Kiwiblog

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn wants the UN to decide if NZ is meeting its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

He explains:

It will allow individuals to bring complaints directly to an international body. So for example, if the government hadn’t decided to change its mind, the “Herception heroes” could have argued that PHARMAC’s refusal to fund their preferred drug violated their right to health, and complained to the UN about it.

I can think of nothing more ridicolous than having a UN panel, probably made up of representatives from Zimbabwe, Iran and Russia deciding whether or not the NZ Government should fund Herceptin.

The Washington Post reports on how the United Nations is having a two day conference on religious tolerance. It has chosen Saudia Arabia to chair the conference.

Saudi Arabia:

• bans the public practice of non-Islamic religions
• views its interpretation of Islamic law as its sole source of guidance on human rights
• Muslims who do not follow the official strict and conservative version of Sunni Islamcan face severe repercussions at the hands of Mutawwa’in (religious police)
• forbids missionary work by any religion other than Wahabi/Salafi Islam
• Jewish, Christian or Hindu houses of prayer are not allowed
• the government can search the home of anyone and arrest or deport foreign workers for owning religious icons and symbols
• Under Saudi law conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant.

Yes the perfect country to chair a UN conference on religious tolerance – one that executes you if you swap to a non tolerated religion

Hat Tip: Micky’s Muses

Liberty Scott takes a look at some of the company we will share if our misguided attempt to get on the UN Human Rights Council succeeds:

- Cameroon, which imprisons men suspected of homosexual activity and forcibly engages in anal examinations of them to seek evidence.
- Djibouti, which tends to arrest and imprison journalists who criticise the government in isolation wards;
- Nigeria, whose Police boast of 795 extrajudicial killings in 3 months, with politicians leading gangs of thugs who terrorise with murder, rape and arson against opponents or supporters of opponents;
- South Africa, which treats Zimbabwean refugees as purely economic migrants and facilitates the ongoing oppression in Zimbabwe;
- Bangladesh, which engages in arbitrary arrests, frequent torture in custody, extrajudicial killings, journalists accused of defaming the government or military get arrested and sometimes tortured;
- China, which arrests, tortures and executes political opponents;
- Indonesia, which imprisons people for blasphemy against Islam, arrests political activists in West Papua;
- Jordan, which strictly punishes criticism of the King and civil servants, detains women to protect them from domestic violence;
- Egypt, which arrests political opponents without trial, tortures and engages in extrajudicial killings, imprisons editors of critical newspapers, requires government approval of NGOs;
- Qatar, which requires all NGOs to be registered and are monitored and bans political protests, or membership of any organisation critical of Arab governments;
- Saudi Arabia, which arrests without charge, puts critics in solitary confinement, sentences those convicted of sodomy to up to 7000 lashes, grants the death sentence by decapitation to those as young as 13, enforces strict limits on criticism of the government and Islam, denies women the right to work, travel, study, marry, receive health care, and access government agencies, including when they seek protection or redress as victims of domestic violence, unless authorised by a father or husband, flogs rape victims for illegally associating with the opposite sex;
- Azerbaijan, which regularly tortures those arrested, arrests and shuts down opposition media and journalists;
- Russia, which engages in extrajudicial and politically motivated executions, tortures and kills young soldiers in its own army as part of hazing, NGOs are required to register and the government shuts down and threatens opposition media;
- Cuba, which suppresses all forms of political dissent, prohibits gatherings of groups, arrests and imprisons political opponents including classifying some as mental patients.

National could save us all from embarrassment by announcing it will not pursue a place on the Council. Even if the vote is before the election, the mere fact the bid does not have bipartisan support should be enough to help us fail.

Generally I support a bipartisan approach to UN issues, but really it would just be sickening to have our credibility propping up these human rights abusers as Iran (which sometimes kills women who get raped) criticises the UK for its lack of progress on sexual equality issues.

As I have blogged previously, New Zealand is campaigning for a spot on the UN Human Rights Council – an institution rapidly becoming as discredited as its predecessor. We should be running a mile from it, rather than cosying up to the dictators and abusers who make up a significant proportion of its membership.

Fran O’Sullivan notes that we appear to be refusing to condemn Iran’s nuclear programme, so that we do not get offside with the Islamic states whose support is needed to get elected.

The unfortunate upshot is a perception that neither politician wants to speak frankly about Iran in case New Zealand’s UN campaign is jeopardised by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which is one of the dominant forces on the rights council.

The council – which includes a number of serial rights abusers – has been criticised by the Economist for making a fetish out of one-sided Israel bashing. Its Islamic members have succeeded in passing a resolution saying free speech could be limited out of respect for religions and beliefs.

There is an unfortunate pattern emerging. If New Zealand puts its trade interests centre-stage, but only plays a strong bat on democratic infringements when they involve small basket-cases like Fiji, what do we stand for?

If National gets elected, they should drop our bid to be on the Human Rights Council, and concentrate on UN institutions which are not as discredited.

The NZ Herald carries an NZPA story on NZ’s campaign website for a seat on the Human Rights Council. Again, we should avoid any involvement with this body.

The Human Rights Council has appointed Richard Falk to a six year term as a special investigator on Israel. Falk is ideal for the job because he believes suicide bombing is a human right, and also wrote the preface for a 9/11 conspiracy book. You know the ones which say 9/11 was really done by the US Government.

But after Falk compared Israel to the Nazis, you knew his appointment was guaranteed. The Times looks at what this means:

… let’s say, for one moment, that the objective of the Human Rights Council was actually to improve human rights in, let’s further say, the occupied territories. Would you employ someone who has made utterances that ensure that all of Israeli public opinion – including that part critical of its Government – would unite 100 per cent to resist him? Of course you wouldn’t.

The implication of this logic is simple. The UN Human Rights Council doesn’t give a toss about the human rights of the Palestinians in the sense of wanting them upheld. Its majority is far more interested in using Israel as a stick to beat the US with, or – in the case of Islamic states – as a bogeyman to dampen down domestic discontent.

This is the core point. The Human rights Council has no interest in improving human rights.

So Falk thinks 9/11 was an inside job, supports suicide bombing and compares Israel to Nazi Germany. What other views does he have:

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, “The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.

The NY Sun goes on to note a few months later 52 diplomats were taken hostage for 444 days.

There are many worthy bodies in the UN system, that we can and should participate in. Our last spell on the Security Council was excellent for NZ and good for the UN.

However the Human Rights Council is a body we should be avoiding. Even the UN Secretary General has criticised it. Within just months it is becoming as discredited as its predecessor body. This is because they watered down all the reforms.

We can achieve nothing of use on this body. We will just get to condemn Israel several times a day, ignore Sudan, Zimbabwe and Syria and get to join Iran in telling off the United Kingdom for its treatment of women.

To my horror, not only is New Zealand standing for a spot on the Human Rights Council, we are actively campaigning for it, and have the campaign website.

Now at first I thought it was a joke – would we really use text messaging type English for a domain name of votenz4hrc.org. But alas it is a real genuine site.

The only way to reform the Human Rights Council is to deny it legitimacy by refusing to participate until it does genuine reform. Changing from within totally failed with its predecessor.

I’m tempted to start a “Do Note Vote for NZ” campaign. Not because NZ doesn’t have an excellent record on human rights, but because I don’t want that excellent record to lend legitimacy to a Council which is home to some of the worse abusers, and fails consistently to confront countries like Zimbabwe as the Government there is literally murdering its opponents.

How much money is being spent by MFAT on the campaign to win a seat? I can think of much better uses for it!

The former UN Commission on Human Rights was a sick joke which comprised some of the worst human rights offenders in the world. Hence the UN Secretary-General proposed it be replaced by a smaller Human Rights Council with not just fewer members, but an election method which would keep out the worst states.

Sadly the reforms got watered down, so that almost the only thing which changed was the title. The new Human Rights Council has been hiring defenders of dictators for its work, and instead of trying to promote free speech, is trying to close it down by pushing for religious criticism defamation to be banned.

They have terminated scrutiny of Cuba and Belarus and basically do nothing at all except spend all their time condemning Israel. Not even the genocide in Darfur gets criticism to the same degree as Israel. And these criticisms of the Council come from Kofi Annan, not the US or Israel.

The US has announced it is minimising its participation, due to the above concerns. NZ should be doing the same. The UN does good in several areas, but its Human Rights Council is a sick joke.

Some common sense and plain speaking from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who has called for an end to food tariffs and to subsidies for biofuels as the key way to bring down the price of food and stop millions from starvation.

Sadly this advice will be ignored by the Greens and NZ First who both support protectionist policies such as tariffs.

Also interesting debate on how much biofuels are to blame:

Hunger campaigners single out biofuels – often made by converting food crops into fuel – as a prime culprit for the crisis.

Biofuel supporters say the effect on food prices of diverting crops into ethanol production is small.

US Agriculture Secretary Ed Shafer said before the summit began that biofuels accounted for about 3 per cent of the total food price rise.

But the Oxfam aid organisation says the real effect is about 30 per cent.

It is sort of ironic that us free traders are on the side of the UN and Oxfam while the Greens seem to be in the same camp as the US – supporting tariffs and biofuels.

NBR had a great cover story this morning by Amy Williams on how the Government has been dishing out money to a NZ company, even *after* it was told it had been blacklisted by the UN for corruption (one wonders how corrupt one has to be, to have the UN stop using you!!). The UN can not prosecute, but asked NZ authorities to prosecute the company – Radiola Aerospace, and it was referred to the Police in May 2007 by MFAT.

Despite this NZTE has continuted to grant Radiola money from its market development fund. Trevor Mallard has visited Radiola, and praised them a number of times – before this revelation which he says he was never brifed on by officials.

Helen had to miss out on the gala dinner in Singapore where she received a trophy made of recycled metal from the UN for being one of seven winners in the annual UN Champions of the Earth awards.Now Helen’s record on carbon emissions is worse than George W Bush and John Howard. Kyoto is all about what percentage increase or decrease one should have over 1990 levels and George and John did better than Helen in being closer to their target.

NZ has the fourth worst actual record of annex 1 countries in terms of meeting our Kyoto obligations (we are 29% over target) so one can only conclude, the award is yet another indication of the UN’s long demonstrated preference for rhetoric over substance. Typical UN – does not matter what you do in practice, as long as you churn out the right rhetoric!

No Right Turn also notes:

But while its great policy, none of this stuff has actually been implemented yet, so Clark has essentially been given this award on the basis of hot air.

I am not sure the policy is that great. They have yet to pass a single policy through Parliament. Their biofuels legislation has been rubbished by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and their Emission scheme by Greenpeace. Their Fart Tax failed due to the hypocrisy of treatment of debits and credits.

The future price of carbon is so uncertain, that I more and more think a carbon tax in the short term would be better than the tradeable emissions scheme. Under some dire scenarios the scheme could wipe out out food export sector. from Radio NZ yesterday:

Federated Farmers says the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme has the potential to extingish [sic] extinguish food exports from New Zealand. The comments are based on a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report which shows the projected impacts of the trading scheme on farmers’ profitsm a range of different carbon prices and the corresponding financial impact the scheme would have on different sectors such as sheep, beef, dairy, horticulture and deer. The figures analyse the impact the Emissions Trading Scheme would have had on the sectors if it had been introduced without warning in mid-2006. Among the worst affected sectors are deer, sheep and beef, greenhouse tomatoes and dairy. Federated Farmers’ Dairy Section Chairman Frank Brenmuhl says based on the projections for a payout of $4.14 per kilo of milk solids and a full carbon price of $50 per tonne the average drop in farmers’ profits would be 123%.

Now for those who only have a degree in economic history, a 123% drop in profits means you will be losing money. In other words no food production at all. So we will meet out Kyoto target by importing all our food from overseas. Hmmn that will be great eh.

UPDATE: The Greens’ Frog Blog is also weighing in, comparing Helen Clark getting an award for being a Champion of the Earth to Brian Waddle being named Black Cap of the Year for his cricket commentary. Shit that is funny – Frog is being more sarcastic than me!

The structural deficiencies of the UN are once again on display, with the recent activities of the UN Human Rights Council.

First of all they elected Jean Ziegler to the council’s advisory committee. Ziegler has compared Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards and lauding a professed Holocaust denier. Even better he, get this, co-founded in 1989 the Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize. He founded this four months after Libya bombed Pam Am Flight 103 killing 270 people.

Winners of his Prize has been Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and a leader of a Ba’ath party women’s organisation in Saddam’s Iraq. plus oh yeah Ziegler himself.

He also nicely helped the Ethiopian dictator Mengistu draft his one-party constitution and in 2002, he praised the Zimbabwean dictator, saying, “Mugabe has history and morality with him.”

But he is not against human rights.  He has proclaimed the US a dictatorship guility of genocide, and oh yes western capitalism leaders deliberately organising starvation as a “weapon of mass destruction”.

So what else is the UN Human Rights Council doing. It has voted to urge nation states to ban defamation of religion. God forbid, religions are criticised.

But there may be some good news. They have directed a special investigator to concentrate on free speech and expression. Oh, but not to defend it. No, no. Their job is now to report on people who “abuse” free speech. They explain they are not against all free speech, just that free speech must be exercised responsibly.

Reporters Without Borders have said, the U.N. body was focusing on limiting criticism of state and religious interests. Amnesty International said the resolution showed “troubling signs that the Council is moving away from its mandate to promote human rights in the direction of policing the exercise of human rights.”

Oh while busy worried about the scourge of free speech, they were unable to find time to address human rights violations in Tibet.  But they did have time to declare climate change a human rights issue.

It would be funny if it was not so dangerous. And it is no surprise. I blogged two years ago about how this new UN Human Rights Council was no different to its discredited predecessor. The ultimate irony is that this body is funded 95% by the countries with the best human rights records so those countries with the worst human rights records can pass resolutions which undermine human rights.

Hat Tip: The Hive