The chamber of the U.N. Human
Rights Council in Geneva: America
won a small victory over Iran
- but not in regard to nuclear weapons.
Izvestia, Russia
America Defeats Iran at the U.N. Human Rights
Council
"Due to the clever procedural game of
the Americans, Iran has withdrawn its candidacy for the U.N. Human Rights
Council. … Every day, American diplomats have reminded their colleagues that
Iran violates human rights - and joy! Allegedly afraid of defeat, Tehran
abandoned the fight."
On May 13, if nothing unexpected happens, American diplomacy
will be able to quietly celebrate what it considers a small victory over Iran.
The topic isn't Tehran's nuclear program - where there are no
victories. This is something else; Iran, due to the clever procedural game of
the Americans, has withdrawn its candidacy for the U.N. Human Rights
Council, which is convening in Geneva. On Thursday [May 13], the body will
undergo a change in its composition. The Council, which includes 47 countries,
changes on a rotating basis and on a system of regional quotas. Asia is
allotted four seats. There were nominations for Malaysia, Thailand, Maldives,
Qatar - and Iran. Those who collect the fewest number of votes are
disqualified.
Every day, American diplomats have reminded their colleagues
that Iran violates human rights - and joy! Allegedly afraid of defeat, Tehran
abandoned the fight. True, Iran seated representatives on another U.N.
commission the same day - the Commission
on the Status of Women, but there's no such thing as a battle without a
loss. "That's how it should be done,” rejoiced Hillary Clinton's
subordinates.
Of course, Barack Obama's style of diplomacy is not that of
George W. Bush. Bush simply boycotted the Human Rights Council, considering it
an absurdity that on the council were seated Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba,
Zimbabwe ... However, Obama ordered participation last year, "to improve
it from within.” That's how all this began.
New York in September 2005: As always, the city is infused
with the odor of the river and pizza; I'm at a newsstand, buying, what was it? Foreign
Affairs, I think. And a key article in this somber publication says that
it's time to forget the words "international community." This concept
doesn't exist - there is only the U.S., E.U., Australia and New Zealand -
others are insignificant, and this can be proven by numbers. You know, it was
well written because it's sincere. And just as sincerely, the author of the
article is probably sad today, seeing that the list of significant countries
isn't the one he dreamed up five years ago.
And why is the list different? Among other things, it's the
fact that at some point in the mid 2000s, someone was overzealous.
What a time we experienced! Shakespeare couldn't have dreamed
this up. There was the smell of fear and war - the one in Iraq and the others
that America was threatening. As the "only superpower," it was trying
to quickly adapt the world to its leadership. And how surprisingly stubborn the
resistance of the world was at the time! In New York this was especially true,
particularly in September. The U.N. General Assembly was beginning, and in 2005
it was in the midst of a raging debate on reforming the organization.
Typically, U.N. reform is perceived as a change in the composition of the
permanent members of the Security Council (and similar issues.) But, there were
other reforms of importance - like the transformation of the Commission
on Human Rights into the Human Rights Council.
This reform happened later, but in 2005, the American reform
project failed with a bang. The project was fantastic, the living embodiment of
that article in Foreign Affairs. The creation of a new Security
Council was suggested with permanent members whose democratic credentials were
inborn, hereditary and immutable - comprised of the same U.S., E.U. and others.
But other non-permanent “insignificant” members would be selected based on
strict protocols. And together, this group would have disciplined the rest of
the world, beating those guilty of violating the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on the head. When this crazy idea was
shattered, Bush began his boycott and his diplomats complained that without
America, the Council only criticizes Israel and the U.S. (in that order). And
what else can you expect during an era in which the West has used human rights
as a blunt instrument of foreign policy? Opposition (even subdued,) as is well
known, is the same as action.
That era of partisan fire is ebbing - and it's impossible to
remember without laughing how the Americans seriously thought they could
establish the status of a permanent democracy of legislators - and that the
world would actually vote for it. Yet they continue to think so. Read what the
best American media outlets and the smartest columnists are writing about the
whole plot of Iran and the Geneva Council - it's just a shame that the U.S.
can't completely justify all the talk of human rights within the U.N. It's the
wrong venue. There, you see, all are equal and anyone can say anything. And
while Americans may be so inclined - the "soft" style of Obama's
diplomacy is likely to result in the same effect as Bush's bulldozer
diplomacy.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
However, the point of creating a reformed Human Rights
Council is that the Council should consult. Rights are a topic on which debate
will never end. For example, we live in a world where the question of how women
dress, especially in regard to the hijab, seems to be at the center of
discussions on the coexistence of civilizations. You don't like the style? Then
let's talk it over. But who do we talk to - where are the Iranians? Good thing
that at least they're on the Commission on the Status of Women.
