Obama's UN Speech: Nothing New, Nothing Unexpected, Nothing Positive about the U.S.

William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection summarized Obama's UN speech best. I'll copy and paste it here. If you haven't been over to the Legal Insurrection Blog, it's worth a read. Mr. Jacobson is a law professor at Cornell and quite a brilliant writer.

Barack Obama's speech to the United Nations today had some positive aspects. He gave lip service to freedom of the individual and political rights.

But overall, the speech was more of the same, that whatever the United States has done right, was just making up for what we have done wrong. There was precious little in the speech which was positive about the U.S. While not an outright apology, the entire tone of the speech was apologetic.

The United States as the shining city on the hill is dead. The entire thrust of the speech was that we have acted alone, and caused many if not most of the world's problems:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

As to the problems caused by others, only passing notice. This passage was particularly striking in its willful ignorance:

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council.

Why did we not pay our bills? Because the UN refused to route out rampant corruption and financial mismanagement. Why did we leave the Human Rights Council? Because it had turned into a macabre anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Western circus, and it still is. But no criticism of that, we now have made amends by rejoining.

There was much more in the speech along these lines. Read it. Hardly a nice word to say about the United States. One of the closing lines was "The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation - one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations."

There always was such cooperation, but when the international community failed -- as it almost always does -- we acted. Is Obama taking unilateral action off the table completely? Is 17 visits to the Security Council on an issue not enough? Will he defend the U.S. even when the world disagrees?

This speech gives me little hope.

Read more...

The Big Joke

Doug Brandow of the American Spectator writes on the UN Human Rights Council (exceprts only):

The United Nations and human rights do not belong in the same sentence. Last Wednesday the UN Human Rights Council praised Cuba's human rights achievements. The Council was far more concerned about the U.S. embargo against Cuba than the Cuban government's brutality towards its own people.

The UN long has claimed to represent the greatest aspirations of humanity, running back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved more than six decades ago. But the UN's Commission on Human Rights routinely embarrassed the "international community." Often dominated by human rights abusers, the body routinely whitewashed oppressive governments and spent much of its time attacking Israel. It was one of Turtle Bay's finest comedy clubs -- only the performances were underwritten by U.S. taxpayers.

Three years ago the Commission was replaced by the Human Rights Council in a vain attempt to improve operations. The Bush administration refused to dignify the body with America's presence, but in March the Obama administration announced its decision to return. Doing so obviously was a mistake.

The membership list reads like a Who's Who of repressive regimes: Angola, Egypt, Gabon, China, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Cuba. Many of the other members have lesser human rights problems. Authoritarian states have an obvious incentive to go easy on their fellow autocracies. Even worse, these member governments view violating human rights as a positive good and one of the chief responsibilities of government (in their hands, at least).

As part of its commitment to human rights, the Council conducts an annual review -- which culminates in a three hour debate on the nation's human rights record. Strangely, these reviews seem a bit, shall we say, superficial?

Cuba's record isn't hard to assess. The State Department helpfully summarizes the Cuban record in its annual human rights report:

The government continued to deny its citizens their basic human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses. The government denied citizens the right to change their government. At year's end there were at least 205 political prisoners and detainees. As many as 5,000 citizens served sentences for "dangerousness," without being charged with any specific crime. The following human rights problems were reported: beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care; harassment, beatings, and threats against political opponents by government-recruited mobs, police, and State Security officials; arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations; denial of fair trial; and interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private communications.

The group Freedom House ranks Cuba at the bottom in both political rights and civil liberties. "Although the degree of repression has ebbed and flowed over the past decade, the neutralization of organized political dissent remains a regime priority," explains Freedom House.

Freedom House compiles a special report on freedom of the press and, not surprisingly, ranks Cuba as "not free" in this category as well. There was some relaxation of repression last year, but "Cuba continued to have the most restrictive laws on free speech and press freedom in the hemisphere." Moreover, "state security agents continued to threaten, arrest, detain, imprison, and restrict the right of movement of local and foreign journalists throughout the year."

Cuba also is one of the worst violators of religious liberty. Last year, explained the State Department in its annual International Religious Freedom Report: "The government continued to exert control over all aspects of social life, including religious expression. Certain groups, particularly Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, faced significant harassment and maltreatment." Although repression had eased of late, "The Ministry of the Interior continued to engage in efforts to control and monitor religious activities and to use surveillance, infiltration, and harassment against religious groups, religious professional, and laypersons." Last month the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom placed Cuba on its Watch List since "Within this reporting period, the government expanded its efforts to silence critics of its religious freedom policies and crack down on religious leaders whose churches operate outside of the government-recognized umbrella organizations for Protestant denominations."

There are worse offenders, of course. Compare any country against Burma or North Korea and even the worse human rights offender looks pretty good. But Cuba's record could not survive the most cursory review by a serious body. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council is not a serious body.

The UN issued an official press release summarizing the debate, if it can be called that, on Cuba and two other states (Saudi Arabia and Cameroon):

In the discussion on Cuba, speakers said Cuba had withstood many tests, and continued to uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality and independence in pursuance of the realization of human rights. Cuba was and remained a good example of the respect for human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. The Universal Periodic Review of Cuba clearly reflected the progress made by Cuba and the Cuban people in the protection and promotion of human rights, and showed the constructive and responsive answer of Cuba to the situation of human rights. Cuba was the victim of an unjust embargo, but despite this obstacle, it was very active in the field of human rights. The trade, financial and economic blockade by the United States should be brought to an end, as it was the primary obstacle to the full development of Cuba.

In short, the problem is not the brutality of the Castros' regime. It is the American trade embargo -- counterproductive in my view, but ignored by everyone else and actually used by the Cuban government to enhance its control. As my Cato Institute colleague Juan Carlos Hidalgo put it, "This is not from The Onion, but the UN."

After receiving its UN whitewash, the Cuban government exclaimed: "The exemplary achievements of the Cuban Revolution in relation to human rights have been acknowledged once again by the international community. It has not been possible to silence the truth."

Rather than going back into the Council, the U.S. and other serious states should make a quick exit. The problem is not Cuba. It is the UN. Saudi Arabia, too, received gentle treatment. Up the next day were Azerbaijan and China -- the latter of which praised the records of Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Cameroon. This incestuous process will continue, day after day, at the expense of the rest of us.

Human rights. United Nations. Never shall the twain meet, except in a tiresome comedy routine in an expensive club operating out of a famed high-rise in New York's Turtle Bay.

Read more...

Afghan Government to Investigate U.S. Bombing

President Hamid Karzai ordered a probe Wednesday into allegations by local officials that more than 30 civilians were killed this week in a bombing by U.S.-led troops battling militants in western Afghanistan.

Karzai, currently in the United States, will raise the issue of civilian deaths with President Barack Obama, a statement from Karzai's office said. The two presidents were scheduled to hold their first face-to-face meeting later Wednesday.

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. U.S. and NATO officials accuse the Taliban militants of fighting from within civilian homes, thus putting them in danger.

Local officials said Tuesday that bombing runs called by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians in Gerani village in Farah province's Bala Buluk district.

Personally, I think the Afghan government should insist on a harshly worded statement from the U.N.

Read more...

That Explains It ... Maybe

Fox News is reporting today that a group of unlicensed doctors and nurses are working at the United Nations and are distributing controlled narcotics including Valium, Diazepam and Demerol.  In some instances, they are even self-medicating.

Even though the United Nations headquarters are in midtown Manhattan, the building is apparently in "international territory" and not in the jurisdiction of the United States, so any disciplinary action would have to be taken by the UN, not the US.  

Expect a strongly worded resolution coming from the security council telling the US and other nations to stay out of their business.

I think this explains a lot of the UN actions.  They are behaving like strung-out sixties radicals because of the drugs!

(Or maybe not.)

Read more...

U.N. Official Blasts Obama's Decision not to Prosecute CIA Operatives

According to Manfred Nowak, an Austrian who serves as a U.N. torture investigator, Obama's decision not to prosecute CiA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law.

"They are party to the convention and the convention is very, very clear," Nowak said.  "The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility."  

What Nowak omitted, however, makes things less clear.  The Geneva convention, to which he was referring, specifically prohibits torture of soldiers in an army.  It does not refer to terrorists.  The distinction is an important one, from a legal standpoint, regardless of which side of the "to torture or not to torture" issue you fall on.

This is another instance in which I must give Obama credit.  He made the correct decision here.  If you prosecute people in an administration for matters of policy, particularly when that policy is deemed legal by lawyers within the administration, it would be a huge mistake. Any future administration official or anyone in government working under that official would be at risk for retroactive punishment in any future administration that did not like that policy.

While I disagree with most of what Obama stands for, he has shown the ability to make the right call on occasion.  This is one of those times.

Read more...

Has the UN Outlived its usefulness?

Members of the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting yesterday, to "draft an angry response" to North Korea's testing of its long range weapons. The only thing the members could agree on was to "continue talks." 

Apparently, from reports coming out of the meeting, the United States and Japan were the only two members who were vocally opposed to North Korea's plan to launch a rocket. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN said that talks would continue so that "a clear and strong response from the council" could be reached.

Fat chance.

While the launch of the North Korean rocket was a violation of UN resolutions, the UN has refused numerous times to enforce its rules, especially when the United States appears to be in favor of enforcement.

The UN has become a tool.  It is primarily a tool of small dictators and communist regimes who use it to embarrass and harass the United States in front of the world.  For that privilege, the United States pays millions of dollars a year.

The UN was created after World War II to act as an agent of peace around the world.  Since then, international violence and war has escalated and the UN has expanded its charter to include (primarily) becoming a pulpit for the world to berate the United States and its allies.

Yet, we keep going back for more.

If this North Korean incident and lack of response is not evidence that the UN has become obsolete, I don't know what is.

Read more...

North Korea Launches Test Missile

North Korea defiantly carried out a provocative rocket launch Sunday that the U.S., Japan and other nations suspect was a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology.

Liftoff took place at 11:30 a.m. (0230GMT) Sunday from the coastal Musudan-ri launch pad in northeastern North Korea, the South Korean and U.S. governments said.

Japan immediately called for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council.

I'm SURE that Obama can make sure that they only use these missiles... er ... I mean ROCKETS ... for peaceful purposes.

Read more...