Imbalance: a necessary quality for bureaucrats hoping to achieve high profile, organizational positions within the UN.
Louise Arbour in Turku Finland: “On täysin varmaa, että turvallisuusneuvosto ei koskaan lähetä YK:n joukkoja Yhdysvaltoihin, Venäjälle, Kiinaan, Britanniaan tai Ranskaan, jotka ovat YK:n turvallisuusneuvoston pysyviä jäsenmaita. Ne eivät koskaan hyväksy kansainvälistä voimankäyttöä itseään, omia etujaan, ystäviään eikä liittolaisiaan vastaan, Arbour sanoo
Translation: It’s quite certain that the Security Council would never send UN troops to the US, Russia, China, Britain or France, who are UN Security Council permanent members. They would never approve international use of force against itself, its own interests, against friends nor its allies, said Arbour”
Arbour also went on to morally equate all five members of the SC with other human rights violating states, (the TT does admit that Arbour has a point with 2/3 of the SC, Russia and Communist China should never have been given a permanent seat on the council in the first place) thereby making no moral distinction between the SC’s permanent democratic members and the human rights violators it sits in judgement of.
According to Arbour, there is an inequality in the UN, because it places a few states above the rest. Well, except for Russia and China, the remaining 3/5 of the SC are the best thing going for the security of the free world. It’s of course only only a guess, but when considering Arbour’s recent statements, she most likely favors the ending of the permanent member status for the five, and would like to see the SC’s executive powers rotated within the 15 member group, whose members are chosen by the General Assembly.
Unfortunately such moral equivalence is standard operating procedures at the UN, which fails to recognize the distinct moral difference between Israel’s military and the Hezbollah and Hamas. It’s all the same to the UN, and if not for the US’s permanent seat on the UNSC, the SC could have been influenced by the OIC to invade Israel ages ago. That would most likely suit Louise Arbour, since she has no problem in wearing a religious Muslim scarf during her visit to Iran, in spite of being a non-Muslim herself. An act of a true “dhimmi”.
Then there was this statement by Arbour which explains more about the media’s role in raking both the US and Israel over the coals than any other state. Read this eye opener:
“Media ja julkinen mielipide toimivat vastapainona. Isot jäsenmaat ovat tavallaan jopa tarkemman tutkiskelun kohteena, sillä ihmisiä kiinnostaa, mitä näissä maissa tapahtuu, Arbour sanoo. / The media and public opinion act as a counterbalance. The larger member states are in a way, subject to being looked at more closely, because people are more interested what happens in these countries.”
This is just a ways and a means to explain away for an example, the media’s highlighting of alleged abuses at Gitmo, while human rights atrocities that regularly occur in the gulag archipelago in N.Korea and Cuba goes largely unnoticed. Like a drunk looking for his car keys by the lamp post, the UN, as well as many human rights NGO’s, choose to focus their attention on democracies, who happen to be fighting a war against some truly vile enemies. Just how balanced is that? In light of what was just said, perhaps labeling Arbour a cheese head might be something of an understatement. *L* KGS