Israel Matzav

Obama's and Assad's mutual love

US President Barack Obama and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are both pursuing the same love. The good news is that both can have her. The bad news is that no one should want her. I speak of course of the United Nations 'Human Rights' Council.

Barack Obama is so enamored of the Council that this past week he gave notice that the US wishes to stand for re-election - 14 months before he was required to do so. And Bashar al-Assad is so enamored of the Council that this week he delivered a Syrian 'pledge' to protect human rights (sorry if you just finished eating), a step on the way to elections on May 20 in which Syria will run unopposed.

Assad's infatuation with the Council is understandable. The Council has passed as many resolutions condemning Israel - his chief rival - as it has passed condemning the other 191 countries in the United Nations combined. The real question is Obama's infatuation with the Council. Anne Bayefsky tries to put it into focus.

Why, then, does President Obama share Syrian and Libyan enthusiasm for the Council? This week’s announcement that his administration wants a second term was accompanied by a list of responses to this question, each more specious than the next.

The justifications include: “The Council took bold, assertive action to highlight Iran’s deteriorating human rights situation.” That “bold” step consisted of a resolution appointing one individual to “investigate” Iran’s human rights violations and report back to the Council a year from now.

Then the administration pointed to “efforts to renew the mandate of the independent expert tasked with monitoring human rights throughout Sudan.” It neglects to mention, however, that the mandate was renewed only after excising all criticism of the government of Sudan from the Council resolution and substituting such praise as: “recognizing…the efforts of the government of the Sudan in the promotion and protection of human rights.”

The U.S. list also emphasizes the president’s “pivotal role” in suspending Libyan membership from the Council. This “success” (which should never have been necessary to begin with), somehow overlooks the fact that human rights paragons and Council members like Saudi Arabia and China remain comfortably in place.

Then there is the stunning misrepresentation of “a strong statement on LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] rights” from “a group of 85 countries,” that the Obama team heralds as a “landmark moment” for the U.N. Joined by less than half of U.N. members, a mere statement carries with it no practical consequences. And just two days later, the Council adopted a contrary resolution over the wishes of the same coalition. When the resolution on “traditional values of humankind” was passed, the American delegate specifically lamented that it “undermine[d]…the rights of…LGBT individuals.”

The administration even claims to have “end[ed] the divisive debate over the highly problematic concept of ‘defamation of religions.’” But the resolution on religion which was adopted specifically cites as a role model a “speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu,” delivered on September 16, 2010. In that same speech, not only did Ihsanoglu refer to the defamation of religions, he declared that Islamic law trumps human rights. In his words: “the holy Quran…places a premium on human dignity — a concept that transcends human rights. Furthermore, a December 2010 resolution of the General Assembly necessitates that a report on the “defamation of religions” be completed by the fall. Making reports of its demise premature, to say the least.

Overall, U.S. membership on the Council has been so “successful” that, at its latest session, the U.S. lost eleven of the fourteen votes held.

Most significantly, the session marked the end of the Council’s own five-year review. The administration billed membership as the golden ticket for ensuring reform “from within.” As it turned out, every serious recommendation that the Obama administration put forward on reform (39 of 42) was firmly rejected, ensuring nothing but more of the same in the years ahead.

There's a silver lining in this cloud. Fourteen months from now will be June 2012. By then, God willing, Obama's Republican opponent will be in place. And then Obama's obsequious behavior toward the 'Human Rights Council' can become a campaign issue.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, United Nations Human Rights Council

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:26 PM