GENEVA - The U.N. Human Rights Council rejected on Tuesday an attempt to hold the Sudanese government responsible for halting atrocities in Darfur, opting instead for a less-pointed resolution calling on all warring parties to end abuses.
The council, which took over from the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission June, is dominated by African and Muslim countries that have sided with China, Cuba and other countries in preventing criticism of any government but Israel.
The council voted 22-20 against a resolution from the European Union and Canada demanding the Sudanese government prosecute those responsible for killing, raping and injuring civilians in the Darfur region of western Sudan. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_af/un_rights
I recall the vitriol that Ronald Reagan had to endure from kneejerk liberals and leftist organs of propaganda, like the New York Times and Washington Post, about what was termed his brinkmanship in dealing with the Soviet Empire. The Left's myth-of-the-moment at the time was that President Reagan was a "cowboy" who might possibly ignite a nuclear holocaust merely by speaking out about the human rights abuses of the communist dictatorship.
Ronald Reagan and the conservative base he led understood that communism was a belief system devoid of faith, and that for human rights to prevail in the Soviet Empire leaders in the West had a requirement to speak the unvarnished truth. Liberals and the worldwide Left scoffed at and denounced this supposed simple-minded approach as a failure to bow to the dogma of realpolitic. The Left and liberals were of course wrong, as the combination of truth and increased US defense appropriations forced the demise of the Soviet Empire.
The Soviet Union was indeed an empty ideological edifice that had no real adherents, not even among the miniscule cadre of privileged Party elites who ruled through terror. One thing liberals and the Left believe totally is that they are never wrong. At least on this one delusional belief they have total faith. If you don't believe this then study their response to the truth that Alger Hiss was indeed a Soviet mole and compare it to their denials that Ronald Reagan played a major role in the defeat of Soviet imperialism.
History today repeats itself, with the Left/liberal dogma claiming that the United Nations is a worthwhile international body. If one is silly enough to believe this pap the United Nations would have been a better institution for dealing with Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance than the American-led coalition's determination to remove him. All one needs to be that silly is to ignore the seventeen UN resolutions that Saddam sneered at. Throw in the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food scam that later came to light and if anyone still falls for the notion that the UN would have been a credible option to the allied resolve then the next stop for that person is the nuthouse. In short, the Soviet belief-without-faith system is mirrored in United Nations supporters; a profession of belief in a system where adherents lack true faith.
Now it's the issue of Darfur where the United Nations again conclusively demonstrates that it has become nothing more than a stalling element for Islamic hegemony and conquest. The UN attempted to stall the Iraq invasion, the UN stalls any sanctions against Iran for violating its agreement not to seek nuclear arms, the UN's Kofi Annan publicly calls America on the carpet for alleged human rights violations but refuses to call for equal rights in moslem societies for women, minorities, homosexuals, and dissidents as if the UN is aghast at the thought those groups exist in Islamic countries. In my memory I can't think of a comparable example of institutional hypocrisy. How many more Rwandas and Darfurs have to occur before the will to fight deceit and corruption rise to critical mass? For God's sake the United Nations cannot and will not define "terrorism", as this would force it to confront the very real and very brutal Islamofascist offensive against civilization.
What exactly is the United Nation's mission if not to extend the very policies Mr. Annan gives lip service to but ignores on a global scale? Is his job merely to preach to those countries that try to live up to the stated UN ideals while stuffing corrupt dictators' payoffs into his and his associates' pockets? It appears that is just how he approaches his job; the question is why civilized members of the United Nations have allowed him to remain in his job so long after UN officials' and his family's ties to the Oil-for-Food program became public.
Now that Democrats have successfully blocked John Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador it looks like the United Nations will continue to be a hindrance to those who believe in freedom, democracy, and universal human rights unless and until the United States leads a determined push to reform the corrupt UN. A good start would be for the president to nominate a Bolton-like realist willing to speak Bolton-like truth, forcing the leftist media to provide reformers a platform much like the media provided one for President Reagan. The truth dispels darkness; now is the time for good men and women to speak the truth just as when Ronald Reagan in speaking out about the communist regime. Only then will corrupt empires reform or fall and do-nothing lip service give way to relief of mass human rights atrocities in Darfur. We can only hope President Bush's resolve has not finally been weakened by recent elections and the continued liberal mass media onslaught against him and his presidency. We can only hope President Bush shows the steadfastness of a Ronald Reagan.
No comments:
Post a Comment