Hypocrisy at the UN: dictatorships reject “country-specific” resolutions, then adopt 21 country-specific resolutions on Israel

Published by

Hillel Neuer

- at December 3, 2012 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 

In an astonishing display of hypocrisy even by U.N. standards, numerous country delegates gave impassioned speeches last week objecting to the adoption of resolutions criticizing the murderous regimes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, saying they rejected the practice of singling out specific countries; and then proceeded, only moments later, to vote for a resolution — which most of them also co-sponsored — singling out democratic Israel.

There will be a total of 21 one-sided resolutions targeting the Jewish state in this session of the U.N. General Assembly, and only 4 on the rest of the world combined.


Here were the objections of high principle against any naming and shaming of specific countries:

• Kazakhstan on behalf of the 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference opposed “the practice of submitting country-specific resolutions” on human rights “targeting developing countries.”  This “politicized human rights.”
• Syria had a “principled position” to reject “intervening in the internal affairs of any other State under the pretext of human rights.”
• China “regretted” the resolution on North Korea,” as it “has always opposed imposing pressure through country-specific texts” and “interference in States’ internal affairs.”
• Cuba opposed “all country-specific resolutions aimed at countries of the global South.” This, it said, was precisely the  “politicization” that led to the disappearance of the Commission on Human Rights.
• Russia was “against one-sided and biased resolutions” which “did not promote resolution of human rights issues.”
• Iran objected that “the proliferation of country-specific texts” breached “the principles of impartiality and non-selectivity” in addressing human rights issues.  “Selective country-specific resolutions” would reduce noble human rights concerns to “manipulative devices of political rivalry.”
• Venezuela opposed “individual and selective condemnation of single States.” Sponsors of the resolution on Iran “violated human rights themselves,” showing “selectivity” and “double standards.” Rather, “dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation” should be the essential instrument for promotion and protection of human rights.
• Nicaragua joined with Cuba in objecting to the resolutions on Iran, Syria and North Korea, as it rejected once again “the practice of selectivity on human rights.”
• Ecuador rejected “the continued chorus of finger pointing at specific countries.”
• Belarus said the draft resolution on Iran failed to “promote dialogue on support for human rights.”  The draft resolution was “not objective,” and “ignored official sources of information” and “specific actions.”
• Bolivia firmly supported the principles of “non-interference” and “sovereignty,” and therefore would vote against the resolution on Iran.

Moments later, however, all of these principled objections to “country-specific” measures, “politicization,” and “selectivity” went out the door. The countries quoted above joined others in voting for a resolution that singled out and slammed Israel for alleged actions that “severely impede the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

Suddenly, Belarus and  Venezuela went silent, failing to demand any alternative U.N. “dialogue” with Israel.

Needless to say, there will be no resolutions in this session supporting Jewish self-determination, or that of the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques or Baluchis.