Discussion:
U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum on Venezuela, despite more than 100 deaths and abuses by President Maduro | Miami Herald
(demasiado antiguo para responder)
jat
2017-07-12 19:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's bloody
repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more than 100
dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political prisoners over the
past three months, the United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC, has
not uttered a single word about Venezuela's human rights crisis.

The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to “uphold the highest standards”
of human rights across the world, has not issued one single resolution
about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session to discuss the crisis
there, nor called for any inquiry into the deaths of protesters by armed
government-backed mobs.

There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council’s 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba, China,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another against
charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a mutual
protection society for the world’s worst dictatorships.

“The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela any
day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they should have
done that,” says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based
advocacy group. “But they have never called for an emergency session on
Venezuela.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
--
/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
PL
2017-07-13 12:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text


As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
***@miamiherald.com

What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's bloody
repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more than 100
dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political prisoners over the
past three months, the United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC, has
not uttered a single word about Venezuela's human rights crisis.

The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest standards"
of human rights across the world, has not issued one single resolution
about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session to discuss the crisis
there, nor called for any inquiry into the deaths of protesters by armed
government-backed mobs.

There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba, China,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another against
charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a mutual
protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.

"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela any
day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they should have
done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based
advocacy group. "But they have never called for an emergency session on
Venezuela.

"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is happening
there, and they have not done that either. On the contrary, Venezuela
was recently re-elected to the council."

Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.

The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted visa
sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started by the
Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the Venezuelan crisis.

Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva,
which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level pressure on the
council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say. Nikki Haley, the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York, made a brief visit to
Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but only held a side-event on
Venezuela outside the council's session.

The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude were
also evident at the Organization of American States' June special
meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of U.S. Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make it possible for a
handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively defeat a condemnation
of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the region.

The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of the
UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly noted that
the council's seats should be awarded through competitive voting to keep
the worst human-rights violators out of it.

As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional blocs.
That allows countries that desperately want to be in the council — such
as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their neighbors in exchange
for their appointments to the UNHRC.

But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for the
Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the council
was even worse before the Obama administration decided to join it in 2009.

Asked whether the United States should resign from the council, Neuer
told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to pull out,
the council did not get better. It got worse. The United States should
appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva. Send
someone who will fight."

My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration will
have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump has
already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey
and several other countries, breaking a long-standing tradition by
Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out against human-rights
abuses everywhere.

The best course of action would be for all democracies, including the
United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the UNHRC
for what it is — a monumental joke.

Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN en
Español. Twitter: @oppenheimera

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
jat
2017-07-13 13:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What's the deal, if the link is there?

/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's bloody
repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more than 100
dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political prisoners over the
past three months, the United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC, has
not uttered a single word about Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest standards"
of human rights across the world, has not issued one single resolution
about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session to discuss the crisis
there, nor called for any inquiry into the deaths of protesters by armed
government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba, China,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another against
charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a mutual
protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela any
day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they should have
done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based
advocacy group. "But they have never called for an emergency session on
Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is happening
there, and they have not done that either. On the contrary, Venezuela
was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted visa
sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started by the
Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva,
which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level pressure on the
council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say. Nikki Haley, the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York, made a brief visit to
Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but only held a side-event on
Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude were
also evident at the Organization of American States' June special
meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of U.S. Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make it possible for a
handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively defeat a condemnation
of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of the
UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly noted that
the council's seats should be awarded through competitive voting to keep
the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional blocs.
That allows countries that desperately want to be in the council — such
as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their neighbors in exchange
for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for the
Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the council
was even worse before the Obama administration decided to join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council, Neuer
told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to pull out,
the council did not get better. It got worse. The United States should
appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva. Send
someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration will
have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump has
already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey
and several other countries, breaking a long-standing tradition by
Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out against human-rights
abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including the
United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the UNHRC
for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN en
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
PL
2017-07-13 17:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the full
text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's bloody
repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more than 100
dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political prisoners over
the past three months, the United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC,
has not uttered a single word about Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest standards"
of human rights across the world, has not issued one single resolution
about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session to discuss the crisis
there, nor called for any inquiry into the deaths of protesters by
armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela any
day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they should
have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based
advocacy group. "But they have never called for an emergency session
on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is happening
there, and they have not done that either. On the contrary, Venezuela
was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted visa
sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started by the
Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva,
which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level pressure on
the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say. Nikki Haley,
the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York, made a brief
visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but only held a
side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude were
also evident at the Organization of American States' June special
meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make it
possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively defeat
a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of the
UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly noted that
the council's seats should be awarded through competitive voting to
keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional blocs.
That allows countries that desperately want to be in the council —
such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their neighbors in
exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to join
it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council, Neuer
told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to pull out,
the council did not get better. It got worse. The United States should
appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva. Send
someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing tradition
by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out against
human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including the
United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the UNHRC
for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN en
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
jat
2017-07-14 00:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...

/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the full
text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's bloody
repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more than 100
dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political prisoners over
the past three months, the United Nations Human Rights Council,
UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about Venezuela's human rights
crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session to
discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the deaths
of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the contrary,
Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started by
the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva,
which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level pressure on
the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say. Nikki Haley,
the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York, made a brief
visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but only held a
side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make it
possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly noted
that the council's seats should be awarded through competitive voting
to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional blocs.
That allows countries that desperately want to be in the council —
such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their neighbors in
exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council, Neuer
told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to pull
out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United States
should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N. in
Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including the
United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the UNHRC
for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN en
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
PL
2017-07-14 11:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jat
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...
Yes it is: you are not giving the full story as the author wrote it.
You are post-editing and censuring.
That is misleading people.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the
full text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's
bloody repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more
than 100 dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political
prisoners over the past three months, the United Nations Human
Rights Council, UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about
Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session
to discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the
deaths of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the
contrary, Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started by
the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva,
which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level pressure on
the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say. Nikki Haley,
the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York, made a brief
visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but only held a
side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make it
possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly noted
that the council's seats should be awarded through competitive
voting to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional blocs.
That allows countries that desperately want to be in the council —
such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their neighbors in
exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council,
Neuer told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to
pull out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United
States should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N.
in Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including
the United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the
UNHRC for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN en
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
jat
2017-07-14 12:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whatever you say, Saint PL *What a ridiculous person you are*

/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
Post by PL
Post by jat
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...
Yes it is: you are not giving the full story as the author wrote it.
You are post-editing and censuring.
That is misleading people.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the
full text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's
bloody repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more
than 100 dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political
prisoners over the past three months, the United Nations Human
Rights Council, UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about
Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session
to discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the
deaths of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the
contrary, Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started
by the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in
Geneva, which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level
pressure on the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say.
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York,
made a brief visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but
only held a side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make
it possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly
noted that the council's seats should be awarded through
competitive voting to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional
blocs. That allows countries that desperately want to be in the
council — such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their
neighbors in exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council,
Neuer told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to
pull out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United
States should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N.
in Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including
the United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the
UNHRC for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
PL
2017-07-14 12:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jat
Whatever you say
Just stating some facts that make you very uncomfortable.
It is nice to see your despair and frustration for being exposed for the
vile racist liar you are.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...
Yes it is: you are not giving the full story as the author wrote it.
You are post-editing and censuring.
That is misleading people.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the
full text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's
bloody repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more
than 100 dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political
prisoners over the past three months, the United Nations Human
Rights Council, UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about
Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session
to discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the
deaths of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the
contrary, Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started
by the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in
Geneva, which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level
pressure on the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say.
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York,
made a brief visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but
only held a side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make
it possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly
noted that the council's seats should be awarded through
competitive voting to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional
blocs. That allows countries that desperately want to be in the
council — such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their
neighbors in exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council,
Neuer told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to
pull out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United
States should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N.
in Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including
the United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the
UNHRC for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
jat
2017-07-15 15:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is a racist finger *laughter*
Copy and paste wherever you think it fits you best.
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' Fuck /' ')
\ You' /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
STICK IT UP THE STICKLER!

/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
Post by PL
Post by jat
Whatever you say
Just stating some facts that make you very uncomfortable.
It is nice to see your despair and frustration for being exposed for the
vile racist liar you are.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...
Yes it is: you are not giving the full story as the author wrote it.
You are post-editing and censuring.
That is misleading people.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the
full text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's
bloody repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more
than 100 dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political
prisoners over the past three months, the United Nations Human
Rights Council, UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about
Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session
to discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the
deaths of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the
contrary, Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started
by the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in
Geneva, which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level
pressure on the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say.
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York,
made a brief visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but
only held a side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make
it possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly
noted that the council's seats should be awarded through
competitive voting to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional
blocs. That allows countries that desperately want to be in the
council — such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their
neighbors in exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council,
Neuer told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to
pull out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United
States should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N.
in Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including
the United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the
UNHRC for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
PL
2017-07-16 06:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/15/2017 5:49 PM, jat wrote:

Nope. that "racist finger" is on the hand that was used to copy your
crappy repetitive insult.
Post by jat
This is a racist finger *laughter*
Copy and paste wherever you think it fits you best.
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' Fuck /' ')
\ You' /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
STICK IT UP THE STICKLER!
/jat
Knowledge will set you free
El conocimiento te hará libre
Post by PL
Post by jat
Whatever you say
Just stating some facts that make you very uncomfortable.
It is nice to see your despair and frustration for being exposed for the
vile racist liar you are.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
You're wrong snippet doesn't mean misleading...
Yes it is: you are not giving the full story as the author wrote it.
You are post-editing and censuring.
That is misleading people.
Post by jat
Post by PL
Post by jat
What's the deal, if the link is there?
Just the difference between snippets you like (to mislead) and the
full text.
Make your comments, but inform people correctly.
Post by jat
Post by PL
On 7/12/2017 9:23 PM, jat wrote: the snippets he wants you to read
instead of the full text
As Venezuelans die on the streets, U.N. Human Rights Council remains mum
By Andrés Oppenheimer
What a travesty. Despite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's
bloody repression of opposition protests that has resulted in more
than 100 dead, thousands of wounded and hundreds of political
prisoners over the past three months, the United Nations Human
Rights Council, UNHRC, has not uttered a single word about
Venezuela's human rights crisis.
The Geneva-based UNHRC, whose job is to "uphold the highest
standards" of human rights across the world, has not issued one
single resolution about Venezuela, nor convened any urgent session
to discuss the crisis there, nor called for any inquiry into the
deaths of protesters by armed government-backed mobs.
There is a reason for that inaction, of course. About half of the
council's 47 member countries are dictatorships — including Cuba,
China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — who defend one another
against charges of human-rights violations. In fact, the UNHRC is a
mutual protection society for the world's worst dictatorships.
"The council is entitled to call an emergency session on Venezuela
any day, and given what is happening on the streets there, they
should have done that," says Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, a
Geneva-based advocacy group. "But they have never called for an
emergency session on Venezuela.
"They should have created a commission of inquiry on what is
happening there, and they have not done that either. On the
contrary, Venezuela was recently re-elected to the council."
Neither the United States nor other democracies represented at the
council presented any motions to the council condemning Venezuela's
human rights abuses.
The Trump administration, aside from a few photo shots of President
Donald Trump with Venezuelan opposition figures and some targeted
visa sanctions against Venezuelan officials that had been started
by the Obama administration, has been largely invisible in the
Venezuelan crisis.
Trump has not yet appointed a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in
Geneva, which is one of the reasons why there was no high-level
pressure on the council to debate the Venezuelan case, critics say.
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York,
made a brief visit to Geneva during the UNHRC sessions in June, but
only held a side-event on Venezuela outside the council's session.
The Trump administration's diplomatic inexperience and ineptitude
were also evident at the Organization of American States' June
special meeting of foreign ministers on Venezuela. The absence of
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at that meeting helped make
it possible for a handful of tiny Caribbean islands to effectively
defeat a condemnation of Venezuela's regime by 20 countries in the
region.
The Trump administration has said it is considering pulling out of
the UNHRC unless the council reforms itself. Haley has rightly
noted that the council's seats should be awarded through
competitive voting to keep the worst human-rights violators out of it.
As it is now, council members are appointed by their regional
blocs. That allows countries that desperately want to be in the
council — such as Cuba and Venezuela — to trade favors with their
neighbors in exchange for their appointments to the UNHRC.
But most independent human-rights groups say it would be unwise for
the Trump administration to pull out from the UNHRC. They say the
council was even worse before the Obama administration decided to
join it in 2009.
Asked whether the United States should resign from the council,
Neuer told me, "It's a dilemma. But when George W. Bush decided to
pull out, the council did not get better. It got worse. The United
States should appoint a human-rights hero as ambassador to the U.N.
in Geneva. Send someone who will fight."
My opinion: I agree, although I doubt that the Trump administration
will have any credibility as a leader on human-rights issues. Trump
has already embraced the dictators of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey and several other countries, breaking a long-standing
tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents to speak out
against human-rights abuses everywhere.
The best course of action would be for all democracies, including
the United States, to start raising their voices and denouncing the
UNHRC for what it is — a monumental joke.
Watch the "Oppenheimer Presenta" TV show Sundays at 9 p.m. on CNN
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article160969789.html
Loading...