The UN and the Terrorism Trade
The Human Rights Council is a body more zealously devoted to chronic criticism of democratic Israel than condemnation of major human rights offenders — some of which hold seats on the Council (for instance, Cuba, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia). This same Human Rights Council is effectively a ward of the 193-member General Assembly, where a similar bias prevails.
Add to that the problem that the UN over the years has proven eager to get involved in quite a number of issues where it then becomes a bureaucratic toll collector — providing services as an erstwhile “neutral” monitor, or arbiter, while substantially protected from public scrutiny by its immunities, far-flung cross-border operations, and byzantine, eye-glazing procedures.
More immediately, consider that this is the same UN that despite its vast array of inspectors, peace-keepers, rapporteurs, monitors, special envoys, and so forth, has failed to stop the carnage of the Syrian regime, failed to stop the nuclear pursuits of Iran and North Korea, failed to stop the rearming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, failed to stop the rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, and tolerated such stuff as one of its own under-secretaries, Sha Zukang, presenting an award two years ago to the Chinese general who was operational commander of the troops during the crushing of the 1989 protests centered in Tiananmen Square.
Also, there is the huge matter that terrorist attacks in our time have largely been acts of war, not simply criminal offenses. That need not obviate the rights of victims to seek redress via the courts. But there is the danger here that a UN system of global “compensation” would become a fig leaf for trying to shovel terrorism, generally, toward the courts.
As it now stands, the UN has no definition of terrorism, but it appears ready to dabble in the flows of money that might attend upon redress for terrorist atrocities.There may be plenty that individual governments, or coalitions of the decent, can do, if they are willing, both to help victims of terrorism, and deter practitioners of terrorism from doing more of it. But to funnel such efforts through the UN is a losing game.
“eager to get involved in quite a number of issues where it then becomes a bureaucratic toll collector”
One for the ages.
The best description of the post-production “advocacy” Industry yet
Nobody wants a global definition of terrorism to be ratified, for the simple reason that it’s not possible to catch all the “bad guys” while leaving the “good guys” safe and sound. While yes, it’s true that some definitions of terrorism consider psychos like hamas to be “freedom fighters”, other perfectly rational definitions come worryingly close to snaring the good guys as well.
Bottom line – terrorism is a tactic. It’s the use of politically motivated violence against civilian populations in order to sway the policy of a state or group. “Shock and awe” might be considered one example. So would the bombing of dresden or hiroshima. The accidental destruction of a civilian town in pakistan could be regarded (by some) as terrorism. So might the deliberate destruction of a civilian town on bad intelligence, or even good intelligence, to deny it to the enemy.
Much better to just let each country define it internally in its own criminal code, and then try to sort it out with extraditions.
“There’s plenty to be said for the idea that justice should be done.”
We must not fall for this lethal scam. Compensating this or that Western victim of Muslim terror will be the sugar coated explanation the UN will use to make the poison of World Governance go down. Who can say no to ‘justice’ being done!? Its only a few pennies!!
Play it forward and imagine who will be the 99.9% recipients of this UN all-one-world “justice” loot; Palestinian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Al Qaida in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria, Iraq, etc. for the ‘terror’ inflicted on them by Western supported tyrannies. Thats just the tip of the ice berg. Then there are all the indigenes who have suffered the colonial ‘terror’ of the European and American white man (in this case Spanish colonial oppressors will not count as “white” or oppressors because everybody knows brown people can’t be racist). Also, American Indians, though the victims of Arab and other ongoing Muslim genocides from Darfur to Indonesia won’t be compensated. Messes up the narrative on which this formula will be based.
And ten seconds after this scheme is enacted, everything the US does will be labeled “terrorism.” Not just drone strikes, but also AGW as “environmental terrorism” as well as buying cheap stuff from third world countries as “economic terrorism.”
Feel free to add others.
What in the world can we do to make this corrupt org go away?
Sounds like just another way for the UN to squeeze more money out of wealthy nations. After all, who is going to fund this program? Certainly not Zambia or Chad. The money is going to come from the indutrialized nations. Also, what about all of the non-declared wars that are all the rage today? When the UN forces attacked Libya, couldn’t the Libyan people have made a case that anybody who was killed by NATO forces in that confrontation was killed through an act of terrorism? After all, nobody declared a war, so anybody killed by an American cruise missile could have been killed by an act of terrorism, right?
And what about our little forays into Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m sure the Taliban in Afghanistan consider America to be terrorists, so would we be liable for killing any Taliban fighters? After all, if there is no definition of what a terrorist is, who really is right in an undeclared war? The the families of al Qaeda murderers in Iraq could have demanded compensation for deaths of their “loved ones” who were killed by American troops. Since we no longer seem to have any declared wars, who is to say who is the “terrorist” and who is the “victim?” And taking this argument to its logical conclusion, were the Americans who died on 9/11 victims of terrorists, or mearly battlefield deaths from an undeclared war on the part of al Qaeda?
This is just another reason to get rid of the UN. Not only would we save a ton of money, but it would finally bring a little sanity back to global foreign relations.
“And taking this argument to its logical conclusion, were the Americans who died on 9/11 victims of terrorists, or mearly battlefield deaths from an undeclared war on the part of al Qaeda? ”
I thought Al Queda declared war on us. Our government just didn’t treat it as such and called them terrorists. And, doesn’t Amhadinnerjacket spend most of every speech he makes declaring his war on the West? When are we going to quit laughing and take these declarations seriously? Is the UN going to use this “compensation” to reimburse the terrorists for the cost of the explosives they use against us?
Four Heroes Countering Agenda 21′s Ecofascist Warfare May 13, 2012, 11:30 am By Arlen Williams
http://gulagbound.com/29546/four-heroes-counterin-agenda-21s-ecofascist-warfare/#.T7EqVe1cAqY
The U.N.H.R.C. is an oxymoron for this train-wreck of a commision. The American people and the world would greatly benefit from the demise of the entire U.N. organization. I can’t think of one good thing to come out of the U.N. in decades and the U.N. delegates are, for the most part, Globalist Goons.
Pour more money down the collective trash heap that has become the U.N.
I think not.
VOTE FOR FUTURE, VOTE RON PAUL!
WE STAND WITH ISRAEL!
SPEAK OUT AGAINST TYRANNY
The U. N., like the League of Nations before it, has never been anything more than a social club for the multitudes of SPIES and THIEVES that just love the Big Apple nitelife and the chance to line their personal pockets with greenbacks.
As for terrorists, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As an American,I keep asking the question of why the UN gets the amount of media attention that it receives. This feckless organization is but a thin veneer of its original mandate.