UN’s Orwellian ‘Right to Peace’ Resolution Sanctions Terrorism
Latest update: September 9th, 2012
print
tell a friend
Two sponsors of the "Right to Peace” resolution, Bashar al-Assad and Hugo Chavez.
The U.N. Human Rights Council’s recent 20th session saw the police state of Communist Cuba, a key backer of the Assad regime, successfully introduce a resolution for “the Right to Peace.”
Endorsed by such peace-loving states as Sudan, Belarus, China, Sri Lanka, Iran, North Korea—even Syria—the resolution, according to journalist Joel Brinkley, offers “pointless blather” that “will beguile you so you won’t notice on page six that they also want the U.N. to endorse the idea that ‘all peoples and individuals have the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation.’”
In other words, the U.N. legitimized the terminology used by Middle East terrorists to kill Americans and Israelis. The political culture of the council is such that the U.S. was the only one of 47 nations to vote no.
UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer took the floor during the meeting to expose the council’s Orwellian actions and language. We enclose his comments.
“Orwell and the U.N. Human Rights Council”
Thank you, Mr. President.
This year we mark the 64th anniversary of two monumental texts.
The first is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Three years after World War II, the founders of this council created the Universal Declaration, in response, as stated in the preamble, to atrocities that shocked the conscience of mankind. They reaffirmed that every human being has the right to life, the right to be free from torture, persecution and discrimination.
The United Nations must live up to that declaration.
Regrettably, too often in this body we are reminded of another great document from that same year: George Orwell’s classic on totalitarianism, 1984.
The novel portrays a dystopian universe where truth is turned on its head. War is Peace was the slogan.
We were reminded of Orwell most famously when the government of Libyan Col. Muammar Qaddafi was elected chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and then again, only two years ago, when, despite our appeals together with the appeals of Libyan victims, Qaddafi’s regime was elected a member of this council.
We were reminded of Orwell yesterday, in this session. In the book 1984, everyone was forced to undergo a daily Two Minute of Hate.
Yesterday, contrary to the principles of universality and equality, and contrary to the plea of the Secretary-General, one nation was once again singled out for an entire day of vitriol.
And we are reminded of Orwell this week, in the proposal that is before us for a declaration on “the right to peace.” The draft report would recognize a “right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation.”
That is the language used by terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Mr. President,
The notion that War is Peace was an Orwellian slogan. It should not be the law of this council, or of the United Nations. Human rights should not be turned on its head.
Thank you, Mr. President.
tell a friendAbout the Author:
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “UN’s Orwellian ‘Right to Peace’ Resolution Sanctions Terrorism”
1
Loading ...
What! The tin pot despots who make up a majority of the UN membership backing terrorism! I'm shocked, shocked there's gambeling going on!
Same ol same ol.
Kudos to the US for voting "no". The chicken coop needs to be protected from these foxes that are guarding it.
I'm confused. I understand the reluctance to support the resolution, considering who its backers were. I also understand that various groups using terrorist tactics do so under the banner of resisting foreign occupation and imperial colonialism. What I don't understand is whether rejecting the resolution indicates that we do not support the right of people to resist being colonized and occupied by a foreign power, or whether it indicates that we support the idea in principle (after all, isn't that how this country came to be, and don't we ourselves state as much in the Declaration of Independence) but reject this proper ideal because it is being advocated by the "bad guys" (and if they support a right principle, what exactly is it that makes them bad). I can't help but feel that this is just an indication of moral bankruptcy and what I like to call "self-interested principle" – we only support certain ideas when they work for us (we can revolt against England; resistance fighters can combat the Nazis, and Libyan revolutionaries should be able to overthrow the oppressive Qadafi regime), but reject those same ideas when they don't (Afghani's and Iraqi's must tolerate our constructive presence, Palestinians have no right to resist Israeli's ect.). Neutral principles, anyone?
Consider that though Assad is, by any deffinition, a bad guy, in the current conflict he is the good guy if you consider the alternative. I have no love for Castro or Chavez nor Russia and China but they are all right to back Assad.
So are all the hispanics going to leave Cuba?