THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations’ top court ordered Israel on Friday to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in its military offensive in Gaza, but stopped short of ordering a cease-fire.
South Africa alleged that Israel’s campaign in the tiny coastal enclave amounted to genocide in the case, which goes to the core of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, and had asked the court to order Israel to halt the operation.
While the ruling stopped short of that, it nonetheless constituted an overwhelming rebuke of Israel’s wartime conduct and adds to mounting international pressure to halt the offensive that has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, decimated vast swaths Gaza, and driven nearly 85% of its 2.3 million people from their homes.
The UN is a defunct organization rife with antisemites and tyrants. It lacks the moral authority to levy judgment. As an example, the nation that brought this case, South Africa, is currently in the process of committing a slow genocide on their white population. Nobody cares.
The UN is like that scrawny kid who runs in after the fight is over sucker punches the loser. We have known about China committing genocide against the Uyghurs for years. We don’t need the UN to tell us that. The question is whether or not the world community is going to do anything about it. We already know the answer to that too.
The UN has accused China of “serious human rights violations” in a long-awaited report into allegations of abuse in Xinjiang province.
China had urged the UN not to release the report – with Beijing calling it a “farce” arranged by Western powers.
The report assesses claims of abuse against Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities, which China denies.
But investigators said they found “credible evidence” of torture possibly amounting to “crimes against humanity”.
Human rights groups have been sounding the alarm over what is happening in the north-western province for years, alleging that more than one million Uyghurs had been detained against their will in a large network of what the state calls “re-education camps”.
Venezuela has become the latest accused human rights abuser to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. It defeated Costa Rica 105 to 96 in a secret ballot vote inside the UN General Assembly.
In Caracas, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza called it a “historic decision,” declaring the election a victory despite “a fierce and brutal campaign led by the United States and its subordinated allied countries.”
However, the election was controversial, with human rights groups reacting fiercely and US Ambassador Kelly Craft describing it as “an embarrassment to the United Nations and a tragedy for the people of Venezuela.”
A draft internal UN audit leaked to the Guardian in September found Solheim had spent almost $500,000 (£390,000) on air travel and hotels in just 22 months, and was away 80% of the time. The audit said this was a “reputation risk” for an organisation dedicated to fighting climate change.
A UN staff union leader called some of the revelations “mind-blowing” and a prominent climate scientist accused Solheim of “obscene CO2 hypocrisy”.
The US has pulled out of the United Nations Human Rights Council, calling it a “cesspool of political bias”.
The “hypocritical and self-serving” body “makes a mockery of human rights”, said US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley.
Ms Haley last year accused the council of “chronic anti-Israel bias” and said the US was reviewing its membership.
[…]
The United States has always had a conflicting relationship with the UN Human Rights Council. The Bush Administration decided to boycott the council when it was created in 2006 for many of the same reasons cited by the Trump administration.
The then UN ambassador was John Bolton – who is currently President Trump’s national security adviser and a strong critic of the UN.
It wasn’t until years later, in 2009, that the United States re-joined under the Obama administration.
The U.S. government says it has negotiated a significant cut in the United Nations budget.
The U.S. Mission to the United Nations said on Sunday that the U.N.’s 2018-2019 budget would be slashed by over $285 million. The mission said reductions would also be made to the U.N.’s management and support functions.
The announcement didn’t make clear the entire amount of the budget or specify what effect the cut would have on the U.S. contribution.
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that the “inefficiency and overspending” of the organization is well-known, and she would not let “the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of.”
She also said that while the mission was pleased with the results of budget negotiations, it would continue to “look at ways to increase the U.N.’s efficiency? while protecting our interests.”
The U.N. continues to have some value in coordinating specific international efforts, but the American taxpayers should only be funding it to the extent that it bolsters our national efforts at peace and stability in the world.
by Owen | 1227, 21 Dec 1717 | Politics | 3 Comments
Last time I checked, nations decide for themselves where to place their embassies. Our nation’s decision is not subject to UN approval.
The UN General Assembly has decisively backed a resolution effectively calling on the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The non-binding resolution was approved by 128 states, with 35 abstaining and nine others voting against.
I hope that President Trump follows through with repercussions to those nations who would dictate to us. And the UN itself, for that matter. It lost the moral high ground long ago and exists through the goodwill of its members. The US has one vote, so maybe we should only contribute funding equal the the percentage of our vote.
And make not mistake, this vote rested on antisemitism and fear of a violent Muslim reaction. There were no high moral principles in play.
Good! It’s not about the policies. It’s about who gets to decide the policies. We should not be outsourcing our sovereignty to international bodies that do not have America’s interests at heart.
Continuing his “America First” approach to foreign policy, President Donald Trump has pulled the U.S. out of a United Nations compact seeking global cooperation to protect the safety and rights of refugees and migrants.
Trump’s decision to end America’s “participation in the Global Compact on Migration” was disclosed on Saturday by the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., explained in a statement that the pact’s “global approach” was “simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
“[O]ur decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country,” Haley said.
The Post reported that the Feb. 2 memo was sent from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva.
“Recent reports have assessed the negative impact that this reform may have on the right to health of almost 30 million people in the U.S.,” the letter says.
“I wish to express serious concern over the impact of these measures on the rights to the enjoyment of the highest sustainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to social security of the people in the United States of America.”
Dainius Puras, the “special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” signed the memo.
Xabier Celaya, an OHCHR spokesman, told the Post that Puras signed the letter but cannot comment on it until it becomes public.
Puras reportedly plans on discussing the inquiry at the U.N. Human Rights Council’s next session in June.
Haley is setting up a mission-by-mission review of all 16 peace operations and is “relatively skeptical” of the value and efficiency of many of the blue-helmet deployments, said the diplomat, who spoke on background.
A senior Security Council diplomat told AFP that peacekeeping reform was “a priority” for the new US ambassador “who wants to work closely with key partners on the issue in the coming weeks.”
While the United States has few soldiers serving as peacekeepers, it is by far the biggest financial contributor to UN peacekeeping, providing nearly 29 percent of the $7.9 billion budget for this year.
During hearings at the US Senate last month, Haley made clear she was seeking to bring the US share of funding for peacekeeping to below 25 percent and said other countries should step in to shoulder the burden.
“We have to start encouraging other countries to have skin in the game,” she said.
It is easy for the U.N. to send Blue Helmets all around the world when someone else is footing the bill. How often are the Blue Helmets actually keeping peace?
Remember when the UN was an organization designed to resolve international conflicts? Yeah, now they are dictating domestic policies to member nations.
EU nations must accept up to 200,000 refugees as part of a “common strategy” to replace their “piecemeal” approach to the migrant crisis, the UN says.
Antonio Guterres, head of the UN refugee agency, said the EU must mobilise “full force” for the crisis, calling it a “defining moment”.
EU leaders, split over sharing the refugee burden, are scrambling to agree a response in meetings on Friday.
