At UN, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea criticize US human rights record - Yes, really

Rick Moran
I can't decide whether the idea that Iran, North Korea, and Cuba tearing into the US at a UN meeting of the Human Rights Council more accurately reflects:

1. A bad episode from the Twilight Zone series (the original, of course)

2. The Star Trek episode with a bearded Spock in an alternate universe

3. A Marx Brothers movie

Maybe a combination of all three, if Ann Bayefsky's report can be believed:
According to the Council's procedure, all U.N. members are given carte blanche to comment and make recommendations to the state in the docket. But since only three hours are allotted per state, the practice has emerged of allowing approximately only the first sixty to speak.

This morning fifty-six countries lined-up for the opportunity to have at the U.S. representatives, many standing in line overnight a day ago in order to be near the top of the list. Making it to the head of the line were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea.Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba's advice to end "violations against migrants and mentally ill persons" and "ensure the right to food and health."

Iran - currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery - told the U.S. "effectively to combat violence against women."

North Korea - which systematically starves a captive population - told the U.S. "to address inequalities in housing, employment and education" and "prohibit brutality...by law enforcement officials."

Libya complained about U.S. "racism, racial discrimination and intolerance."

Am I the only one who feels a desperate sense of hopelessness when contemplating the myopic, naive, and shamefully wrong headed crew that is running our country? What did they possibly hope to gain?

The U.S. delegation was at pains to impress the international crowd. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organizations, told the assembled: "it is an honor to be in this chamber."

She was referring to the meeting place of the U.N. Human Rights Council - the new and improved lead U.N. human rights body created by the General Assembly in 2006 over the negative vote cast by the United States. In this very chamber the Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined. Calling the chamber home, for instance, are Council members Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China.

[...]

Administration officials are attempting to spin the exercise as one of justifiable and cathartic mea culpa on the world stage. But the impression they really left was one of moral and cultural relativism in which American leadership has been squandered to the detriment of victims suffering egregious human rights violations worldwide.

Many times over the last couple of years I've asked myself what future historians will make of all this. After all, in 100 years, the taint of today's ideology will largely have dissipated and what will be left will largely be the contemporary sensibilities and prejudices of the historian. Will they have the wit and wisdom to see the utter foolishness of this? Will enough history survive to show the "cultural relativism" and dripping hypocrisy of  the US being criticized for human rights by countries where the term has absolutely no meaning?

The idiocy of the Obama administration continues to amaze.




I can't decide whether the idea that Iran, North Korea, and Cuba tearing into the US at a UN meeting of the Human Rights Council more accurately reflects:

1. A bad episode from the Twilight Zone series (the original, of course)

2. The Star Trek episode with a bearded Spock in an alternate universe

3. A Marx Brothers movie

Maybe a combination of all three, if Ann Bayefsky's report can be believed:

According to the Council's procedure, all U.N. members are given carte blanche to comment and make recommendations to the state in the docket. But since only three hours are allotted per state, the practice has emerged of allowing approximately only the first sixty to speak.

This morning fifty-six countries lined-up for the opportunity to have at the U.S. representatives, many standing in line overnight a day ago in order to be near the top of the list. Making it to the head of the line were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea.

Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba's advice to end "violations against migrants and mentally ill persons" and "ensure the right to food and health."

Iran - currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery - told the U.S. "effectively to combat violence against women."

North Korea - which systematically starves a captive population - told the U.S. "to address inequalities in housing, employment and education" and "prohibit brutality...by law enforcement officials."

Libya complained about U.S. "racism, racial discrimination and intolerance."

Am I the only one who feels a desperate sense of hopelessness when contemplating the myopic, naive, and shamefully wrong headed crew that is running our country? What did they possibly hope to gain?

The U.S. delegation was at pains to impress the international crowd. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organizations, told the assembled: "it is an honor to be in this chamber."

She was referring to the meeting place of the U.N. Human Rights Council - the new and improved lead U.N. human rights body created by the General Assembly in 2006 over the negative vote cast by the United States. In this very chamber the Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined. Calling the chamber home, for instance, are Council members Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China.

[...]

Administration officials are attempting to spin the exercise as one of justifiable and cathartic mea culpa on the world stage. But the impression they really left was one of moral and cultural relativism in which American leadership has been squandered to the detriment of victims suffering egregious human rights violations worldwide.

Many times over the last couple of years I've asked myself what future historians will make of all this. After all, in 100 years, the taint of today's ideology will largely have dissipated and what will be left will largely be the contemporary sensibilities and prejudices of the historian. Will they have the wit and wisdom to see the utter foolishness of this? Will enough history survive to show the "cultural relativism" and dripping hypocrisy of  the US being criticized for human rights by countries where the term has absolutely no meaning?

The idiocy of the Obama administration continues to amaze.