Great news: UN Human Rights Council “gravely concerned” about routine massacres in Syria

posted at 9:14 pm on April 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Another 62 shot dead in cold blood in the streets today, just the latest in a series of Friday post-mosque slaughters. Good enough for a unanimous vote by the UN Human Rights Council? Why … no:

At an Special Session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday, members of the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning Syria’s human rights abuses and calling for a UN Mission to investigate the violence…

The resolution expresses “grave concern with respect to alleged deliberate killings, arrests, and instances of torture of peaceful protestors by the Syrian authorities,” and “unequivocally condemns the use of lethal violence against peaceful protestors by the Syrian authorities…”

The US resolution was revised to win more support; initial language calling for an official Commission of Inquiry to investigate the violence, as was called for in Libya, was changed to instead be handled by Human Rights Council staffers, though language still suggests a gathering of evidence, saying the “mission” will “investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law and…establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated, with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring full accountability.”

Twenty-six countries led by the U.S. voted yes; nine, including China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, voted no while another seven, among them Saudi Arabia, abstained. The U.S. also announced new sanctions on top Syrian officials, which won’t do anything to stop the shooting but will at least drive home the administration’s disapproval. I’m sorry to be a broken record but in light of Rubio’s op-ed yesterday asking why the U.S. ambassador to Syria hasn’t yet been recalled, I feel obliged to repeat: Why haven’t we walked out of the HRC yet? Forget the fact that they managed to pass a very timid resolution today. As Tapper notes, even though Syria is momentarily the most high-profile human-rights violator on the planet, the resolution still needed to be watered down a bit to attract majority support. There’s at least a practical argument for leaving our Syrian ambassador in place, in case full-fledged civil war breaks out and we need a point of contact with the opposition. What’s the argument for leaving our UNHRC ambassador in there? If we want to express moral condemnation, we have a thousand options that don’t involve legitimizing such a cretinous group.

Via the NYT, here’s the latest (graphic) cell-phone video of demonstrators being shot like animals. I recommend this Journal piece as a precis on the regional strategic considerations in toppling Assad. No one — not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Turkey, not Jordan, not even Israel — is confident in the outcome if he’s forced to abdicate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’m sorry to be a broken record but in light of Rubio’s op-ed yesterday asking why the U.S. ambassador to Syria hasn’t yet been recalled, I feel obliged to repeat: Why haven’t we walked out of the HRC yet?

You’re not a broken record. The U.S. is not serious, nor is the U.N.

WTF

Leaning Forward

Leading from Behind

Schadenfreude on April 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM

WTF

“Waiting for The Future”

BobMbx on April 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM


… nine, including China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, voted no …

Da phuq is wrong with these people?

Tony737 on April 29, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Shameful. The UN is useless.

Slublog on April 29, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Twenty-six countries led by the U.S. voted yes; nine, including China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, voted no while another seven, among them Saudi Arabia, abstained.

Let me absorb that. They voted no even to an inquiry, even in light of all the videos coming to light? What does this say about the future of the U.N.?

cynccook on April 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM

But I thought Syria was ON the Human Rights council? Thus, how could that even be possible to be worried about their behavior??

MikeknaJ on April 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Probably not as concerned as those being murdered. Obama, Hillary or somebody swore that this kind of aggression against innocent types would not stand.WTF are we going to do now? Issue time-out cards?

Southernblogger on April 29, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Wow, if Syria tanks it could weaken Shia Islam, delay supplies and guidance to Hezbolla and interfere with the covert level of support from Iran and force it into the open. If this spreads to Saudi, the whole Sunni stealth jihad fueled with Saudi wealth would risk exposure. I’m worried for the Muslims. They will wind up with twice the nothing they have and are now.

BL@KBIRD on April 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Perhaps a STERNLY WORDED MEMO will help the situation!

Exit Question: What stopped Hitler?

GarandFan on April 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM

The perfect lose-lose

Kini on April 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Perhaps a STERNLY WORDED MEMO will help the situation!

Exit Question: What stopped Hitler?

GarandFan on April 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM

You beat me to it! But knowing the O, he’ll offer a sternly written message, apologize fro having to do it (while bowing of course, and then offer them billions if they only would stop what they are doing.

CynicalOptimist on April 29, 2011 at 10:22 PM

UN Human Rights Council “gravely concerned” about routine massacres in Syria

The key word being ….grave.

NeoKong on April 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Witness what happens when a country doesn’t have a 2nd amendment that gives an oppressed citizenry a fighting chance.

kurtzz3 on April 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

If George Bush had called Bashir Assad a reformer right before this stuff went on, we would get a headline a day in the New York Times about it. Since it was a Clinton who is Obama’s Secretary of State, its down the memory hole with the whole thing.

KW64 on April 30, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Aside from being useless, the HRC is meeting in Geneva. I thought we had UN buildings in NYC for them to meet in. Perhaps it’s time we tell the UN to move out of NYC since the buildings don’t meet the requirements for having meetings.

Perhaps a better location would be Syria.

Robert17 on April 30, 2011 at 7:44 AM

When I become emperor, the first thing I’ll do is kick the UN to some 3rd world country that richly deserves it. Zimbabwe comes to mind immediately.

simkeith on April 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Members of a first faction of a global death cult are killing members of a second faction of the same cult. And the problem is what exactly? This has been going on since the 6th century. When they’re not killing Jews, Christians, and anybody else who falls into the category of “unbeliever”, they’re killing each other. They’re a deathcult! That’s what they do! They worship death. Glorify death. Each and every one of them dreams of being a Martyr. Death in furtherance of their cult’s global ambitions is their highest calling in life. That’s what THEY say. Besides, it’s the only way they can get into paradise. Dying in their beds means they’ve failed the demonic entity known as “allah” whom they worship. Just put a hugh fence around them all and let’em kill each other off. The last man standing will be given a choice, suicide or forced conversion to Judaism.

Mahdi on April 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Why haven’t we walked out of the HRC yet

Wrong question. The real question is why haven’t we walked out to the UN and kicked it out of American. Saudi Arabia or Syria can host it since it is a monument to abusers.

chemman on April 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Mahdi on April 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

That was uncalled for.

Count to 10 on April 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Count to 10 on April 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Why does the truth offend your sensibilities? Or was it the “conversion to Judaism” part that you found offensive while you agreed with all the rest?

Are you an anti-semite or merely a muslim sympathizer? Inquiring minds want to know!

Mahdi on April 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Rather have them in a pool of blood there

than walking the streets here

I think I’ll have a snack

Sonosam on April 30, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Wow

the ultimate chant, alla acbar

used for all occasions including killing and being killed

Sonosam on April 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM

That was uncalled for.

Count to 10 on April 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

All comments are uncalled for. But Mahdi is only saying the truth as it appears to him, and if the Syrians were butchering Christians or Jews — as they almost always are — then we would all be acknowledging the exact same thing.

Islam is a death cult. I have no doubt that the poor unarmed souls who are being shot to death in the street by their 2nd generation dictator Assad were all cheering and dancing in the streets on 9/11/01. As so many have observed — they love death more than they love their own children.

Jaibones on May 1, 2011 at 9:57 AM

The UN seems more “concerned” about people reporting massacres than the massacres themselves. If only people would shut up about those things, the UN Human Rights Council could get on with its real business -condemning Israel and the US.

taznar on May 1, 2011 at 7:17 PM