Powered by WebAds

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Lazy Susan Rice can't say anything bad about Libya

President Obumbler's UN ambassador, Lazy Susan Rice, had nothing bad to say about the 14 new members who were elected to the UN 'Human Rights Council' on Thursday.
On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.

Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”

Not constructive because, Rice suggested, it was no big deal. She described the countries on the Council — which include human-rights experts Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba in addition to the incoming freshman class — as just “countries whose orientation and perspectives we don’t agree with.” And later on she described the election as one which “yielded an outcome that we think is a good reflection on the potential of the Human Rights Council.”
Well it probably is a good reflection on the lack of potential of the 'Human Rights Council,' which of course raises the question once again of why the United States is granting the Council credibility by its presence.

Anne Bayefsky has some statistics on the Council at the link above and some details about the human rights records that got those countries elected. So why isn't the Obama administration doing anything about it? Bayefsky explains:
The fiction of a credible human-rights body suits the president’s foreign policy just fine. It explains his decision last year to join the Council and to pick up 22 percent of the tab. The fact that the Council’s main priority is to demonize Israel and keep the spotlight off abominations around the world has had no impact on Obama’s calculations.
And Jennifer Rubin disagrees.
Bayefsky gets one thing wrong, however, when she writes: “The fact that the Council’s main priority is to demonize Israel and keep the spotlight off abominations around the world has had no impact on Obama’s calculations.” One can’t help but conclude it is because the council’s main function is to Israel-bash that a seat means so much to the despotic regimes and, in turn, becomes a trinket that the Obama team can dispense to get on the good side of Israel’s foes.

When Hillary Clinton delivered her disingenuous speech at AIPAC earlier in the year, she had the nerve to assert that the “United States has also led the fight in international institutions against anti-Semitism and efforts to challenge Israel’s legitimacy.” And she threw in this doozy: “This Administration will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” Why then does the administration fund the UN Human Rights Council and sit idly by as one human rights abuser after another is added to the body? Rather than leading the fight on Israel’s behalf, the Obama team is facilitating it and providing cover for those who persistently challenge Israel’s legitimacy.
Good questions. But don't expect America's 'Jewish leaders' to take them up:
And the officialdom of American Jewry? Still sending bouquets to Obama for nominating a Jew to the Supreme Court.
I guess we can't expect Obama and Rice to be more Jewish than the 'Jewish leaders,' can we?


At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good questions. But don't expect America's 'Jewish leaders' to take them up."

Insert sound effect

At 1:30 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

There's a description I have mind for what Jewish "leaders" are doing for Obama while at the same time he's doing the opposite thing to Israel that can't be published on a blog like this one.

But it sums up very well the despicable situation apparent today - about as tawdry as what happens on the dark side of the Internet.

What could go wrong indeed.


Post a Comment

<< Home