Here’s a two-pronged story based on a video post at Little Green Footballs and an article at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The material from RFE/RL first.  It’s a rather long excerpt, but it’s highly informative and well worth reading if you’re the type of person who’s interested in UN reform.

March 28, 2007 (RFE/RL) – A UN Human Rights Council decision on March 26 to end scrutiny of Iran and Uzbekistan has been widely criticized by rights organizations and some governments, including the United States.

The council was established last year to replace the widely discredited UN Human Rights Commission, but the latest decision has raised unpleasant comparisons.

The Human Rights Commission was so discredited, in fact, that even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan — while still in office — assailed its ‘declining credibility and professionalism.’

The commission’s main problem was that its members included some of the world’s most notorious rights violators. Those states would often band together to block investigations into their own records — or those of their allies.

[…]

The new UN Human Rights Council was supposed to be different.

Aaron Rhodes, executive director of the International Helsinki Federation For Human Rights, says the March 26 decision was ‘disastrous’ and makes it clear that so far, the council has failed in its stated mission.

‘What ought to be said is that this is a signal to countries that they have nothing to worry about from the Human Rights Council if they abuse their own citizens,’ Rhodes says.

The vote on Iran and Uzbekistan was conducted behind closed doors, so a complete details of what happened — based on diplomatic sources — has trickled out slowly.

But the picture that emerges is troubling. For one, says Rhodes, it appears the old way of doing business that so undermined the UN Human Rights Commission continues at the new council.

‘The Human Rights Council is dominated by bloc voting,’ Rhodes says. ‘And what you find in this decision is the result of different regional blocs, the members of which are not considering the cases on their face value but are going along with political motives, which are thought to be consistent with the priorities and the needs of countries in those regions. It’s a terrible failure of the Human Rights Council.’

Diplomats have confirmed that the March 26 vote came at the recommendation of a five-member panel. Three of the five panel members — Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan — urged no scrutiny for Iran and Uzbekistan.

In an interview with RFE/RL, Azerbaijan’s representative to the UN in Geneva, Elchin Amirbayov, downplayed his country’s role, saying most council members agreed with Baku’s recommendation.

Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, confirms that claim and says it makes things all the more disturbing.

‘The council as a whole had an opportunity to review that recommendation and it met and made a decision about what to do about that recommendation,’ Hicks says. ‘And by a vote of more than 20 countries, as the Azerbaijani diplomat said, the council agreed to discontinue consideration. And of course that is itself a major question, because that group of more than 20 states includes a number of countries that you would have expected to do much better.’

Among the countries that abstained from voting against Tehran and Tashkent, according to Hicks, were Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and Switzerland.

[…]

Azerbaijan’s Amirbayov says these are all teething problems that eventually will be overcome. And he argues that human rights, in any case, can be a subjective concept.

‘Human rights as a concept itself is unfortunately a very much politicized matter,’ Amirbayov says. ‘And of course, one if the ideas when the council was created, was to make sure that all members are elected by two-thirds of the UN General Assembly membership. And that means more than 100 countries. If you consider that someone elected by more than 100 countries is a bad country or a good country, it’s a very subjective view. And I think that what we have to do right now is to avoid dividing lines.’

[…]

Human rights organizations say avoiding dividing lines is the best way to ensure nothing gets done at the council, dooming it to the same fate as its predecessor.

The United States, which chose not to seek membership in the Human Rights Council, citing doubts over its effectiveness, now appears vindicated.

But most global rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, would like Washington to stop sitting on the sidelines.  (Emphasis added.)

Stop sitting on the sidelines?  And what motive, pray tell, would the United States have in joining in the mêlée?  American participation in this abortion would in no way mitigate the fact that “the Human Rights Council is dominated by bloc voting.”  Or the fact that “human rights as a concept itself is unfortunately a very much politicized matter,” as that Amirbayov fellow from Azerbaijan so eloquently noted.  UN Human Rights Commission or UN Human Rights Council?  As the RFE/RL article clearly shows, a turd by any other name is still…a turd.  And in my humble opinion, at least, this is a turd the United States should scrupulously avoid stepping on.

And what the heck is up with Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and Switzerland, anyway?  I don’t get it….

At any rate, let’s move on to the material from LGF:

Last Monday we featured video of an amazing speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, in which Neuer blasted the hypocrites and despots of the Council and then was threatened with having his statements removed from the record, by a furious council president.

UN Watch has now put together another must-see video, showing the kinds of disgusting, evil speeches that are NOT banned by the UN Human Rights Council—including support for the execution of homosexuals, support for terrorist groups, Holocaust denial, and the inevitable demonization of Israel (to a frightening degree).

Here’s the second video mentioned in the LGF post (which includes the contents from the first):

That cranky old man who engaged in the verbal lashing of Mr. Neuer at the end of the video is UN Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba (Mexico).  Judging by the contents of the video, he’s a cynical man, indeed.

But this UNHRC fiasco reminds me of another video that I squirreled away for use on a rainy day.  This just might be that “rainy day.”  And the fellow in this video just might be cranky enough to take old De Alba on….

Ah.  That’s why the Democrats didn’t want him to be our ambassador to the UN.  They were afraid that he might accidentally say something cogent about the general state of disrepair that prevails at that “august institution.”

To read a more personal response to Mr. De Alba’s verbal drubbing of Mr. Neuer, go to Israpundit to read a letter written by Bill Levinson.

Adharma?  Haniebny?

You decide.

Technorati Tags: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, UN reform, UN Human Rights Council, Iran, Uzbekistan, rights organizations, United States, widely discredited, UN Human Rights Commission, unpleasant comparisons, UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, declining credibility and professionalism, notorious rights violators, block investigations, Aaron Rhodes, International Helsinki Federation For Human Rights, diplomatic sources, bloc voting, regional blocs, political motives, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Geneva, Elchin Amirbayov, Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Switzerland, human rights, subjective concept, politicized matter, UN General Assembly, membership, dividing lines, Washington, cranky old man, Luis Alfonso De Alba, Mexico, cynical man, general state of disrepair, Israpundit