Via The Corner; FRIST INTRODUCES RESOLUTION OPPOSING U.S. PARTICIPATION IN U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
�The newly created U.N. Human Rights Council fails to address the significant failures and shortcomings of the widely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Since its establishment in 1946, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights sacrificed efficacy and credibility by granting membership to some of the world�s worst human rights abusers, neglecting to condemn state sponsors of terrorism, and failing to act or speak out against numerous cases of egregious human rights abuse.
�The new council makes only superficial changes to the former commission structure and falls far short of the standards envisioned by President Bush and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The new council will not prevent serial human rights abusers from gaining membership and cannot be relied upon to monitor human rights abuses throughout the world.
�I applaud the administration for opposing the creation of the new council and urge it to oppose U.S. participation in and support of the council in order to uphold America�s own credibility and deny the council unwarranted legitimacy.
�If the U.N. refuses to make meaningful changes to the council structure, the U.S. should lead a group of like-minded democracies with a demonstrated commitment to the protection of human rights to create an effective and accountable human rights oversight body outside the U.N. system. The U.S. must adhere to its principles and continue to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful reform and to the protection of human rights.�
(Emphasis mine.)
Marion Edwyn Harrison, National Ledger;
It rather defies the imagination to visualize how any UN entity designed to promote human rights could do so when UN membership, and disproportionately UN leadership, consists of nations and politicians from nations which are the human-rights culprits. United States Ambassador John Bolton, with considerable (but insufficient) support from UN member nations, proposed a set of reforms that arguably would have breathed some morality and effectiveness into this new Council. Not surprisingly, the UN member majority rejected these efforts.
There now appears to be an effort to induce the Bush Administration to provide money for this new UN Council, possibly to seek a United States seat (only to be outvoted, as would happen if the inmates ran a prison).
“as would happen if the inmates ran a prison.”
Which is exactly what happened in Rwanda back in ’93.
See Romeo Dallaire’s text: “Shake Hands with the Devil” and find out how Rwanda sat on the very security council which was overseeing UN operations in Rwanda!!!!
Oh hell a million people later, you figure there is a structural problem?
It is ironic that the United States government is upset about human rights violations. This is the country that went into Iraq against international law.
That tortured prisoners. Whose President when signing a LAW outlawing torture wrote a caveat in the margin more or less saying he will sign the law but he won’t follow the law. Even though he took an oath to uphold the law.
This is the administration that wouldn’t allow the UN investigators talk to GITMO prisoners while the Chinese did.
To say they are being hypocritical on this issue would be an understatement.
Hans Rupprecht:…Here! Here!!…took the words right out of my mouth…this is a MUST read for everybody…
Steve D. – you’re an idiot.
Yup, the U.S. is the problem, not the head-choppers, or the other dozens of countries that murder their citizens indiscriminantly. The US.
Moron.
Joe Schmoe
No Joe I didn’t say everyone all the other countries are angelic and the US is evil. I said it is hypocritical for them to pretend they are holier than thou at this particular moment in history.
This administration attacked a country for no other reason than perhaps, someday, someone in Iraq might get a WMD and use it on the US. Is that a reason to attack? Most of the world thought it wasn’t. As a result over 108 prisoners have died while in jail. Tens of thousands of Iraqi’s are dead and maimed. Why?
It always amazes me that there are those that think unless someone is perfect they should keep their mouth shut and do nothing. The world will go to hell if good people do nothing—and I didn’t say perfect people do nothing. On the other hand they seem to think bad people will be good if only given a chance. Wrong!
I think Steve is suggesting that nothing should ever be done unless there is unanimous agreement of the worlds perfect nations.
In the real world we will only move forward if those that are better, lead and influence those that are worse, not vice versa.
The drive to survive is a very strong instinct, not just in individuals, but also in nations. The problem arises when the drive to survive becomes confused with the drive to dominate. Some may argue that the U.S. drives to dominate economically and that is likely valid. I still prefer that to Saddams’ and other drive to dominate (or survive) by blowing up and gassing people en mass.
7/11 made a good case that the U.S. (and other free countries) need to take action to survive.
Steve d.
When Billy Clinton got a group together to go to war with Serbia over Kosovo – a Muslim country – no one said a word. Yet, the UN was against it and it to was an illegal war. So, if you think the present U.S. administration are a bunch of war criminals, and who knows, maybe they are, then you must also think that the U.S. and Canadian governments that went to war with Serbia are also war criminals. Keep in mind the the Hague wanted to call U.S. and other coalition force soldiers up on war crimes including Bill Clinton. The U.S. flat out refused to allow it to happen.
Islam: The religion of the sword: rectifying reality, rectifying female genitalia. +
“Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it.”
“We have a spinster problem in the Arab world, and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused.” +
Dark Ages Via Satellite
From MEMRI TV, here�s a mind-altering show from Kuwait�s Al-Rai TV, featuring an Egyptian Islamic expert discussing the finer points of female genital mutilation.
Interviewer: So what about the girl�s opinion?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: What do you mean?
Interviewer: What if she says: I don�t want to be circumcised. What happens then?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: If a girl says she doesn�t want it, she�s free. No problem.
Interviewer: Is this what happens in reality?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: I have no relation to reality. I am talking about how things should be.
Interviewer: You are a religious sheik, from Al-Azahar University. You cannot say you have no relation to reality.
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it.
[…]
In Egypt we have four and a half million spinsters. The definition of a spinster is a woman who has reached 30, without ever receiving a marriage proposal. We have a spinster problem in the Arab world, and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused. Circumcision of the girls who need it makes them chaste, dignified, and pure. +
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S2
via LGF
Al
Saddam was declawed back in the first Gulf War. They had been watching him, blockading him, then allowing companies to go in and trade oil for food. He was in a box and everyone knew it. Condi Rice even said so before she knew of the “plan” for Saddam.
The US is upset because they didn’t get their way. They had gotten used to controlling events at the UN but lately, particularly since Bush went into Iraq, a lot of the rest of the world doesn’t have much patience for this administration. When they don’t get everything they want they should accept that realizing it is a world body.
Trent
I am not up to speed(yet) on the Cosovo/Serbia conflict. I remember it being a civil war that got very bloody. I don’t think other nations should impose themselves into a civil war.(remember Vietnam), it is a no win situation. I think they should be active peace brokers trying to find a solution.
Canada should extricate itself from the United Nations quagmire as much as possible. The UN is dominated by a bunch of savages who rule over their subjects back home with iron fists.
It’s just a forum for fascists like Castro and Iranian ayatollahs to spread their hatreds.
Democratic countries should get together and try to improve things in the world for everyone – but they should shut out the dictators and despots regardless of how much love leftist-leaning people have for murderers like Saddam for example.
Steve d.
I am not really sure of the merits of the Kosovo war or the war in Iraq, I just point out the similarities. To critise one for being illegal and not the other is hipocritical. But when you get right down to it, calling any war “legal” or “illegal” is stupid. War is hell, but unfortunately it is also unavoidable.
Trent
I agree war is hell, for all involved. The part that gets me is that THIS WAR was optional. Imagine going to war and putting hundreds of thousands through unspeakable hell when you didn’t have to!
I think the Iraqi’s were already in the worse “unspeakable hell” under Saddam…things like throwing dead babies into the streets loaded with explosives to blow up their parents when they went out to retrieve them.. sounds like pure hell to me..
There is no where near the number of people dying in this war than there was under Saddam’s regime and for the first time in their lives, the Iraqi people can acually HOPE for some kind of future for their children…to me that’s worth everything!
Steve d:
Do you really believe the war was optional?
If we werent fighting those murderers over there, we would be fighting them in north america.
Heres a scenario for you:
Your neighbor murders a member of your family.
The neighbor on the other side of you threatens to murder another member of your family.
Are you going to wait until the second murder actually occurs before you take action?
Sorry, got off topic there… In my opinion, the UN has become totally useless and corrupt.
I agree with someone’s comment above that something should be done outside of the UN regarding human rights. The UN is doing nothing right now regarding Dafur. In which country will the next genecide occur while we all stand idly by (and while the lefties complain about the U.S. – man, they sure have it screwed up!).
Charley
Don’t forget, Saddam had 25 years to amass his slaughter. I think the US has unleashed quite a comparable rate of slaughter. The US won’t have to do all of it because they have the Sunni, Shia,Kurds and Al queda and any other regional government that wants to send mercenaries. My hope is that it won’t go on for 25 years. That is my HOPE. My brain tells me the oil will last longer, so I wouldn’t bet on their being gone. They are building permanent air bases as we speak.
Lee
I would take defensive action. Inform the police, increase my security, perhaps arm myself and ask for protection. I would not pre-emptively attack my neighbour. Neither would the police would arrest someone pre-emptively.
If I am walking down the street and see a guy coming towards me who looks like trouble do I pull out a gun and shoot? No, it doesn’t with individuals and it doesn’t work with nations. This is doubly true for nations who hold freedom, peace and law in such high regard.
Stevie dee:
“If I am walking down the street and see a guy coming towards me who looks like trouble do I pull out a gun and shoot?”
Well Stevie, if you mean a reasonable probability of deadly violence being used against you and your family by the guy…you can certainly turn the other cheek. It’ll save the other cheek for the coroner to do a DNA identification analysis when the bomb belt goes off next to you.
The UN was founded in 1945.
Genocides since 1945:
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Iraq (1988)
Tibet
Bosnia
Rwanda
Sudan
Probably want to keep your eye on Zimbabwe as well. I’m sure the UN’s efficiency at dealing with these problems is why steve would rather talk about Iraq.
Dont forget the money that sadam slide into liberanos pockets from the oil for food scam. Has anyone asked paulie and his pals how much they made off that little fiasco?
Been beating this drum for years:
-“No Blood for Oil”- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories–
Let’s pretend Steve d. is speaking in the early 1940s and there is a “Human rights” council in existence, similar to the one we have today.
The Council, including representatives from Germany’s Nazi party, vote against war with Germany. Steve d. protests that Hitler hasn’t attacked us yet and that thousands will be killed. It is an illegal war, not authorized by the UN, so Canada should stay out of liberating any other countries.
Steve, you mention that Saddam was “in a box” and that oil-for-food was working. Hmmmm…read any investigative work by Claudia Rosett lately? Ever hear of the oil-for-food scandal, or any of the UN sex-abuse scandals? I think it’s hypocritical for the UN to make any statement on human rights.
Anyone who takes the time to stand up for the rights of an imprisoned terrorist bent on genocide, but has not time for the average oppressed and innocent Cuban, North Korean, Chinese, resident of Darfur, etc, etc, etc, etc. cannot be taken seriously.
From Mr. Frist:
“I applaud the administration for opposing the creation of the new council and urge it to oppose U.S. participation in and support of the council in order to uphold America�s own credibility and deny the council unwarranted legitimacy.”
After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is difficult to see what “credibility” the U.S. has on this issue anymore.
Folks:
How is it that no one has pointed out that Louise Arbour, Saint Louise of whom we make movies, is the High Commisioner for Human Rights. How is it that we are so unaware or unwilling to acknowledge how complicit Canada has become in propping up such a failed institution as the United Nations.
Defense guy,
You forgot to mention China in the genocide list.
Elizabeth,
Millions of people did protest WW2. Charles Lindbergh was one of the most famous. John F. Kennedy wrote his first book “Why England Slept” about England not doing enough to prepare for war with Germany. The CCF in Canada was against building up the military to prepare for war with Germany. Tommy Douglas, speeaking to the House of Parliment in 1937, went so far as to say ” Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan.”
The CCF was protesting the Canada’s preparations for national defense when the Germans marched into Poland.
How Corrupt Is the United Nations?
Commentary ^ | 4-2-06 | Claudia Rosett
Posted on 04/02/2006 5:36:38 AM PDT by SJackson
Recent years have brought a cascade of scandals at the United Nations, of which the wholesale corruption of the Oil-for-Food relief program in Iraq has been only the most visible. We still do not know the full extent of these debacles�the more sensational ones include the disappearance of UN funds earmarked for tsunami relief in Indonesia and the exposure of a transnational network of pedophiliac rape by UN peacekeepers in Africa�and we may never know. What we do know is that an assortment of noble-sounding efforts has devolved into enterprises marked chiefly by abuse, self-dealing, and worse.
Seen by many, including many Americans, as the chief arbiter of legitimacy in global politics, the UN is understood by others to be the only institution standing between us and global anarchy. If that is so, the portents are not promising. The free world is grappling with threats from the spread of radical Islam to North Korea�s nuclear blackmail and Iran�s pursuit of nuclear bombs. The UN, despite its trophy case of Nobel prizes, has failed so far to curb any of these, just as it failed abysmally to run an honest or effective sanctions program in Saddam Hussein�s Iraq. Currently it is gridlocked over matters as seemingly straightforward as cleaning up its own management department.
In the effort to address the UN�s manifold problems, there have been audits, investigations, committees, reports, congressional hearings, action plans, and even a handful of arrests by U.S. federal prosecutors. There have been calls for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to step down before his second term expires at the end of this year. Solutions have been sought by way of better monitoring, whistleblower protection, the accretion of new oversight bodies, and another round of conditions attached to the payment of U.S. dues. On top of the broad reforms of the early 1990�s, the sweeping reforms of 1997, the further reforms of 2002, and the world summit for reform in 2005, still more plans for reform are in the works.1 To its external auditors, internal auditors, joint inspections unit, eminent-persons panels, executive boards, and many special consultants, the UN has recently added an Office of Ethics�now expected to introduce in May what will presumably become an annual event: �UN Ethics Day.�
Is any of this likely to help? Behind the specific scandals lies what one of the UN�s own internal auditors has termed a �culture of impunity.� A grand committee that reports to itself alone, the UN operates with great secrecy and is shielded by diplomatic immunity. One of its prime defenses, indeed, is the sheer impenetrability of its operations: after more than 60 years as a global collective, it has become a welter of so many overlapping programs, far-flung projects, quietly vested interests, nepotistic shenanigans, and interlocking directorates as to defy accurate or easy comprehension, let alone responsible supervision.
But let us try.
One clear sign of how badly things have gone with the UN is the difficulty of tallying even so basic a sum as the system�s real budget. Nowhere does the UN present a full and clear set of accounts, and statistics vary even within individual agencies and programs. + more…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607793/posts
Best UN coverage is still Claudia Rosett
http://commentary.org/article.asp?aid=12104031_1
Read it & weep.
Corrupt from the mail room all the way to the top.
I’d love to see PMSH give a speech ripping Kofi a new one, backing the USA and back that up by sending a pitbull Ambassador to help the only voice of sanity in the whole place – John Bolton
“After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is difficult to see what “credibility” the U.S. has on this issue anymore.”
It is statements such as that that betray profound ignorance or an intellect rendered useless by the toxic effects of anti-Americanism – or both.
the morality math for the ethically challenged and willfully blind
http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar%20pf.htm
Stvve D & BCL . . pls keep those rose colored glasses on, you will need them to distort reality so that your limited ability to reason and accept the fact that many places in the world are cesspools of corruption, torture and social mayhem.
The western democaries have a moral obligation to speak up and when deemed necessary, to act.
Oh, and by the way, you should google around and find out what Abu Ghraib was like when Saddam & his son ran the place. The US activities would be categorized as “Frat house pranks” in comparison.
Fred,
I hope you’re not learning logic skills from that website.
One thing I do agree with you about, though, is that compared with Saddam and Co. the U.S. torturers are very gentle. One might even go so far as to say that they are “best” torturers on the planet.
But this is what the argument has come to. We are arguing about whether American torturers are better at torture than their Iraqi and North Korean counterparts.
Re the perfidy of the UN: I highly recommend David Warren’s fine lead article, “Another Week of Infamy at the UN”, this morning (April 2) at Real Clear Politics, especially for the likes of steve d. and bigcitylib (I’m a bigcitycon, myself). However, as the minds of such “useful idiots” appear to be petrified, I don’t know if these guys–I assume they’re both guys–will be capable of effectively processing the information. Too bad.
How can you even hope to have a rational conversation with a person who doesn’t understand that under Saddam’s regime, being a good torturer got you promoted, whereas American soldiers who do it get sent to Leavenworth.
Seriously, BCL seems to think that the US is a force for evil in the world. Which makes me wonder, who would be the force for good? Eh, maybe the notions of good and evil are just too quaint.
Defense Guy,
Right now there is no more dangerous threat to world peace and stability than the Bush Administration. And I mean right now, in the run up to this Fall’s mid-term elections, because Bush is down in the polls and may take the party with them, and Rove et al may decide the best move politically is to bomb Iran or invade Bolivia or whatever.
And one unvarnished force of good in the world is certainly Canada, if Stephen Harper doesn’t do anything to besmirch our good name.
And finally, yes the privates that did the torturing got sent down the river. Their superiors, the ones who made the policy (esp. Dick Cheney)have so far got off scott free.
Off Topic !!!
Help Wanted !!
We need to get a graphic off CBC!!!!
Mothercorp shows her ignorance towards to US again…
I have no idea how to get this graphic off the TV, but in a report this morning at around 9:06AM our time… CBC Newsworld was reporting on the flooding of the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota… The graphic they showed had Minnesota labeled as North Dakota and vise versa… Minnesota is now directly under Saskatchewan and North Dakota has now decided to change shape and move south of Manitoba… Man, all I thought they did last night was change clocks …
BCL
I like Canada. Always have, perhaps due to growing up so close to it. Having said that, the country doesn’t have a large enough commitment to military force to be able to project the kind of power that can force good things to be done. Not alone anyway.
That said, when push comes to shove, you guys are always there with the rest of the usual suspects and that says all that you really need to know. In addition, one of the very few bright shining spots of the Rwanda debacle was a Canadian UN commander.
Bug City . . must be very slow on your “blog” these days that you have to come here and entertain us with your perceptions on reality.
You really should go back on your meds . “invade Bolivia” ?? Really, you don’t say. Rove et al may decide ?? Last time I checked the President was the CIC of the military and they don’t take orders from “et als”
Go for a walk in your big city somewhere, buy yourself a latte, revel in you liberal propaganda induced comma about Canadian perfection and America perfidity and then come back regularly here so we can all have a good laugh at your expense.
The world will be a much better place now that you have decided how things are.
Its what I like about Liberals and to a degree about the NDP. The ability to alter logic and reality to meet the needs of a politcally induced sense of moral superiority and a smug, self controlled blindness about what is really going on.
Sad, but entertaining for us.
bigcitylib: What this debate has come to is people like yourself equating the torture of suspected terrorists by rogue members of the US army with countries who torture their OWN CITIZENS as official policy.
These rights-abusing regimes don’t have photos of their torture methods on the news 24/7, nor are they subject to as much criticism as the US has endured. Nor will the torturers face a court of law, like US soldiers have. Nor will the innocent victims of repressive countries get defended half as much as suspected terrorists, many of whom want to kill (and torture)others if released.
What is wrong with the world that people bring up the treatment of prisoners more often than the woman in China being given a forced abortion (with UN funding of course), or the man in a N. Korean “re-education camp”, or the Muslim woman sentenced to an “honour killing”?
bigcitylib: What this debate has come to is people like yourself equating the torture of suspected terrorists by rogue members of the US army with countries who torture their OWN CITIZENS as official policy.
These rights-abusing regimes don’t have photos of their torture methods on the news 24/7, nor are they subject to as much criticism as the US has endured. Nor will the torturers face a court of law, like US soldiers have. Nor will the innocent victims of repressive countries get defended half as much as suspected terrorists, many of whom want to kill (and torture)others if released.
What is wrong with the world that people bring up the treatment of prisoners more often than the woman in China being given a forced abortion (with UN funding of course), or the man in a N. Korean “re-education camp”, or the Muslim woman sentenced to an “honour killing”?
Iraq was in a box? My understanding is that it was a U.S. box(and mainly U.S. manpower) and I’ve never heard who was funding the cost of that box. Saddam certainly wasn’t in a box. The oil for food program and the “rightious nations of the world such as Germany and France (and possibly the U.N. itself) seemed to provide him with a few luxuries of life such as ten castles, etc, while he continued to exterminate the opposition. If nothing had been done I can see that process would have eventually led to an uglier scenario down the road. History alone will tell us “whose to praise and whose to blame”.
bigkitty and steeved bringing us our daily wine from the defeatist relativist, loser side.
Blind wounded and angry.
The mullahs of the west.
Intellect killed by antagonstic instinct.
How else can you explain Jumpin Jack’s push for Canadian tax dollars for Hamas.
Tax me so THEY can give it to Hamas.
It’s umbelievable at it’s root.
These people are the walking dead.
BAN THE TROLLS
Kate, when a troll has NOTHING NEW TO SAY, I say, it’s time to sweep it OUT!
Just stop responding.
Liberals think it was just fine for the USA to “contain” the Iraqi Ba’athists with a hundred thousand American troops stationed there indefinately.
This situation went on for more than a decade at little or no cost to others so Canadas opinion on the Iraq War was not a very big consideration for Pres. Bush when he FINALLY decided it was way past time for the Iraqi President and his sons to be called to judgement.
Al
You should have heard General Zinni today on Meet the Press. He was most impressive. He said he saw all the intel and there was nothing worth going into Iraq over. The Americans had him contained and they had air supremacy. They knew that they could easily take out Saddam. What puzzled Zinni was why Bush threw out 10 years of planning on how to take out Iraq in order to do their own thing.
The oil for food scandal was allowed by the security council members of which the US is the major player. I think this was a corporate coup to get oil out while appearing to help the Iraqis. There were American companies involved as well but somehow it didn’t get much MSM airplay.
RE:”and there was nothing worth going into Iraq over.”
I doubt the veracity of that quote.
The USA was already IN Iraq and had been for years.
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq pretty consistently in 99 for all the good that did.
There is no way air supremacy was going to “contain” Saddam and his sons from such deeds as awarding $25,000 to each family of the murderous suicide bombers in Israel. p>
BCL & Steve d., Clearly, you are non-interventionists. What then should be done about Iran? Do you recognize that Iran is a problem or do you think it is all Karl Rove propaganda? Does Israel have the right to exist? Interestingly, this is the only country that this question has to be asked. If Iran nukes Israel, should the U.N. be the ONLY body authorized to respond militarily or diplomatically? You see, I am genuinely mystified at the left’s point of view on issues such as these. For all it’s trumpeting of moral clarity, I find the left has virtually nil.
huggybear99
It just may be that Bush has put himself in a box with his unilateralism that got him quagmired in Iraq. His options are more limited than if he had been more discrete with his foreign policy. Cruise missiles, special ops troops, and good intel would have been a lot more efficient and far cheaper.
In any event, you know it is just a matter of time before a middle eastern country gets the bomb.
If the world got serious about peace and everybody got rid of their WMD then perhaps there would be hope they wouldn’t be used at some point. The conventional weapons are plenty deadly enough. But I can’t see the Western powers giving up their nuclear weapons, so why would we not expect the rest of the nations to pursue them? Perhaps if all nations had nuclear weapons and a MAD(mutual assured destruction) policy there would be peace. It worked with the Russians and Americans.
Steve d, the problem with your arguement is that you equate the middle east people with civil societies.
The radical element in the middle east cannot be intimidated by concepts such as MAD, they cannot be reasoned with, they will not respond to threats of war.
Look at what the insane president of Iran said. If the U.S. attacks, Iran will punish them and defeat them on the battlefield. (words to that effect) You cannot negotiate with an insane person.
Steve d.
The central point of my question is (as Karl Malden would say in an American Express commercial)”What would you do?” Iran is nowhere near comparable to Russia. Ahma… whatever his name is, has a Messianich complex. He as no qualms of starting a nuclear conflagration. He may be mad be he’s not interested in MAD. Get it? What. Do. You. Do. Every left of center thinker should have an answer for this. Here’s mine: Conventional tactical weapons hitting research and manufacturing sites. Insertion of commandos to take out SAM sites.
Clearly, I’m no military strategist and other, more knowledgable people have better plans but, I clearly see the need for military action in the face of failed diplomatic talks. What would the “left” do??
huggybear wonders “what will the left do?”
What they always do, my friend: deny or ignore the problem as long as possible; insist that any criticism of the problem is racist, or reactionary anti-communism; fight, block, or evade any attempt to impose non-violent (e.g. economic, diplomatic) sanctions; feign horror when the depth of the problem is revealed (this phase is always the shortest-lasting); criticize those in power for not taking action earlier (even though they fought against it; to paraphrase Emerson, ‘a foolish hypocrisy is the hobgoblin of leftist minds’); and then write revisionist history. Interested students can take the above template and apply it to Stalinist Russia, Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia, Hamas, Cuba, etc., etc.