Oh my God! Just when I thought things couldn't get more insane than this.

I am speechless. What can we do? It is unbelievable that our media is so inept at reporting this.

God, I ask Why? Whyyy?

The UN may haev been a good idea in the past, and maybe its done a few good things. However, it has trasformed itself into a bastion of dictators and hate-mongers.

Like the League of Nations that preceeded it, it must reform or it must be abolished. It has become too dangerous for us to keep this fantasy alive...

Why is this a surprise? After all, Syria openly admits to supporting Palestinian terror, and it sits on the Security Council. Let's not forget the farce of last year's Durban "anti-racism" conference that became yet another platform for "Zionism is racism" and all sorts of other anti-Semitic and pro-terror incitement. The UN has never, ever had any credibility when it comes to Israel, and it never will.

Yes, it is time to get out. Every day the U.S. stays in the U.N. is a day that corrupt institution looks legitimate. If dictators and petty Eurocrats want a stage to pretend they are real governments, let them do it without our tacit approval or our money.

It is *long* since time to send the UN packing. This most recent obscenity is just one in a long line of insults to sense and humanity that has come out of that organization.

Myria

Normally, I have something snarky to say. This just leaves me crestfallen.

And nearly speechless.

Osama's terror-squad slammed planes into the WTC because he knew that slamming them into the UN would destroy his greatest supporters.

Put the UN in Gaza. See how many countries sign up then.

The next time the ETA blows up some Spaniards, we can all point to this resolution and say that it was legitimate tactic.

>>EU members Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden approved the resolution...

Why? Three reasons:

1) Dependence on oil and their false fear of offending Arab leaders

2) Anti-semitism

3) Fear of upsetting local Arab populations (e.g., Algerians).

I can't. I just can't take it.

I do have one positive thing to say. I spoke with a German-born Jew yesterday. She assures me that the anti-Semitism in Germany is not coming from native Germans. It's the Arab immigrants.

And the fact that Germany arrested a suspect in the Tunisian synagogue bombing is also proof that the Germans have learned from their past.

Apparently, the rest of Europe has not. Shame. Shame. SHAME on them all.

Paul said, "If dictators and petty Eurocrats want a stage to pretend they are real governments, let them do it without our tacit approval or our money."

Then check out the following. The UN global taxation meeting was just held last month in Mexico.

[Link: www.americanpolicy.org...]
"It will never happen," was the almost universal response to our first reports of global taxation nearly a decade ago. The folks at the United Nations, however, believe that it will happen – and soon. In fact, another World Conference is being planned for March 18-22, 2002, in Monterrey, Mexico
Assure that developed countries contribute 0.7 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to development aid for developing countries, into a "common pool" for distribution by the United Nations;
Create a Global Economic Security Council as proposed by the Commission on Global Governance;
Create an International Tax Organization;
Establish an "adequate international tax source," namely, the Tobin Tax on currency exchange, and a global tax on carbon (the use of fossil fuels).

Whaddya' think of that? Give them .7% of U.S. GDP and you can pay for a lot of Durban's.

Get out NOW!

The UN is a wonderful idea in principle. Unfortunately, it depends on the membership being nations of principle.

The majority of nations in the UN are tyrannies and dictatorships. Given that it works on a majority vote system, could anything else be truly expected?

I see a future coming very soon where it is going to be a half dozen nations as the target of the rest of the world. The divide will be those demanding alms as their right from the nations of means. The appeal will be based on liberal guilt. (China, for example, is not going to be begged for alms much as it grows in wealth and power.) Europe will be happy to pay, as long as the US pays more.

End the UN now. Only when true democracies which respect human rights, individuality, property rights and capitalism are the majority, will such an organization ever be truly beneficial to the world.

Actually, I don't agree that we should quit the UN. I think it is imperative for us to stay in so we can veto, Soviet-style, each and every racist and socialistic declaration they can come up with...

Instead of just leaving, we should quietly work on our G7 allies, except the French, to leave with us. Since UN dues are based on a nation's ability to contribute, this would leave it without the money it needs to do whatever it is that it does. We can then use the G6, or 7 if we invite Russia, to promote freedom and democracy. Rather than just the wealth of the technocrats that suck on the tit of the rest of the world.

I see what you're saying Mark, but when the US gets voted off the Human Rights committee, and pays a quarter of the tab for Durban, I see getting out as much more effective. Unfortunately, another Democrat will eventually gain the White House, at which time the US will cede a bit more to the UN each year. I'd rather see the next democrat president having to work to get the US back into the UN, which would require much wheeling, dealing and guarantees to the US, not the UN. They'd be desperate to get the US back.

The one thing that keeps coming back to me when I think about this is Atlas Shrugged.

New York could make better use of the office space in Turtle Bay. Not only do we pay (eventually) a lot of money to subsidize this nightmare...we are the hosts. Yuck.

The US should not leave, we should take the reins of leadership away from the dictatorships and lead the UN ourselves.

The US should create a democratic caucus in the UN that we consult with and develp unified strategies with prior to any votes, and use the UN as the mandate for our actions whenever possible.

We should hold nations accountable (Aid checks withheld, foreign leaders snubbed) for what they do, what they say, and how they vote. If Egypt votes against the US 98% of the time perhaps they shouldn't get 2 billion a year in US dollars. We should expect other members of the democratic Caucus to do likewise when practical.

As useless as the UN is, leaving is not the answer. While withdrawl would effectively cripple the UN (let's see France, Spain, Belgium, and Sweden make up the lost 25% of the funding), and it would bring a big grin to my face; it would not stop the daily pronouncements that most of the US tends to shrug off anyways.

There is a reason why a crap resolution like this was introduced and passed by the increasingly irrelevant UN HRC, it would face an automatic veto in the General Assembly by the US.

In fact, in a desparate attempt to find the positive in this I will suggest some of the good that results from this sort of stomach wrenching resolution.

1. The UN HRC has taken another large step to deserved irrelevance;

2. Israel can point to this sort of one-sided pile of dung as yet another reason not to even consider allowing the UN to put peacekeepers (or even UN HR monitors) in the West Bank or to protect the border- actually it should drive most of the Israeli doves completely away from ever believing in the UN again;

3. Stupidity like this negatively colors everything else coming from the UN and global gatherings (Kyoto treaty), so that support for them will be harder and harder to find in the US. (I call this the "Falwell/Robertson Effect")

Chas, your words are taking away a bit of the sting.

Thanks.

Ruprecht sounds like a diplomat... Sorry but that's a bunch of BS. What we really need are Pattons who don't give a shit about the rest of the world or about diplomacy, just want to get th job done and get home.

We should serve notice of our intention to quit by rolling an Abrams up to the door and telling the whole slimy crew to decamp post haste as they're all PNGs and we're returning that particular stretch of Manhattan to marshland.

Would really love to see the US acting as a real empire, but the political leadership just isn't there. We need a (democratic) Caesar!

Let the US seceed from the UN, they can rename it to the ROtW, and we can draw a big line down the middle of the world. I want nothing more to do with them.

You gentlemen have the wrong idea about how to change the UN.

The UN is full of bad governments. The way to fix that is not by getting out of the UN. It is by changing the bad governments.

A pro-American Iran will be a huge embarassment to France.

A start on fixing the UN will be the Israeli Middle East tour. Damascus, Baghdad. Teheran.

The UN is not the problem Bad government is the problem.

In some way I understand why we're all so exercised about the latest execrable dung-wallowing episode of the UNHRC - we somehow expect a higher (or at least more intelligent, more nuanced, more HUMAN) standard of reasoning from a international organization.

But in other ways I wonder if we're not all becoming too knotted up for no good reason. What differentiates this from Durban? Or the myriad resolutions the UN has previous passed which (to be charitable) one-sidedly condemn Israeli actions? Nothing, I'd say.

Rather, I like to think about the way the Blaga Down Undah (Tim Blair) thinks about Australian anti-Americans. To paraphrase: "We’ve got our anti-US forces. Lots of them. We’ve taken the precaution of rounding them up and keeping them penned in the United Nations."

Let them bloviate. They're just staggering one step closer towards the ashheap of history.

The US should have been expelled from the UN a long time ago, then perhaps they may have got down to something (like preventing the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides). Just out of interest, how the fuck could you possibly use "anti-american" as an insult. If you're what America stands for, then I would consider that a virtue.

And honor to the Czech Republic and its people who have, as Churchill famously observed, suffered by their association with the western democracies.

Not only has their vote on this issue been true, but their policy and their public statements have recognized the true nature of the Middle East conflict and its implications for the democratic world generally.

After three shameful betrayals in thirty years, who could blame the Czech people if they quietly tended to their own affairs? And who cannot take heart from their steadfastness?

Anyone actually read the resolution?

Thought not.

Let's just say that it's slightly different from the NP's report. In ways that might hurt your preconceptions.

Oh, and take a look at Article 51 of the UN Charter, while you're at it.

"Preventing the Bosnian genocide," you say? The US tried, but no, the Europeans insisted on doing in their way. They didn't want air support, they didn't want logistical support, they didn't want armaments. Fat lot of god that did-- thanks to the Dutch and the rest of the Europeans, a bunch of Bosnians died. I suppose you noticed the Dutch government falling today?
The post above only demonstrates the idiocy of these reflexive anti-Americans. No matter what happens, no matter what the US does, idiots complain and protest.

The documents:

E/CN.4/2002/L.16 is the draft resolution that has the following section, noted in the article:

1. Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation by all available means in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination and that, by so doing, the Palestinian people is fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations;

E/CN.4/RES/2002/1 is the resolution as passed. Perhaps you'll notice it states:

Recalling Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002) and 1403 (2002) that called upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire, as well as for withdrawal of Israeli troops and for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction,

Just for reference. Resolution 1402 which states:

2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation,
incitement and destruction;

last but not least, Resolution 1397.

Just so you all know what you're condemning so swiftly and easily, based on an over the top article in the National Post.

Dear Michael,

I was looking through your documents, and I think that you are wrong. The resolution you point to --

[Link: www.unhchr.ch...]

was passed on April 5, 2002, as you can tell by the date on the bottom.

The draft resolution you speak of --

[Link: www.unhchr.ch...]

is dated April 9th. I believe that the resolution causing all this commotion in not yet available on the web. When it is you will see that it includes the hate-mongering language that we are upset about.

Eric

Eric is correct; the resolution referred to in that “over the top” article was passed on April 15, and it does not appear to have been posted on the site yet.

By the way, the National Post is not known for making up stories out of thin air.

There were two resolutions. The 9 April draft resolution, dealing specifically with occupation, is the one that was passed on April 15 and misreported in the NP, subsequent to the 5 April resolution, which deals with terrorism, and which mandated Mary Robinson to visit Israel. After initially delaying this visit, the Israeli ambassador has now agreed to it. Sorry to upset your prejudices.

I am not saying the US should be subserviant to the UN. The Soviets never were, they aligned the UN behind them whenever possible then did whatever they wanted to do.

The UN is one more tool in the President's Foreign Policy toolbox. A tool the US has only used once or twice. A tool the world respects for some reason. A tool we should use rather than throw away out of spite.

For example. The Land Mine treaty. Its a bad treaty but the US is constantly vilified for it. It mixes up anti-personel mines and anti-tank mines. The US uses mines on the North/South Korean DMZ so we won't sign the treaty. Maybe we should sign the treaty and just take our time about removing the mines on the DMZ. Or sign the treaty and let the South Koreans take the heat over the mines in the DMZ since the mines are there to keep North Korean Tanks from invading.

Another example would the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. The US didn't sign because it was too difficult to monitor that kind of thing. China didn't sign either, they slid past everyones radar because they said they would impose their own moritorium on nuclear testing. That's the kind of statement the US should get used to making.

Same with Kyoto. Don't sign it, but then say we think Kyoto is a bad treaty and we refuse to sign it but we will set our own goals to come into compliance. Something like that to spin things so its harder to villify you before the world court of public opinion. Then if you don't make the goals you don't pay the fines. Everyone will have forgotten by that point anyway.

Oh, and we should get others to put forward our proposals. If we have a proposal for the UN that will greatly benefit South Korea we should get the South Koreans to carry the ball for us.

And we should get comfortable using our veto.

auntie,

Who's prejudiced? We are in fact discussing the April 15 resolution, which based on the April 9th draft affirms the use of "all available means" agaist the Israelis. Including suicide bombings against civilian targets.

You don't seem to dispute that. So do you support such tactics and if so, who are you calling prejudiced?

Let's face it. The United Nations has backed their own form of terrorism known as "sanctions". They've used them to cause whole nations to be unable to buy or sell. And who suffers? The people of the nation under sanction, specifically children. Take an honest look at UN actions and compare such doings with the Genocide Conventions Treaty of 1948 and tell me who the hypocrites are!

Eric,

All those documents are meant to be taken in context with what is being said.

They all reference each other and I do believe the Draft Resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.16 - Question of the violation of human rights in the
occupied Arab territories, including Palestine) I linked to, is the draft of the document in question. According to the National Post in this article, the resolution is titled titled "Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine." So I don't think I am completely wrong. The final resolution may not be online yet, but I don't think it will be a far cry from anything I already linked to.

In fact, that other article at the National Post I linked to explains further that what is causing all the uproar about the resolution is the fact that it reaffirms a 1982 General Assembly resolution.

The article states:

The 1982 resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."

The OIC had wanted to drive home the point of the 1982 resolution by repeating the words endorsing an armed struggle in the new resolution. But the Islamic caucus also sought backing from Western members of the commission, who objected.

European Union members of the commission convinced the OIC to refrain from repeating the words "all available means, including armed struggle," but the OIC did not drop the "recollection" of the 1982 text, diplomats said.

and the draft resolution I originally linked to states:

Recalling particularly General Assembly resolution 37/43 of 3 December 1982 reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,

and I'm sure the final resolution will look something like the opening of E/CN.4/RES/2002/1 which starts off:

Recalling Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002) and 1403 (2002)..."

The 1982 resolution will be recalled, but the wording will not be stated.

And yes Charles, I do define an article 'over the top' when it starts out with:

UN backs Palestinian violence
Arab, European nations pass resolution supporting use of 'armed struggle'

I find it blows the events out of proportion. It's great fodder for debate, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

According to an email I received from the author of the original piece, Michael’s interpretation above is correct. To summarize, the document signed on the 15th “recalls” an earlier document which supported the use of armed struggle, although it does not include that language itself. According to Steven Edwards, the actual words are “recalling particularly,” which leaves little doubt as to the intent.

Come on. This is diplo-weasel speak, intended to be decrypted by the high priests of international law—but the bottom line is that it supports Palestinian violence, and all the signatories know it. The headline is not over the top at all.