(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
United Nation Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a disgrace and don’t take my words alone for it.
The United States withdrew from the body in 2018 stating it to be a “cesspool of political bias.” US secretary of state Mike Pompeo termed the council as a “protector of human rights abusers.” Nick Haley, the US envoy to the UN, termed it a “hypocritical body” that “makes a mockery of human rights.”
And this is not Donald Trump alone. The Bush Administration did likewise when the Council was created in 2006. The reasons cited were the same: The Council was ignoring same of world’s worst atrocities while showing its bias for a few on the religious lines.
Indeed, some of world’s worst terrorist-sponsoring nations and human rights violators have occupied the high seats of this Council. This Council would do nothing to pull up a Saudi Arabia or a Pakistan who treat women terribly. But talk of Israel and the Jewish nation has been censured no less than 68 times between 2006-2016. Sixty-eight times!!! And this is nearly half of all the resolutions the Council has adapted against countries in its existence till now.
The Counil, meanwhile, doesn’t bat an eyelid when the Palestinian Authority runs a “pay to slay” program which rewards those who indulge in bombing and terrorism; launch rockets and missiles at Israeli citizens from Gaza.
Do we need to remind the world how UNHRC ignores human violations in China or Cuba; Afghanistan or Congo? That there is death sentence for gays in Somalia and Sudan? That Mauritania allows slaves? That Qatar and Libya both enslave migrants? Or the tyranny which Maduro exerts in Venezuela? No prizes for guessing: All are members of the UNHRC.
Do you think this is an angst of a Hindu nationalist peeved at UNHRC’s resolution against India on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)? Consider this:
Former United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, mentioned the Council so in his farewell speech in 2016: “Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel.”
What did the Council do when millions were being displaced and killed in Kyrgyzstan in inter-ethnic violence in 2010? It expressed “support and encouragement to Kyrgyzstan government for its efforts.” The Council spoke about “human rights violations” in Iran for a mere 171 seconds in 2015. The Council succumbed to the pressure of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in 2008 and qualified their “freedom of expression” charter with the caveat that it didn’t cover religious discrimination. Can you beat it!
The present Council is a makeover of Human Rights Commission which was scrapped in 2005 by an overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly. This happened after decades of complaints and well-encapsulated by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan with these words: “The commission had been undermined by declining credibility and professionalism”. Autocrat states came together to block any scrutiny of their records. Libya, despite its poor human rights record, chaired the commission once. No action was initiated against Sudan despite its terrible excesses in 2004.
The new Council though was no different to its previous avatar. Many see it as a stain on United Nations. Its members continue to vote in bloc rather than address each issue separately. African group tends to vote as a bloc and so does OIC, as per a report by the Democracy Coalition Project. Their stands mostly reflect security and economic ties and worrying about human right abuses is farthest from their minds.
So when such a body makes a political stand in the garb of “human rights”, take it with a pinch of salt. It has an overwhelming bias against Jews–and you could now safely add Hindus to this list. This disgrace on world community would be shown its rightful place by the Indian Supreme Court in due course. Meanwhile mark those Jaichands and Mir Jafars who are rejoicing at the censure of UNHRC against the Modi regime. These scums care little for your country or human rights. Reserve only contempt for such garbage.
(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
The climate change is for real. Greenland glacial melting is no photo-editing. Wildfires in the Amazon isn’t fake news. Droughts in California are happening. Once Arctic melts and the vast carbon presently in its frozen soils and tundra is released, Global Warming would become more severe. Impact would not only be seen in rising oceans but also on plant, animal, sea and bird life. How do you think water, air and food issues of humanity would then be addressed on an overpopulated Earth?
Climate change or Global Warming has been brought into our drawing rooms by the journey of a Swedish autistic teenager Greta Thunberg who sailed across Atlantic to the United Nations and “dared” world’s politicians into action. She is the same Greta who in February this year urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for action lest he be viewed as one of the “worst villains” in history of the future. Ms Thunberg has now been nominated for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Politicians today are being blamed for inertia on climate change since fossil fuel and the resultant release of greenhouse emissions in the environment continues unabated. Scientists, primarily of UN’s IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change), want no more than 1.5 centigrade rise in global temperature from pre-industrial era. It requires the fossil fuel emissions to drop by a startling 40% in the next dozen years. IPCC would like fossil fuel usage to be almost naught by 2050. This means no gas or diesel for cars and trucks, no coal power plants, and the world agriculture sustaining itself on burning food as biofuels.
Fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) it was which caused the Industrial Revolution and continues to drive humanity towards unprecedented economic, social and technological changes. Needless to say it has made nomadic nations of Middle East into arbiter of world’s geopolitics. Wars are fought, countries destroyed, empires built, driven on fossil fuel.
World’s powers now want a dramatic cut in use of fossil fuels to save the humanity. Developing nations like India cry “foul”. The argument is: You have made your fortune on fossil fuel, now you stop us from doing it in the name of saving humanity. In other words, you want to remain in pole position by stopping others and rule the world by now playing the “climate change” card.
If fossil fuel is causing climate change, they need to be rolled back. Let renewable energy be all we should have. But is fossil fuel really the cause of climate change? And if not who is the real culprit for the misinformation?
Is Fossil Fuel really the culprit?
In 1982, Mostafa Tolba of UN Environment Program (UNEP) warned: “The world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” In 1989, Noel Brown of the same UNEP, rhymed the threat: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising seal levels…by 2000.” James Hansen, one of key doomsday predictors, said that 350ppm of Co2 (greenhouse emission) was the upper limit to “preserve the planet.” Rajendra Pachauri, then chief of the UN IPCC, declared that 2012 was the climate deadline. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” Today, the measured level is 414ppm.
In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning for the last 50 or so years.
So who do we blame for climate change which is for real?
The truth is global warming is a complex phenomenon. It’s a coupled non-linear dynamical system. Oceans change atmosphere and in turn the atmosphere changes the oceans. Both are related to solar cycles. Yet influential scientists, global forums such as UN and world’s powerbrokers who are predicting a doomsday never bother to factor in the activity of the sun and solar eruption cycles.
John McLean, an independent researcher from Australia, sat down to analyse how IPCC arrived at their conclusion on climate change. IPCC primarily uses HadCRUT4 dataset. Yet McLean points out there were places where temperature was calculated from next to no information. For two years the temperatures over Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia. In another place, Caribbean island St. Kitts temperature was recorded at 0 degree Celsius. In essence, IPCC were never scientific in their search for reasons for climate change. All they would say is that it’s man-mad fossil fuel-driven possible extinction of human species.
Who’s the culprit behind this misinformation?
- William Engdahl, a noted geopolitical analyst, says the neo-Malthusian de-industrialization agenda was set by the wealthy Rockfellers in the 1970s. The idea was to prevent use of independent industrial rivals. The influential Rockfellers backed the creation of the Club of Rome, Aspen Institute, WorldWatch Institute and MIT Limits to Growth report. Rockfellers were helped in their mission by a longtime friend, a Canadian oilman Maurice Strong. It was Strong who first propagated the unproven theory of fossil fuels causing rise in global temperatures which threatens human civilization. In essence, he named the real enemy as humanity itself—not 147 global banks, multi-nations, financial hubs which bankroll the “climate change project.”
Strong later became chief policy advisor to Kofi Annan of the United Nations. He was the key architect of the 1997-2005 Kyoto Protocol that declared Global Warming was man-made. In 1988, Strong was instrumental in creation of the UN IPCC and chief protagonist at the Rio Earth Summit which he chaired and which approved his globalist UN Agenda 21.
Rockfellers are one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in the history of the United States. For over a century they have influenced US’ economic, political and public policy. Their “philanthropy” gives them uncommon control on issues such as agriculture, energy, pharmaceuticals and environment etc. They have a web of family foundations, universities and institutions and a complex integration of hedge funds, inter-locking Board positions, and non-profit organizations.
It’s been four years since Maurice Strong is dead. But it would help Greta Thunberg and all of us to know him and not blindly accept the fossil fuel theory on climate change. By creating the brand of “Greta Thunberg Effect,” world’s powers have probably left no scope for arguments. But do lend an ear to men like Donald Trump who are defiant. If the idea is to save humanity from climate change, we do need to know if fossil fuel is really the culprit.