Ethical Union:
Proponents of free speech at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) have accused Islamic countries of "hijacking" a resolution intended to renew the mandate of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression and turning it into an order to report on defamation of religion.In the words of the Canadian delegation: "instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise".
The amended resolution was adopted on Friday in Geneva by 32 votes in favour (mainly Islamic states with support from China, Cuba and Russia). There were no votes against, but 15 abstentions.
Roy Brown, spokesman at the UNCHR in Geneva for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, commented: "Canada's position was echoed by several delegations, who objected to the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression. More than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their sponsorship. These included the European Union and the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States), India, Switzerland, Brazil, Bolivia and Guatemala.”
"Freedom of expression is most important for those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law. This was highlighted by a courageous group of 21 NGOs from the Islamic States who issued a statement appealing to delegations not to support the amendment.” (See http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf )
Death of Human Rights
Roy Brown added: "We have just witnessed the death of the Human Rights Council, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having "become too selective and too political in its work". The old system needed to be swept away and replaced. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Three years later Annan's dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as no longer capable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights."
“NGOs and those States that are genuinely concerned with human rights should now seriously consider withdrawing from the Council until such time as it puts its house in order. Or failing that, set up their own organisation actually committed to the promotion and protection of human rights.”
A full report on the resolution and debate can be found at: www.iheu.org/node/nnnn
Here is the full report:
Vote on Freedom of Expression marks the end of Universal Human RightsFor the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.
With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its work”. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.
Three years later Annan’s dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.
There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval worldview defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travellers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States.
Yesterday’s attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:
“To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …”
For Canada, who had fought long and hard as main sponsor of this resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this was too much. The internationally agreed limits to Freedom of Expression are detailed in article 19 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are already referred to in the preamble to the resolution. If abuse of freedom of expression infringed anyone’s freedom of religion, for example, it would fall within the scope of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. To add it here was unnecessary duplication, and “Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.”
Canada’s position was echoed by several delegations including India, who objected to the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression. The European Union, the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States), India, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatamala and Switzerland all withdrew their sponsorship of the main resolution when the amendment was passed. In total, more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.
On the vote, the amendment was adopted by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions.
The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
“.. if we regulate certain things ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.”In other words: Don’t exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.
The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council – it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.
Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.
But however important freedom of expression may be for us who live in the West, its overwhelming importance for those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law was highlighted by a courageous group of 21 NGOs from the Islamic States who issued a statement yesterday appealing to delegations to oppose the amendment. See http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf
Incredibly, following the vote on the amendment, the Council descended even further into chaos. At the very last moment, Cuba introduced an oral amendment – clearly against the rules of procedure. When Canada objected they were overruled by the President. When Slovenia – on behalf of the European Union – tried to intervene on a point of order and ask for a ten-minute adjournment, they were ignored. When they tried to protest in another point of order their right to do so was challenged by Egypt, and the Egyptian objection was upheld.
The main resolution was then put to the vote and was adopted by 32 votes in favour, none against, with 15 abstentions.
The NGO community now needs to think carefully about what purpose can any longer be served by continuing our engagement with the Human Rights Council, and by fighting for values that are no longer accepted within the UN system. I have personally been involved with the Human Rights Commission and Council for the past five years and can see little benefit in continuing. Our well-argued position papers are ignored, our speeches are interrupted with repeated and irrelevant points of order, and we are not even supported in our efforts by the western delegations who, shockingly, did not even vote against today’s travesty, but abstained.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights died yesterday. Who knows when, or if, it can ever be revived.
I used to wonder what States who felt it necessary to kill people because they change their religion thought they were doing in the Human Rights Council. Now I know.
The wafer-thin sham of an international consensus on the promotion and protection of human rights has finally been exposed for what it was – a sham. The fragmentation of human rights now appears inevitable. The proposed Islamic Charter on Human Rights (read “Duties towards Allah”) will certainly go ahead, as will the creation of a parallel Islamic Council on Human Rights. But the OIC will nevertheless continue to attend and dominate the UN Human Rights Council, thereby ensuring its continuing emasculation and descent into total irrelevance.
Just five months before he and more than 20 of his colleagues were killed by a terrorist bomb in Baghdad, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, wrote:
“Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law…”
States who are genuinely concerned with human rights should immediately withdraw from the Council until such time as all member states as well as those offering themselves for election agree to honour their pledges, and undertake to expel any member state which, having been put on notice regarding its human rights record, fails to put its house in order within a reasonable timescale. Failing this, what better tribute to Sergio de Mello could there be than to create an alternative organisation – Kofi Annan’s organisation of the willing - whose members agree to adopt Sergio de Mello’s guidelines and code of conduct – and are actually held to account.
No free speech in Islam.
Perhaps this is the begining of the end of the United Nations. We can only hope.
"Vote on Freedom of Expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights"
I don't agree. Universal Human Rights can't end.
All that is ended is the credibility and relevance of that council. I am sorry it is housed in my country.
Robert, thank you very much for publishing the IHEU’s press release and report. It goes a long way to countering the omissions and inaccuracies in Caroline Glick’s article in yesterday’s Jihadwatch thread "The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder".
The only sour note in the whole IHEU report is Roy Brown's bizarre claim that:
He is mistaken. The Western delegates on the Human Rights Council have consistently voted against every attack on freedom by the OIC states and their allies. But the Islamic ambushing on this Resolution put the Western delegates in a bind.If they had voted against the Resolution, it would have signalled their opposition to the renewal of the Special Rapporteur‘s mandate to champion freedom of opinion and expression. But as the IHEU press release makes clear, as the original co-sponsors of his reappointment, they clearly did not oppose this. What they opposed was his being given, by the Islamic amendment, the duty to report on the “abuse” of free speech with regards to defamation of religion.
The Western delegates voted against that amendment, and were defeated. By abstaining on the Resolution vote - boycotting the ballot (which they most certainly would have lost) - they could show that they supported the Special Rapporteur, but completely rejected both his new reporting requirements and the ruling that gave them to him.
It’s a subtle difference, but a very important one, and one that sadly seems to have been lost both on Roy Brown and Caroline Glick.
No Nonsence Neil Boortz on the UN resolution to suppress there own Freedom of expression, article19
Friday, April 4, 2008
UN TO DEFEND ISLAM ... AGAINST THE WEST
Can someone please explain to me why the freaking UN Human Rights Council is dominated by Arab nations? Why? On what possible level does that make sense? OK ... I'll tell you why. That would be (1) because the United Nations is a complete joke .. always has been, always will be; and (2) because no one is willing to stand up against radical Islam. No one. Here's a prime example. Arab and Muslim countries recently pushed a resolution that will have the UN expert on free speech police individuals and news media that make negative comments on Islam.
Hey ... How does this work. Virtually all of the terrorists in the world today are Muslims. The Islamic religion is responsible for more violence around the world today than any other cause, entity, country, social club or sorority. Now .... POLICE ME!
Legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo of Kenya is currently supposed to report any actions that restrict the people's right to free speech by dictatorships and repressive governments. Now his job duties will also include reporting individuals or media outlets that make disparaging remarks against the peaceful serene loving and warm religion of Islam.
So guess what, folks? This resolution passed 32-0. No one opposed it. You know why? Because European countries abstained from voting. That is, they wimped out. They didn't want to cast a vote against the policy because they knew how that would look to these Muslim nations. So they abstained. By the way, the US didn't have a vote because it is not a part of this council ... just in case you were wondering.
Now ... see if you can believe this. The resolution clearly states that it seeks to impose "restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights." Isn't that amazing? Are you starting to get a true sense of the character of the United Nations now? Rather than protecting your right to free speech, the UN would rather restrict what you say. The ambassador to Pakistan says that the Islamic nations are only trying to promote responsible expression. The nations are worried about a growing trend to erode human rights law, permitting "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred."
Until the Muslim world works as strong to control the violence from within as it does to control the expressions from without it will remain a dangerous religion worthy of worldwide contempt.
Damn .. couldn't have said it better myself
Perhaps if we incresase funding for the U.N. they will moderate their positions and come to see things our way.
Is this not the Bush doctrine concerning Islamic countries? Westen governments think tribute allows one to keep one's head.
Neil Boortz:
Mackie:
Really, Mackie? That's a shame - if you'd read the original article in this thread, or examined the circumstances behind the abstention, you'd see that Boortz's outburst is just predictable hollow ranting from a gobby shock-jock looking to boost his listeners, many of whom would have trouble pointing to Europe on a map, let along understanding the workings of the U.N.
And by the way, although the U.S doesn't sit on the HRC, it was one of the non-Council co-sponsors of the originally-worded Resolution to reappoint the Special Rapporteur, and it too withdrew its sponsorship after the adoption of the Islamic-led amendment to alter the Special Rapporteurs mandate, along with all those European countries that Boortz so evidently despises.
Just a point - if the EU countries abstained from the Resolution in order to appease the Muslim states, can he or you explain why, in the vote prior to the Resolution vote, they voted against the Islamic amendment? If not, perhaps he can explain why those "European" countries Canada and Phillipines, along with Guatemala, Japan, Ukraine and South Korea - four nations with negligible Muslim populations to appease - joined them in the abstention?
Somewhat related on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: demonstrator burns Quran in Iran to protest Iran not endorsing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even outside Iran, that guy would be toast if Infidel countries tried to enforce this new convention.
I agree with the author - the demonstrators would have done well to have a higher standard of demands, like abolishing Islam as the state religion (might as well do it if you are burning a Quran), full freedom of expression, end to their death penalty (given the way it's done in Iran), et al, rather than an adherence to a largely worthless UN document. Nonetheless, those guys can teach the long haired, maggot infested dhimmis here what courage really is.
Is there any petition to have the United Nations removed from our land?
Matamoros:
After reviewing the article again, though Boortz is somewhat provocative in his comments; I think I'll stay with Boortz assessment in general.
Mackie
Eleanor Roosevent must be turning over in her grave since she was perhaps the most important advocate fr te Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mackie, that’s fair enough. You’re entitled to your ignorance just as much as the next man. That's what freedom of opinion - what the free nations struggled during that whole debate to defend - is all about. And I can understand that it’s much easier to have someone else do your thinking for you. More time to read the funny papers.
By the way, if ever you do need to look for Europe on the map, here’s a tip: just put your finger on New York City and let it drift in a straight line Eastwards (that’s to the right). It's that first land mass that you come to, just above Africa.
(Africa? Erm, that’s the big bit just… never mind.)
Matamoros:
Thank you for the directions, but I have been there a few times.
I think it's time we stop pussy footing around, grab their oil, and tell them to go flush it. These medieval savages have to be stopped at some point.
I think part of the problem is all the oil money that the oIC has to play with it just how many votes would they have with out all the money to give grants to poor countries that realize in exchange for millions of dollars they are to vote the way the Islamic Council because that's what the organization of Islamic countries really is wants them to vote how else did they get a hold of the control of the own rights Council considering that there is some the worst violators in the world along to Islamic nations unfortunately with the situation the way it is it is probably time for the Western nations to withdraw from the UN along with most of the European countriesand form a new non-Islamic United Nations
I thank thank thank my lucky star that I was born in the U.S.A. where my inalienable rights do not derive and are not in any way dependent on fouled and degenerate supranational bodies such as the U.N. or thatindless boondoggle and monstosity known as the E.U.
May all Americans never lose sight of the preciousness of our sovereign nation -- and may we never allow the creeping evils of the vampiric international governing bodies to feed on our dignity as a people as nearly every other nation has done. Many in the world hate us for standing proudly as we have and do -- let them. Contempt from such craven willing slaves is a badge of honor.
Matamoros said
Enough with the wry humor. April 1st is already past.
special_guest:
You're kidding, right? I don't get some of the people on here. This was a railroading by the Islamic states and their allies - a voting bloc that outnumbers the free nations on the HRC by two to one - and you view it as a cave-in?
If the free states had voted against the Resolution, not only would they have lost - their numerical disadvantage would have ensured that - but they would have handed a propaganda coup to the Islamic countries and to the oppressive regimes like China, Russia, and Cuba that support them.
A vote against renewing the Special Rapporteur's mandate would have enabled these countries to say "Look - the free world lectures us on freedom and human rights, but voted against reappointing the official who champions these rights." The Muslim states would have thrown this back in the free world's face at every opportunity.
That's why abstention was the only option viable option for the free states.
You have to hand it to the Islamic countries - they timed their ambush to perfection. They won, and freedom lost.
Two questions:
'the Islamic states and their allies - a voting bloc that outnumbers the free nations on the HRC by two to one'.
1. How did this happen?
2. Matamoros, I am not as conversant as you with the Byzantine ways of the HRC and the Special Rapporteur. Can you explain, please,in simple terms, why it was better to abstain than to vote against? I've read your posts but I'm having difficulty grasping your point.
What I don't understand is what was wrong with voting against the Special Rapporteur's re-appointment if this was going to be a poisoned chalice. I mean, what's the point? OK, so they co-sponsored the proposal for his re-appointment in the first place, but that's no reason to continue to support his re-appointment if the post is going to be a different one entirely.
What difference, either way, will this resolution make? Were Human Rights, of whatever stripe, defended in Darfur, Eritria, Sudan, Somalia, or Rwanda?
The United Nations is a toothless, hopelessly divided waste of time. So if this Special Rapporteur decides that Fitna, Submission or the Danish cartoons, or any other expression violates the new rules, so what? Other than the media, who is going to care?
Just a thought.
'other than the media'
Well I think the mainstream media carries a lot of power, that's the problem. It will encourage Islamofscists and the kow-towing of the dhimmis.
devorgilla:
"Two questions:
'the Islamic states and their allies - a voting bloc that outnumbers the free nations on the HRC by two to one'.
1. How did this happen?"
The UNHRC has 47 members, elected by the General Assembly, with seats distributed between the UN regional groups dependent on the size of those groups. So, Africa gets 13 seats, Asia 13, Eastern Europe 6, Latin America and the Caribbean 8, and Western Europe and Others (basically, “the West”) 7.
There’s a list here of the present members, along with the year they come up for re-election (elected members serve three-year terms but can stand for re-election after that.)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/groups0708.htm
The distribution would not be a problem if members were truly independent. But they are not. There are currently 16 Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member states on the HRC - Djibouti, Cameroon, Egypt, Gabon, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These countries, with the exception of Bosnia, nearly always vote as one bloc on every vote, and they are almost invariably joined by the other 6 non-Muslim African states and the oppressive regimes (China, Russia, Cuba). That’s 24 votes in one bloc. By contrast, the West (7), and the free East Europeans (4) - just 11 - can generally be counted on to vote against them, with the remaining 12 nations dividing themselves equally between the two groups depending on the subject. To give you an example of the usual voting pattern, the following countries voted against the Islamic amendment that required the Special Rapporteur to report on “abuses” of free speech with regards to religion:
Against (17):Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uruguay.
"2. Can you explain, please, in simple terms, why it was better to abstain than to vote against?"*
The vote was on a Resolution to reaffirm the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Basically, he reports to the UN examples of the denial of these freedoms by states around the world. This can lead to action, including sanctions, being taken against those states.
The vote for the Islamic amendment, however, effectively turned the work of Special Rapporteur on its head, and meant that he would now have to oppose free speech where its so-called “abuse” constituted defamation of religion. It also meant that from reporting solely on the actions of states, he would in this instance now have to report on the actions of individuals. Prior to the amendment being adopted, he had previously emphasised that neither of these were part of his work. (the full background to the vote, and links to his report, are in the comments on this Jihadwatch thread.)
The free countries had voted against the Islamic amendment, and lost. This now left them three choices with regards to the newly-worded Resolution to reappoint the SR. They could:
1) Vote in favour of it: Having already voted against the amendment, they could not then vote for a Resolution containing that amendment. This would have meant voting in favour of a limitation on free speech. Although, amazingly, four countries did just that - Brazil, India, Mexico, and Peru.
2) Vote against it: A No vote would have signalled that they opposed the reappointment of the SR. Clearly, having sponsored his reappointment, they did not. They approved of his original mandate, agreeing with Canada that his work was “more vital than ever”. It was the Islamic (and Cuban) amendments of which they did not approve. They could not vote against his reappointment because (a) they supported it, minus the Islamic and Cuban amendments, and (b) it would give a monstrous propaganda coup to the OIC states and the tyrannies, enabling them to portray themselves as the champions of free expression and the West as its opponents.
3) Abstain: In all ballots, whether they be in the UN, the US Congress or the local village council, abstention offers a third option. Typically, it’s used if the voter agrees with the general principal of the subject, but disagrees with some aspect of it (as was the case with this vote).
For example, the HRC had previously voted on a Resolution to combat the defamation of religion, a resolution that concentrated almost solely on Islam. The delegate from India, a devoutly religious country, abstained, stating that:
India would have supported the resolution if it had included all religions. But it didn't, so it could not vote For it. But India opposed the defamation of religion in principle, so could not vote Against it. So, its delegate abstained from voting.
The free countries, if they had voted against the Resolution to reappoint the SR, would have lost the vote. That is beyond doubt. By abstaining - boycotting the ballot - they did three things:
(a) They indicated that they supported in principle the work of the Special Rapporteur, but not with this mandate;
(b) While approving the work of the SR, they signalled their rejection of both the new wording of the Resolution and the Islamic amendment that introduced it;
(c) They avoided falling into the bear trap of opposing the re-appointment of the SR, which would have handed their opponents a propaganda victory.
The Islamic ambush had backed the free nations into a corner - “stitched them up like kippers”, as we say in the UK. Abstention really was the only sensible option to take, politically speaking.
*If, by "in simple terms", you meant briefly, then the answer as you can clearly see is no. Sorry :).
Thanks for this lengthy reply, Matamoros.
I can see now that voting against would have exposed the free counries to ridicule by Islamists, but to my mind, that risk was worth taking, since stout defence always depends on political virtu, 'skillful means'. It rather assumes one does not have a head on one's shoulders with a tongue stuck in it, and so cannot argue your reply back. I personally would have voted against; and if I got any flak, would have not minced my words in saying that the amendment had de facto fundamentally altered the resolution,so therefore the resolution was insupportable and was NOT the resolution I had originally supported. This would have exposed the dirty tricks of the Islamists to full public view, but by abstaining, they have got their way with no flak exposing them. As it is, the Islamists can say in all truth when resistance is encountered to the new mandate that the free nations supported the re-appointment of the Special Rapporteur's mandate (which is now to curtail freedom of speech). Had you thought of that one? It seems to me you will get flak either way. I see where you're going, in terms of technicalities of procedure, and coherence of procedure, but there is a time for seeing things for what they are, rather than in terms of the complex procedures by which a thing has been 'turned on its head' and ultimately lost its course. I think this abstention lacks moral and intellectual clarity.
See, I would rather look to my 'virtu' to defend and attack than fear or 'defer' to their flak: I would calculate that I had at least a 50:50 chance of deflecting their flak; this abstention strikes me as passive. It's not a fighting response.
Your description of the regional blocks raises huge amounts of questions. There seem to be large areas of the globe, like Australia and New Zealand, USA, and Canada missing from these regional groups. Is it seriously the case that the USA, a large area of the globe, with a population of 360 million, and a huge economy, gets only one vote; and where is that vote in terms of the regional groupings?
Calculating the 'size of regional groups' is surely a hugely complex issue, and things have moved on since 1948. What does one measure? Population? Territory? Number of individual governments? Cultures? Economies? (Does EU Europe count as one, or several, and if several, how many? If Scotland becomes independent, or Wallania or the Basque country, is Europe 'enlarged'?) Ditto, the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
I think it would take the wisdom of Solomon to come to a just reckoning of all this: at one level the Islamic states, if they pursue the logic of the Islamist agenda, that they are one 'umma', should only get one vote between the lot of them. On the other hand, the oil wealth of these states (if we measure economy) would enlarge their share of votes; as would recognition of numbers of individual governments.
devorgilla:
"I personally would have voted against...the resolution was insupportable and was NOT the resolution I had originally supported."
But the greater part of his mandate remained unaltered. By voting against, you would have been rejecting the bulk of his work which you did support, work to:
The Islamic amendment will not effect this work. He we still have a mandate to report on state oppression of free expression, by, for example, China, Russia, Belarus, Cuba and all the Islamic states. The Islamic amendment - indeed, the whole OIC campaign against “religious defamation” - is targeted at Western voices critical of Islam. It will not allow Iran to describe the suppression of internal protest against the Iranian regime as "combatting discrimination against Islam" (although I've no doubt they will try).
"As it is, the Islamists can say in all truth when resistance is encountered to the new mandate that the free nations supported the re-appointment of the Special Rapporteur's mandate (which is now to curtail freedom of speech)"
But they didn’t, and can point to their vote against the Islamic amendment, as well as their boycott of the Resolution vote, as proof of that.
"Your description of the regional blocks raises huge amounts of questions. There seem to be large areas of the globe, like Australia and New Zealand, USA, and Canada missing from these regional groups."
The size of the regional groupings is based on the number of member states in those regions. The Africa and Asia regions each contain 53 UN members states, Latin America and the Caribbean has 33, Western Europe and Others (WEOG - which includes Canada, Australia and New Zealand) 29 full members, and the Eastern European Region has 23. Elected seats on UN councils are distributed using those percentages.
The problem is that the OIC countries are spread across three groupings - Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. Which means that Muslim countries will inevitably outnumber non-Muslims on elected UN councils. Even if you put the OIC countries in one group, they’d still be the biggest - 57 states - and would get allocated the most seats, and their Asian and African neighbours and the tyrannies would still vote with them, so the West would still be outgunned.
"Is it seriously the case that the USA, a large area of the globe, with a population of 360 million, and a huge economy, gets only one vote; and where is that vote in terms of the regional groupings?"
Yes. The UN works on the one member, one vote principle. And although North America is a huge (sub?) continent geographically, economically and in terms of population, it’s still only two countries - the USA and Canada - and they only get one vote each.
The United States is not a member of any regional grouping, but attends meetings of the WEOG as an observer and is considered a member of that group for electoral purposes. (e.g: if the WEOG is allocated 7 elected seats on a council, the U.S can stand for election to one of those seats).
And no, I haven't a clue why this is. Although I feel that Canada, Australia and New Zealand's membership may be due to their ties to Britain when the UN Regional Groupings were set out in 1961. Given the vast global geo-political changes since then, they are long overdue for an update.
Matamoros, thanks so much for this lengthy filling in. I can see why the US is regularly pissed with the UN, and why it was so difficult to get a UN resolution in support of the Iraq war. What was Blair thinking of?
But it's truly astonishing that India, China and Russia will also have only one vote and carry the same clout as, say, tiny Yemen or Mauritius! That's insane!
The 'big' countries need more representation.
matamoros said
Everything you write just confirms the complete moral bankruptcy of the UNHRC (and its parent, the League of United Nations). The irony of theocratic thugacracies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, and Malaysia) outvoting democracies (the UK, France, and Germany) to dismantle freedom of speech in the West is apparently not blatant enough. How can this be described as a "victory"? This just proves the worthlessness of the institution. This is the nail in the coffin of any chance of a diplomatic solution to jihad; we have ceded control of the diplomatic institutions to the OIC, and abdicated our responsibility to defend our own freedoms, even within our own countries. This is not a victory, this is a complete and utter failure.
"...they indicated..." To whom? There's only a few individuals left who are using the intricate logic you described to receive the highly nuanced message that was supposedly sent; none of those individuals are Saudis, or Pakistanis, or Syrians. They are only hopelessly naive Westerners, who cling to the phantasy that something good will come of a democracy of dictatorships.
Special guest, I agree. It looks like we can't win on the basis of the regional groupings.
Alternately, maybe the 57 OIC countries should get only one vote, since they're one umma, after all?
I thank Matamoros for patiently explaining all this but I'm afraid it has made me sadly disillusioned with the fundamentally flawed nature of the UN.
Sepcial_guest:
"How can this be described as a "victory"?"
Please show me where, in any of the lengthy comments I’ve posted on the two threads about this story, I have referred to the vote as a “victory”.
"There's only a few individuals left who are using the intricate logic you described"
I’m not one of the front-parlour experts who posts comments on here. I’m not interest in the fantasy of “we should do this” or “we should have done that”. I’m only interested in reality. And the reality is that in politics, not everything is a simple black and white choice.
In politics, abstention from voting is a tactical option used not only by delegates at the U.N (including American ones, btw) but by politicians in the U.S Congress, the UK House of Commons, and in parliaments all over the world. It’s used in the boardrooms of the world’s biggest companies and the meetings of small town PTAs. Its significance is understood in all those forums. But not, it seems, in this one.
Alternatively, if you can explain just how 15 people could have outvoted 32, then I’ll be only too happy to listen.
(PS: The more recent news stories on this vote have all correctly identified it as an Islamic rail-roading: Arabs, Muslims battle US, Europeans over free speech at UN.
Note the OIC spokesman put on the defensive about threatening free expression.)
Devorgilla:
"Alternately, maybe the 57 OIC countries should get only one vote, since they're one umma, after all?"
A better answer might be to reassess the regional groupings, and make them reflect modern geo-political reality. Take all those small non-Muslim Pacific islands that boost the size of the Asian regional grouping out of that group and put it in a new Pacific Rim group, along with New Zealand, Australia, and Japan. End the US grouping isolation by putting it in that group too. The States has regional trade and security interests with all those nations.
Take Cyprus from the Asian group and put it with Europe where it belongs. Next make an East Asian grouping with Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Myanmar, Nepal, South Korea and North Korea. Lots of common interests there. Maybe even combine it with the Pacific Rim Group.
You've now halved the "Asian" group to 27 mainly Muslim countries, and given it 7 seats on the HRC, instead of 13.
It'd be a start.
These are solid suggestions, Matamoros, but I can't see how, politically, this could ever be steered through, as those who now have the whip hand, it seems, are not likely to agree to any changes that will diminish their bloc vote.
Any sniff of a political agenda is just going to get their backs up.