Featured Cuba, China, Russia elected to UN Human Rights Council; Secretary of State Pompeo says the move validates the decision by the U.S. to leave the body

[LeGenD]

I don't find Russia launching imperialist wars. And though I don't think of China as communist enough I will grant that it limits its influence-building within collaborating and not through regime change.

1. Chechnya
2. Georgia
3. Ukraine
4. Syria

Why just abolish veto power, why not abolish the UNSC itself ? The General Assembly is good enough to discuss affairs of countries.

VETO power is at the roots of legitimizing questionable geopolitics around the world.

 

[jamahir]

1. Chechnya

Chechnya conflict has been resolved and the Chechens are living generally with satisfaction as a republic within the larger Russian state.

2. Georgia

The Georgia war was about this :

The Russo-Georgian War was a war between Georgia, Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003

I will also mention here that the ANNA news agency ( Abkhazian Network News Agency ) which is allied with Russia, has been actively embedded with Syrian military units to present the Syrian and true side of the Syria war. ANNA speaks of things that the Western-government-aligned news agencies hide or lie.

3. Ukraine

Wasn't the Ukraine war about a region of ethnic Russians speaking of independence from the pro-West central government ?

4. Syria

The Russians in Syria arrived on request of the legitimate Syrian government.

VETO power is the root cause of legitimizing questionable geopolitics around the world.

UNSC in not much without veto power. It is simpler to abolish UNSC altogether and discuss matters in the General Assembly.

 

[LeGenD]

Chechnya conflict has been resolved and the Chechens are living generally with satisfaction as a republic within the larger Russian state.



The Georgia war was about this :




I will also mention here that the ANNA news agency ( Abkhazian Network News Agency ) which is allied with Russia, has been actively embedded with Syrian military units to present the Syrian and true side of the Syria war. ANNA speaks of things that the Western-government-aligned news agencies hides or lies.



Wasn't the Ukraine war about a region of ethnic Russians speaking of independence from the pro-West central government ?



The Russians in Syria arrived on request of the legitimate Syrian government.



UNSC in not much without veto power. It is simpler to abolish UNSC altogether and discuss matters in the General Assembly.

I am sure that there is rationale for every American war fought up to now; For literally every war fought in history in fact.

Those who found themselves on the receiving end of Russian firepower - present these arguments to them and then see the reaction.

Chechnya - desired independence in similar vein to other former Soviet Socialist Republics (request denied and the state subjugated by force).

Georgia - Russia armed and abetted Georgian separatists to nab territory from the country.

Ukraine - Russian armed and abetted Ukranian separatists to nab territory from the country.

Syria - Russian helped an authoritative regime to regain its foothold in the country at the expense of much of it and crushed the very people (Syrian opposition) who desired change for Syrian people at large. The scale of death and destruction witnessed in this war make other conflicts look mild in comparison.

 

[jamahir]

I am sure that there is rationale for every American conflict as well. For literally every conflict ever fought in history actually.

Is there is a single country in the last three decades that imminently threatened to invade USA ? USA is called "Fortress America" for good reason, yes ?

Blair and Bush insisted in the Security Council that Saddam was ready and prepared to fire WMDs at the West in 2003. But was this true ? Or was this a ruse to bring down another "rogue" ( independent ) country ?

 

[LeGenD]

Is there is a single country in the last three decades that imminently threatened to invade USA ? USA is called "Fortress America" for good reason, yes ?

Blair and Bush insisted in the Security Council that Saddam was ready and prepared to fire WMDs at the West in 2003. But was this true ? Or was this a ruse to bring down another "rogue" ( independent ) country ?

Recheck my post above - I added further information in it.

I have asserted time and again that USA and UK should not have victimized Iraq like that in the (2003 - 2011) period. Saddam regime was really bad but it was better than what Iraq ended up with in the present (Iraq had a semblance of sovereignty back in the days of Saddam regime).

 

[Pandora]

Human Rights in the context of Freedom of Expression and Legal rights accorded to citizens in a country (internal).

You are conflating Foreign Policy decisions with the notion of Human Rights in UNSC context.

For reference: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org...x-files/cato-human-freedom-index-update-3.pdf

Those wars - how they started is something to ponder over as well. Let us not blanket judge a nation on fashionable grounds.


All FIVE of them tend to get away with much on UNSC. Let us not pretend otherwise.

The current UNSC model is outdated and needs a revisit in the light of modern realities. Abolishing VETO power would be a good start.

Definitions that were conveniently put in place to circumvent aggressions of world powers. If definition of human rights doesn't even include right to live and not to be maimed then what is the point of that definition in first place? Right to live and not be tortured mentally and physically is a basic right of every human being and you are saying that is not covered under human rights? We all know how these wars start with planted evidence. Iraq war is the prime example of how fake intelligence reports were used a pretext to an invasion of a country. Syrian war was started under pretext of Syria using chemical weapons. Libyan war was started for God know what reason bcz they still havnt yet figured out why they invaded libya. Afghanistan was turned upside down just to hunt down few criminals who used to be best buds with US in the past. Do you want to bet that same is not the case with all invasions under pretext of a imperialist agenda? Blanket blame is what should be attributed as these decisions were/are being made by people who were elected by people of US. If west is ready to blame entire countries, cultures and religions then what is the issue that we cant call out their human rights violations under pretext of peace and stability.

I do agree all five of them get away with it but US is the biggest beneficiary of veto power when it come to dropping down inquires in war crimes. I am talking about documented facts where US threatened bodies like ICC

https://theconversation.com/us-puni...ng-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886

Meanwhile using them persecute other countries.

That's a straw man argument, you are completely ignorant of what human rights actually are. Like i suggested, go and educate yourself by first of all reading the universal declaration of human rights, and perhaps some follow on commentary. Especially if you are going to comment on the subject.

If you are telling me right to live is not a human right then you need to get yourself checked and soon.
https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/human-rights-law/right-to-life#:~:text=Section 16 of the Human,protects the right to life.

It is part of New Zealand laws
https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/living-in-nz/safety/your-rights
Seems like you are the who needs an education to get rid of your biased and twisted logic. Really annoys me when people act all high and mighty but in reality dont know squat.

 

[jamahir]

I have stated repeatedly that USA and UK should not have victimized Iraq like that in the (2003 - 2011) period.

Chechnya - desired independence in similar vein to other former Soviet Socialist Republics (request denied and the state subjugated by force).

I suppose the central government saw Chechnya and the Chechens as Russian people, just like there are other Russian republics like Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chuvashia etc.

This is unlike how the central government has seen the other post-USSR republics like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc which though independent of Russia are still the "Near abroad".

Georgia - Russia armed and abetted Georgian separatists to nab territory from the country.

Ukraine - Russian armed and abetted Ukranian separatists to nab territory from the country.

These two cases seem similar to me. Pockets of ethnic Russians who want independence from central governments which are pro-West.

Russia then aided those separatists.

Syria - Russian helped an authoritative regime to regain its foothold in the country at the expense of much of the country and crushed the very people who desired change in the process. The scale of death and destruction in this war make other conflicts look mild in comparison.

Watch this vid of Gaddafi's speech from 2008 in which he warned that other Arab League leaders, including Syrian, could be the next to go after Saddam. Who knows why Bashar al Assad laughed to that but yes, I believe that if the Syrian people wanted a change from family presidency of the country Assad could have stepped down as President and guided Syria to be even more socialist by adopting the Third Universal Theory aka Jamahirya theory system that governed pre-2011 Libya.

But as of now the Syrian people generally want Assad to lead them out of this foreign imposed war. Once the war is through, he should step down from direct rule and be a guide, just like how Gaddafi did in Libya in the 1970s.

 

[LeGenD]

Definitions that were conveniently put in place to circumvent aggressions of world powers. If definition of human rights doesn't even include right to live and not to be maimed then what is the point of that definition in first place? Right to live and not be tortured mentally and physically is a basic right of every human being and you are saying that is not covered under human rights? We all know how these wars start with planted evidence. Iraq war is the prime example of how fake intelligence reports were used a pretext to an invasion of a country. Syrian war was started under pretext of Syria using chemical weapons. Libyan war was started for God know what reason bcz they still havnt yet figured out why they invaded libya. Afghanistan was turned upside down just to hunt down few criminals who used to be best buds with US in the past. Do you want to bet that same is not the case with all invasions under pretext of a imperialist agenda? Blanket blame is what should be attributed as these decisions were/are being made by people who were elected by people of US. If west is ready to blame entire countries, cultures and religions then what is the issue that we cant call out their human rights violations under pretext of peace and stability.

Bro,

It is important to distinguish this theme on following grounds:

1. Human Rights in the Country context
2. Human Rights in the Global context

Human Rights evaluation becomes really complicated with geopolitical considerations in the mix. One reason is that a war can be fought on legitimate grounds (there are examples in recent history, let alone in earlier history).

The aforementioned distinction is apparent even in the Holy Quran (Surah Al-Baqarah; Surah An-Nisa).

The art of distinction make it possible to evaluate state of affairs from different angles and on different levels; much apparent aspects of oppression cannot be used to cast shadow over lesser visible aspects of oppression in this manner.

As for the conflicts you mentioned:

American intervention in Afghanistan had UN-mandate: https://www.un.org/press/en/2001/sc7248.doc.htm

Al-Qaeda Network was deeply entrenched in the region prior to American intervention. It was not possible to counter this movement by merely arresting Osama Bin Laden (Afghan Taliban were not handing him over anyways even though Musharraf administration attempted to convince them to). Al-Qaeda Network had to be dismantled given the scale of its atrocities around the world - no ifs and buts. Pakistan will be much better without these **um roaming our streets in the long-term.

American interventions in Iraq (2003 - 2011) and Libya (2011) respectively? Imperialism for sure (NATO acted on its own accord in each case). On the flip side, both countries tasted ruin due to bad leadership (some individuals are greedy and selfish to the extent that they are not willing to step down from position(s) of power in the face of virtually any situation - millions be damned).

USA is not responsible for Syrian Civil War; Assad regime is. However, thanks in part to understanding reached between Obama administration (USA) and Putin administration (Russia) in 2013, Assad regime is unlikely to be held accountable for its war crimes.

I do agree all five of them get away with it but US is the biggest beneficiary of veto power when it come to dropping down inquires in war crimes. I am talking about documented facts where US threatened bodies like ICC

https://theconversation.com/us-puni...ng-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886

Meanwhile using them persecute other countries.

Some examples:

Why the UN failed to save the Rohingya

Insiders say UN sought to downplay criticism of Myanmar and was hamstrung by China, Russia opposition to firm response.

www.aljazeera.com

Russia and China veto UN extension of cross-border aid to Syria

The two nations veto UN resolution to maintain two border crossing points from Turkey to deliver aid to northwest Syria.

www.aljazeera.com

Russia, China veto Syria aid via Turkey for second time this week

Russia and China vetoed a last-ditch attempt by Western members of the U.N. Security Council to extend approval - which expires on Friday - for humanitarian aid to be delivered across two border crossings into Syria from Turkey for the next six months.

www.reuters.com

Russia, China Veto UN Resolution Seeking Venezuela Elections

Nine council members voted in favor, while South Africa joined Russia and China in voting no, and three abstained. To pass, a resolution needs nine votes in support and no vetoes by the five permanent members, which include Russia and China. Both countries back the the authoritarian regime of...

www.bloomberg.com

WE live in interests-driven world - Human Rights take a back seat in these matters unfortunately. Human Rights in the Global context to be precise.

 

[jamahir]

USA is not responsible for Syrian Civil War; Assad regime is.

The Syrian war is not really a civil war. Very few of these "rebels" are Syrian or the Syrian elements who support them like the former cosmonaut Muhammed Faris. Most of the "rebels" are foreign, whether from Southeast Asia or from Western Europe or Africa or elsewhere.

For example, in 2011 the Libyan Al Qaeda terrorist Abdulhakim Belhaj was based out of Turkey ( obviously with Erdogan's knowledge ) from where he coordinated the NATO war against Libya and Syria.

 

[LeGenD]

The Syrian war is not really a civil war. Very few of these "rebels" are Syrian or the Syrian elements who support them like the former cosmonaut Muhammed Faris. Most of the "rebels" are foreign, whether from Southeast Asia or from Western Europe or Africa or elsewhere.

For example, in 2011 the Libyan Al Qaeda terrorist Abdulhakim Belhaj was based out of Turkey ( obviously with Erdogan's knowledge ) from where he coordinated the NATO war against Libya and Syria.

You need to concentrate on the chain of events in the years (2011 - 2013); true Syrian rebels were active and in spotlight during these years and they had Damascus surrounded. However, ISIS movement commenced in Iraq in 2013 and took advantage of chaos in Syria subsequently - thanks in part to extremely damaging regional politics of the moron Nouri al-Maliki. True Syrian rebels lost their foothold in the process and Syrian ground realities became muddled from this point and on-wards. Russians took full advantage of this dynamic to restore Assad regime to power with tacit approval of Obama administration. Very unfortunate.

 

[Chakar The Great]

Human rights commission members, China, Russia, Pakistan

 

[LeGenD]

Human rights commission members, China, Russia, Pakistan

Well, PTI-led GOP have been really tolerant lately.

 

[jamahir]

You need to concentrate on the chain of events in the years (2011 - 2013); true Syrian rebels were active and in spotlight during these years and they had Damascus surrounded.

First I will quote this article from 2013 :

McCain, a Republican, is an outspoken advocate for US military aid to the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has angrily denounced Democratic President Barack Obama - McCain’s opponent in his failed 2008 presidential race - for shying away from deeper US involvement in the conflict, which has claimed 80,000 lives.

Critics of some lawmakers’ push to arm the rebels have expressed concerns that weapons could end up in the hands of militants who might eventually end up using them against the United States or its allies.

But McCain said such radical fighters make up only a small part of the rebels forces.

For example, he said, Syria’s Islamist al-Nusra Front, identified as an alias of al Qaeda in Iraq, accounts for only about 7000 of the 100,000 fighters battling the government of Assad.

It is not possible that many of the 100,000 fighters ( most of them foreign ) suddenly descended upon Syria only in 2013. Many of them were there from 2011. I remember an event from just when the war started. There was a sniper in Damascus I think who was shooting up Syrian citizens. He was caught and people at first thought he was Israeli. If my memory serves me right he turned out to be Turkish.

Look at the below pic from the same article from 2013. The person in the middle is US senator John McCain and to his right is former Syrian army general Salim Idris who had joined the FSA :

I will quote this Wikipedia page for the "Jabhat Ansar al-Din" group :

Jabhat Ansar al-Din (Arabic: جبهة أنصار الدين‎, The Supporters of the Religion Front) is a jihadist alliance that announced itself on 25 July 2014

The groups involved in the coalition have diverse memberships; Harakat Fajr Sham al-Islamiya numbers mostly Syrians from the Aleppo area, while Harakat Sham al-Islam was formed around a core of Moroccan fighters, the Green Battalion mainly had fighters from Saudi Arabia and Jaish al-Mujahireen wal-Ansar was formed by Chechen and other Russian-speaking fighters. On 23 September 2015, Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar left and joined Jabhat al-Nusra

Things don't really fit neatly in the 2011-2013 timeline that you put.

Russians took full advantage of this dynamic to restore Assad regime to power with tacit approval of Obama administration.

Sorry what !

More than twice the American government tried to do "legal" regime change by claiming that the Syrian military had launched chemical attack on civilians, whereas the truth was in the one or two cases that actual chemicals were used it were the Turkish-supplied terrorists who did it. The American allegation was the same as "Saddam and WMD" and "Libyan army supplied with Viagra to rape Libyan women".

 

[LeGenD]

First I will quote this article from 2013 :

It is not possible that many of the 100,000 fighters ( most of them foreign ) suddenly descended upon Syria only in 2013. Many of them were there from 2011. I remember an event from just when the war started. There was a sniper in Damascus I think who was shooting up Syrian citizens. He was caught and people at first thought he was Israeli. If my memory serves me right he turned out to be Turkish.

Look at the below pic from the same article from 2013. The person in the middle is US senator John McCain and to his right is former Syrian army general Salim Idris who had joined the FSA :

I will quote this Wikipedia page for the "Jabhat Ansar al-Din" group :


Things don't really fit neatly in the 2011-2013 timeline that you put.

You need to understand how these events unfolded and there sequence.

What caused the uprising?

While lack of freedoms and economic woes drove resentment of the Syrian government, the harsh crackdown on protesters inflamed public anger.

• Arab Spring: In 2011, successful uprisings – that became known as the Arab Spring – toppled Tunisia‘s and Egypt‘s presidents. This gave hope to Syrian pro-democracy activists.
• That March, peaceful protests erupted in Syria as well, after 15 boys were detained and tortured for writing graffiti in support of the Arab Spring. One of the boys, a 13-year-old, was killed after having been brutally tortured.
• The Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, responded to the protests by killing hundreds of demonstrators and imprisoning many more.
• In July 2011, defectors from the military announced the formation of the Free Syrian Army, a rebel group aiming to overthrow the government, and Syria began to slide into war.
• While the protests in 2011 were mostly non-sectarian, the armed conflict surfaced starker sectarian divisions. Most Syrians are Sunni Muslims, but Syria’s security establishment has long been dominated by members of the Alawi sect, of which Assad is a member.
• In 1982, Bashar’s father ordered a military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama, killing tens of thousands of people and flattening much of the city.
• Even global warming is said to have played a role in sparking the 2011 uprising. Severe drought plagued Syria from 2007-10, causing as many as 1.5 million people to migrate from the countryside into cities, exacerbating poverty and social unrest.

Syria’s war explained from the beginning

On March 15, the war entered its eighth year.

www.aljazeera.com

A glimpse of the red highlight below:

However:

Syrian Troops Open Fire on Protesters in Several Cities (Published 2011)

The most serious challenge in two decades to 40 years of repressive rule by the Assad family erupted in violence when soldiers opened fire on peaceful demonstrators.

www.nytimes.com

Syria’s ‘deadliest day’

At least 75 protesters reported killed across Syria during the “Great Friday” protests against Bashar al-Assad’s rule.

www.aljazeera.com

Syrian rebellion commenced when scores of Syrian military officers defected to Syrian opposition and began to shape armed movement against Assad regime. There was no shortage of manpower and volunteers at their disposal. The only challenge was to source equipment (enter Foreign powers...).

There are believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters.

Many of the groups are small and operate on a local level, but a number have emerged as powerful forces with affiliates across the country or formed alliances with other groups that share a similar agenda. Here we look at the most prominent.

Guide to the Syrian rebels

There are believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters. The BBC News website profiles the most prominent.

www.bbc.com

Of-course, Syrians had their share of extremists who took advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, clashes continued until Damascus was almost surrounded by 2013 or so it seemed.

ISIS movement commenced in Iraq in 2013 and cast its ugly shadow over the ongoing Syrian Civil War unfortunately; Obama administration decided to counter this movement across Syria and Iraq subsequently:

Statement by the President on ISIL

State Floor 9:01 P.M. EDT

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Sorry what !

More than twice the American government tried to do "legal" regime change by claiming that the Syrian military had launched chemical attack on civilians, whereas the truth was in the one or two cases that actual chemicals were used it were the Turkish-supplied terrorists who did it. The American allegation was the same as "Saddam and WMD" and "Libyan army supplied with Viagra to rape Libyan women".

Do you really think that Russia could barge into Syria in the face of NATO just like that? This is only possible in works of fiction, friend. Heck, even White House is shown to be falling in a span of a day or two in movies. Reality is different however.

U.S., Russia agree on Syria weapons, Obama says force still option

Russia and the United States put aside bitter differences over Syria to strike a deal on Saturday that by removing President Bashar al-Assad's chemical arsenal may avert U.S. military action against him.

www.reuters.com

Obama Calls Russia Offer on Syria Possible ‘Breakthrough’ (Published 2013)

President Obama called a Russian proposal to have Syria surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles “potentially positive,” but said he would keep up the threat of military action.

www.nytimes.com

Putin Scores on Syria

Despite giving Obama and the United States a “get out of jail free card” at home, most observers agree that, on points, Putin is the real winner of this particular round of the Syrian conflict. The question now is whether the United States and its allies can out-maneuver Putin to regain the...

www.foreignaffairs.com

The understanding was reached back in 2013. However, Russia emerged in force in Syria as late as in 2015.

Obama administration did not make the call to topple Assad regime even though it could pull this off in a span of some days.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

All these countries are there because they were "voted" in by other nations. That's how democracy works at global level.

Is America mocking the judgement of international community?