Garbage

In blocking the path of two major gay rights organisations from being accredited at the United Nations and a resolution condemning rape as a weapon of war, South Africa has demonstrated not only that it has chosen petulance and expedience over decency, but also that it has forgotten what it was like to endure persecution because the powers that be were supposedly acting in the greater good.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/ Article.aspx?id=616380

Apartheid was sold to white South Africans because, given the chance, a black South African government would bring in communism and kill or drive out all the whites — the so-called rooi gevaar and swart gevaar.

The greater good in this case supposedly being the thwarting of “double standards, selectivity and politicisation” or, in plain English, “How come you never pick on the big guys, only us?”

In other words, we will stand back and watch genocide in Sudan and the economic meltdown and the self-destruction of Zimbabwe because inter alia :

“8. The UN’s human rights machinery over the years lost its credibility due to the problems of double standards, selectivity and politicisation.

9. By double standards we mean that it only addressed itself with human rights problems in some and not in other countries. Historically the UN resolutions on human rights have always targeted mainly the developing countries. No resolutions are ever brought and passed to address human rights situations in developed countries or global human rights problems created by developed countries. This is a fact that organisations such as UN Watch, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International know too well.

10. Because of this a mockery is made of human rights with the impression created that certain human rights violations are tolerable because they are committed in some countries.

11. By politicisation we mean that a number of the resolutions are presented at the United Nations to address bilateral political problems. Indeed when these bilateral political problems are resolved such resolutions are no longer presented. This is a fact which organisations such as UN Watch, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International know too well.

12. The whole membership of the United Nations therefore recognised these problems and supported the creation of the Human Rights Council and South Africa is pleased to have played a role in its creation.

13. There are two broad categories of human rights recognised at the international level: civil and political rights; and social and economic rights.

14. While many Western countries and Western NGOs are only concerned about civil and political rights, South Africa on the other hand and many other countries are concerned about all human rights — civil and political; and social and economic.

15. The ranking by UN Watch is therefore blatantly lopsided because it creates the impression that the international community is only concerned about civil and political rights, and therefore the country situations.

16. We wish to put it on record that the country situations mentioned by UN Watch are only one agenda item under 10 agenda items addressed by the Human Rights Council under the two broad categories mentioned above.

17. Had the UN Watch rankings been based on a holistic and comprehensive assessment of country positions, based on all the agenda items of the Human Rights Council, surely South Africa does way better than many other countries.”

(The above being the response to the Sunday Times.)

Let’s look at our latest debacle. We refuse to support the resolution on rape being used as a weapon of war because we want more than just this form of rape condemned. I hope someone from the department has plans to visit the women of the DRC at a stage and explain this greater good to them.

The fact that we aren’t getting the whole bag of goodies and, let’s not kid ourselves, the fact that the proposal comes from an unfavourable source mean that rape can just continue until we find the parties proposing the resolution suitable, in which case the terms will almost certainly be acceptable.

Am I missing something?

Are we as a celebrated democracy going to stand back and watch genocide, rape and monks being tortured and killed because we don’t like the we way these human rights forums go about their business?

Is the genius who drew up the response to the Sunday Times being serious? Are you suggesting that we as a country stand back and watch black people be slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands because you don’t like double standards?

Who do you think is dying in Zimbabwe, Sudan and the DRC?

What was the reason for opposing the gay rights organisations?

As South Africans, of all people, we know what it is like to suffer persecution based on an irrational hatred!

As an ANC supporter I have to tell you guys I am ashamed to be part of a South Africa that tries to sell that garbage as the basis for doing the wrong thing every time.

If the forum is wrong and the proposer is the worst-ever abuser of human rights, that is irrelevant, believe it or not. What is relevant are the issues on the table and the direction that is taken in those forums until something better comes along.

At present you are justifying supporting disgusting policies based upon selfish peripheral issues.

And that is garbage.