Friday 29th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

many human rights warriors are afraid of peace......

The fifty-third session of the UN Human Rights Council meeting now in Geneva could provide a perfect opportunity to advance peace as a human right and to meaningfully support the many roadmaps and blueprints for peace in Ukraine and proposals for peace in all conflict areas in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

 

The weaponisation of human rights at the Human Rights Councilby Professor Alfred de Zayas 

Alas, the Human Rights Council has become predominantly a platform for those who engage in war-mongering and incitement to hatred. Notwithstanding the clear language of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, many states practice flagrant Russophobia, Sinophobia and other phobias. Article 20 stipulates:
 “1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
  2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

 

Commitment to human
rights or geopolitical interests?

The collective West, however, rejects this crucial provision of the ICCPR. Most Western states, including the US, even formulated “reservations” against this article, so that they could happily continue their demonisation of rivals, pre-war incitement to hatred and mid-war fake news and bellicose propaganda.1
  What does “weaponisation of human rights mean”? Simply the instrumentalisation of human rights for geopolitical purposes. Indeed, we witness how human rights have been hijacked for aggressive purposes. This “weaponisation” has transformed the individual and collective entitlement to assistance, protection, respect and solidarity – based on our common human dignity and equality – into a hostile arsenal to target competitors and political adversaries. In the stockpile of weaponised human rights, the technique of “naming and shaming” has become a sort of ubiquitous Kalashnikov.

 

Jargon to legitimise
Regime change and interference

Experience shows, however, that naming and shaming fails to alleviate the suffering of victims and only satisfies the strategic aims of certain governments, non-governmental organisations and of a bourgeoning human rights industry that instrumentalise human rights for the purpose of destabilising others and often enough to facilitate “regime change”, notwithstanding how undemocratic that may sound and regardless of the ius cogens right of self-determination of peoples, and the customary international law principle prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of States.  The whole concept of “colour revolutions” is a propagandistic jargon to justify military interventions in other countries. The “Arab Spring” sounds positive, but did we not usher in an “Arab Winter” in Libya, which continues to live in chaos and misery after our “humanitarian intervention” of 2011?
  Just before this Human Rights Council session, my new book “The Human Rights Industry” was published by Clarity Press2, offering a clear diagnosis, identifying the dysfunctions of the UN human rights promotion and protection mechanisms, and providing a prognosis with concrete, implementable, pragmatic proposals for the rehabilitation of the system.
  At a time of global challenges, one would expect that the Human Rights Council would endeavour to provide sustainable global solutions. Unfortunately, the Council has become an arena of gladiators which enjoy throwing daggers at each other rather than sitting down, looking for the root causes of human rights violations and devising preventive strategies so as resolve the grievances instead of merely condemning a particular country or a particular politician.  Punishment is not the solution to human rights problems, primarily because punishment is always ex post facto, and furthermore because there is no proof that punishment has ever deterred politicians, transnational corporations, weapons contractors, private security companies from committing crimes and abuses.

 

Not all ngo’s are ngo’s

As at every session, I participate in side-events, where I represent various non-governmental organisations. Here again, I must alert the reader about the phenomenon that not all ngo’s are genuine. Many are directly in the service of governments or their subsidiary agencies. Many are referred to as “gongo’s” or government ngo’s. Others are “mixed bags”, engaging in very positive activities as advocating the protection of journalists, demanding freedom of the media and access to all sources of information, which is indispensable for any functioning democracy. In this category I can mention Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders and P.E.N. International. These ngo’s have repeatedly demanded the release of Julian Assange and other whistleblowers, true human rights defenders. But sometimes good ngo’s engage in inexplicable contradictions and, for instance, endorse or even advocate the imposition of unilateral coercive measures against countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, although the evidence is overwhelming that such UCM’s harm the most vulnerable in those countries and constitute a form of “collective punishment”. Indeed, sanctions kill.
  To argue that such UCM’s are intended to “punish” a country for real or alleged human rights violations is a form of sacrilege or blasphemy. Here again, the medicine is worse than the disease. There are plenty of studies documenting the adverse impact of UCM’s, including that of Jeffrey Sachs and Marc Weisbrotabout the counter-productive UCM’s imposed by the US against Venezuela.3

 

When hatred is promoted in the name
of human rights instead of reconciliation …

I was president of the P.E.N. Centre Suisse romand (the P.E.N. Club of the Swiss-French cantons) in the years 2006-2009 and again 2013-2017. I am still its delegate to the P.E.N. writers for peace committee. In this capacity I attended the annual meeting of the Committee in Bled, Slovenia, which took place 15–18 May 2023. I had expected concrete proposals for peace in all continents, in the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, in Israel/Palestine, in Yemen, and, of course, in Ukraine. Unfortunately, this meeting was marred by an atmosphere of war-mongering and hate, precisely what is prohibited by article 20 ICCPR. There was a clear majority of hawks and a minority of doves. Here again I witnessed, what I am familiar with in the Human Rights Council, how some ngo’s can undermine human rights, in particular the human right to peace, how some ngo’s can engage in incitement to hatred rather than attempting to build bridges of understanding.

 

… arms supplies are advocated
and diplomacy is rejected

I was shocked to hear delegations advocating more weapons for Ukraine and rejecting the possibility of a cease-fire or a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. I was appalled to hear delegates, who are bound by the Charter of P.E.N. to work for peace, who would refuse dialogue and diplomacy. It was surrealistic. For this reason, I drafted a resolution in the name of P.E.N. Centre Suisse romandconcerning the urgent necessity of diplomacy and mediation in the spirit of the Bled Manifesto for Peace. The text of the draft resolution (see box) will be presented at the forthcoming annual meeting of P.E.N. International in September 2023.
  I also distributed printed copies of my Essay “A Blueprint for Peace in Ukraine”, published in Counterpunch on 20 December 20224. It is indeed worrisome that not only in the Human Rights Council but also in the world of the non-governmental organizations, the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsare all too often forgotten, and persons, who should know better, act in a manner incompatible with the principles that they ostensibly profess.
  I conclude with the motto of the Peace of Westphalia: Pax optima rerum, peace is the highest good.  •

 

READ MORE:

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2023/nr-15-11-juli-2023/menschenrechte-als-waffe

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW................

forever war......

BY Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

In a bold display of the bipartisan determination of the U.S. Congress after 9/11 to lock-in forever the bonanza that the Congress temporarily granted to America’s ‘Defense’ industries (manufacturers of war-weapons, etc.), the proposed congressional Resolution, on July 19th, “On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 222 )”, aiming “To express the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before the United States engages in war,” was voted down in the U.S. Senate, by the huge bipartisan margin of 83 Nays to 16 Yeas. All of the 16 Yeas were Republican Senators. However, 32 Republicans, and both of the Senate’s ‘Independent’ Senators (Sanders of Vermont, and King of Maine), alsovoted Nay — they voted that the U.S. Constitution’s clause which demands a congressional authorization before the U.S. President may send U.S. forces abroad into a war, be nullified if NATO declares war. (For example: if NATO declares war against Russia regarding Ukraine — which COULD happen — then America is automatically at war against Russia, and no congressional authorization is needed in order for the U.S. to immediately launch a nuclear invasion of Russia.) So: this was anything but a partisan vote in the Congress: 83 U.S. Senators, of both and of no Parties, endorsed it. But did the American people endorse it? The American people had voted those 83 U.S. Senators into office. Why did the American people do that? Was this because the same ‘Defense’ contractors who had funded these Senators’ political careers has ALSO funded the opposite Party’s nominees who were running against them? Do billionaires need to fund both of the Parties in order for such a thing to happen? Is this what America’s ‘democracy’ has now come down to?

On 17 February 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden issued his “Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Libya”, and — though around half of U.S. Senators have grandstanded publicly against U.S. arms-sales into Middle-Eastern wars — he publicly announced that America will continue the “National Emergency” which President Obama had announced in 2011 to get rid of Muammar Gaddafi (even though Gaddafi did become assassinated on 11 October 2011). Congress did nothing to object to Biden’s continuation of that authorization by Biden, for Biden to continue America’s participation in those wars. Then, finally, on 13 June 2023, the Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar headlined “Gosar Introduces Legislation Terminating Libya National Emergency Declaration”, and reported that Gosar had just introduced  “H.J. Res. 70, legislation terminating the national emergency related to Libya declared by President Obama on February 25, 2011 in Executive Order 13566.” It’s all for show, even if he does support it, because for many decades now, the U.S. Congress never votes against America’s armaments contractors. In fact, Gosar’s press release admitted that “There are currently 41 declared national emergencies still in effect in the United States.” His link there shows that those ‘U.S. national emergencies’ are against: Iran, Nicaragua, South Africa, Libya (1986), Panama, Iraq (1990), Chemical and Biological Weapons (of which the U.S. has been the biggest producer — but this 1990 Executive Order 12735 was directed only against foreign countries) — Haiti, Serbia and Montenegro, UNITA, Bosnia and Herzegovina, “Terrorists,” Cuba, Burma, Sudan, Serbia and Montenegro again, Taliban, Sierra Leone, Western Balkans, “Terrorists” again, Zimbabwe, Iraq again (2003), Syria, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Belarus, DR Congo, Lebanon, North Korea, Somalia, Libya (2011), Russians in Ukraine (2014), South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Burundi, Nicaragua again, Mali, China, China again, Burma again, Russia again, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Russia again. Others were against things, such as narcotics. However the ones that I listed were already 45 “U.S. National Emergencies,” in which the President could bring the U.S. to war regardless of the U.S. Congress. And, of course, since all of these ‘public officials’ depend essentally on America’s billionaires, those people are the ones whom the U.S. Government actually represents. (Some people say that America is a republic instead of a democracy, but the real question is: Whom do the representatives actually represent?)

Anyway: what’s at issue here is not how to interpret the Constitution, but instead how to ignore the Constitution in such a way that the U.S. Supreme Court ignores, which is the way in which U.S. Presidents agree with both of the houses in Congress and with both of the Parties in Congress, to ignore the Constitution, and to cover it over with obfuscatory excuses that, to casual observers, might seem credible, but that nonetheless are as phony as a three dollar bill and are meant only to fool the public’s voting fools so as to continue the now longstanding routine ignorance and distortions about what the actual authors of the U.S. Constitution had written and said that pertains to each and every clause that those Founders collectively wrote and embodied in our Contitution and in each one of its Amendments.These matters have instead become ones that are debated about only by an elite of ‘experts’ who have become accredited by representatives of America’s billionaires in order to keep that debate as obfuscatory as possible and as alien as possible to the interests of the public, so that the U.S. Constitution ‘means’ only what actual representatives of today’s billionaires find acceptable for it to mean. However, now, in particulars such as are discussed here, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t even become involved, at all. By Executive and Legislative fiat, the U.S. Constitution becomes, effectively, just ignored, in such matters — the ones that are of vital importance to America’s billionaires.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

 

https://theduran.com/how-u-s-congress-just-voted-to-make-permanent-war-permanent/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............

a conspiracy.....

By The Corbett Report

FROM 2013: Conspiracy theorists believe that organizations of interest work behind the scenes to manipulate world politics. They believe that false-flag terror events are used to justify wars of aggression on political enemies. They believe that humanitarian rhetoric is used to mask military aggression, as in Syria. In short, they are realistic observers of world politics, just like Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Join us today on The Corbett Report as we hear all about the conspiratorial view of history straight from the horse’s mouth.

 

https://www.activistpost.com/2023/07/meet-zbigniew-brzezinski-conspiracy-theorist-2013.html

 

 

SEE ALSO:

 

The U.S. Wars Against Russia And China Have No Economic Logic Attached To Them

 

The U.S. politician Zbigniew Brzezinski was a hardliner with a (neo-)liberal core. He had a wide influence on U.S. policies:

Brzezinski is the author of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, a 1997 book on geopolitics that was based on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory. Brzezinski argued that the US could retain global supremacy only if it prevented the emergence of a single power on the World-Island.

The Brzezinski Doctrine remains influential in the US foreign-policy establishment. His protégés, among them Ukrainian émigré Victoria Nuland, undersecretary of state for political affairs, are a powerful voice in the US State Department.

Brzezinski had argued that without Ukraine, Russia would be unable to rule the Asian heartland and could not challenge U.S. power.

But I just learned via a Pepe Esobar essay about Henry Kissinger's visit and a potential great power war with China, that Brezezinski had in later years changed his mind:

“The Grand Chessboard”, published in 1997, before the 9/11 era, argued that the US should rule over any peer competitor rising in Eurasia. Brzezinski did not live to see the living incarnation of his ultimate nightmare: a Russia-China strategic partnership. But already seven years ago – two years after Maidan in Kiev - at least he understood it was imperative to "realign the global power architecture".

In a longer piece published in 2016 in American Interest, Brzezinski indeed argued for great power cooperation:

A constructive U.S. policy must be patiently guided by a long-range vision. It must seek outcomes that promote the gradual realization in Russia (probably post-Putin) that its only place as an influential world power is ultimately within Europe. China’s increasing role in the Middle East should reflect the reciprocal American and Chinese realization that a growing U.S.-PRC partnership in coping with the Middle Eastern crisis is an historically significant test of their ability to shape and enhance together wider global stability.

The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility. For America, that could entail enduring conflict, fatigue, and conceivably even a demoralizing withdrawal to its pre-20th century isolationism.

The U.S. did not follow Brzezinski's advice. It alienated China by launching an economic war against it and pushed the Ukraine into a proxy-war against Russia that was supposed to destroy Russia's capabilities. In consequence Russia and China united their capabilities against their common new enemy, the United States of America. We will see during the next years if the consequences Brzezinski foretold for the U.S. under these circumstances will come into light.

It is interesting that the old rivals and political opponents Kissinger and Brzezinski have late in their lives come to the same conclusions.

As Stephen Roach in his take on Kissinger's visit to China states:

For several years, Kissinger has expressed great concern over the worrisome state of the US-China relationship. As far back as late 2019, he warned that that the United States and China were already in the “foothills of a new cold war.” Given the trajectory of conflict escalation in the ensuing four years, there is a new urgency to his concerns. In the Chinese readout of this week’s meeting with [Defense Minister] Li Shangfu, Kissinger is reported to have said. “Neither the United States nor China can afford to treat the other as an adversary.  If the two countries go to war, it will not lead to any meaningful results for the two peoples.”

Opposition to the U.S. bi-partisan policy of economic warfare against China is now also coming from the bigwigs of the U.S. economy:

Leaders of the largest US chipmakers told Biden officials this week that the administration should study the impact of restrictions on exports to China and pause before implementing new ones, according to people familiar with their discussions.

During meetings in Washington on Monday, Intel Corp.’s Pat Gelsinger, Nvidia Corp.’s Jensen Huang and Qualcomm Inc.’s Cristiano Amon warned that export controls risk harming US leadership of the industry. The Biden officials listened to the presentations but didn’t make any commitments, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks were private.

Economic logic provides that the U.S. (and European) economy would be better off by avoiding a conflict with Russia and China. But, as Micheal Hudson explains, this now gets overwritten by national security preferences which have remarkable conseqences:

Instead of isolating Russia and China and making them dependent on U.S. economic control, U.S. unipolar diplomacy has isolated itself and its NATO satellites from the rest of the world – the Global Majority that is growing while NATO economies are rushing ahead along their Road to Deindustrialization. The remarkable thing is that while NATO warns of the “risk” of trade with Russia and China, it does not see its loss of industrial viability and economic sovereignty to the United States as a risk.

This is not what the “economic interpretation of history” would have forecast. Governments are expected to support their economy’s leading business interests. So we are brought back to the question of whether economic factors will determine the shape of world trade, investment and diplomacy. Is it really possible to create a set of post-economic NATO economies whose members will come to look much like the rapidly depopulating and de-industrializing Baltic states and post-Soviet Ukraine?

This would be a strange kind of “national security” indeed. In economic terms it seems that the U.S. and European strategy of self-isolation from the rest of the world is so massive and far-reaching an error that its effects are the equivalent of a world war.

The question is really why the U.S. is doing this harm to itself instead of following Brzezinski's and Kissinger's advice. As Yves Smith says in her preface to Hudson's piece, it is a quite bizarre spectacle:

One of the subthemes of the latest offering from Michael Hudson on the bizarre spectacle of the US escalating against China is puzzlement that the West is not operating in its best interest. Lambert has been chewing over this conundrum too.

Perhaps it’s that they really do believe their propaganda, and still don’t recognize that the military and economic clout of the US/EU bloc on a relative basis isn’t anywhere near substantial enough for them to push the rest of the world around. But you think their self-delusion would have started to crack with the failure in their efforts to pressure many countries, such as India and South Africa, to side with the US and condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and now with the supposedly superior US/NATO war machine not performing too well.

Another possibility is the so-called Iron Law of Institutions, that individuals and interests are operating to maximize their own position, with little/no concern to the impact on the system.

I have come to the conclusion that the main actors in this game, the Bindens, Blinkens, Sullivans and their bipartisan supporters, are driven by a blind ideology that has dismissed or replaced global realities with wishful thinking.

The failure of their sanctions against Russia should have demonstrated to them that the real word is by far not the one in which they believe to be living. They however are now repeating their errors by waging a similar war against China.

It will not end well for the people they are supposed to lead.

 

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/07/the-us-wars-against-russia-and-china-have-no-economic-logic-attached-to-them.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............

Romania kaper.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyaYKKn1aVw

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............

of pacifism....

 

Calling all pacifistsBy David O' Halloran

 

“We are called to live ‘in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars’. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.” Advices and Queries

 

Each month at my local Quaker Meeting, we reflect on a single “Advice and Query”. In the Quaker tradition, “Advices and Queries” are essential tools for spiritual reflection and guidance. Rather than being strict rules, they offer thoughtful considerations and introspective questions that encourage individuals to examine their beliefs and actions. These reflections help guide personal conduct and community engagement, emphasising continual growth and alignment with one’s inner truth and light.

This month’s choice of advice, shown above, resonated deeply. It presents a challenging perspective, particularly relevant in a world that feels like it is going mad. This advice contains within it the much loved phrase “We are called to live ‘in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars’,” which originates from the original Quaker Peace Testimony– A Declaration from the harmless and innocent people of God, called Quakers, against all plotters and fighters in the world, crafted in the 1660s, a time of widespread violence and Millenarian expectations of the world’s end.

The advice calls for an active engagement with a divine power that opposes war, going beyond individual efforts to stop conflict and urging us to connect with a higher power already working towards peace. It guides us on a path of spiritual reflection, highlighting the need to acknowledge our shared human condition and the necessity of divine guidance to transcend our limited understanding.

The Gaza conflict, with its entrenched pain and complex history, highlights the limitations of human efforts in resolving deep conflicts. The advice thus prompts us to pursue a path of greater compassion. It points out that the seeds of war often reside within us – in our unchecked prejudices, hidden fears, and the failure to recognize the divine in others.

Adopting this spiritual path means acknowledging our own inadvertent contributions to conflict through our thoughts, words, and actions. It demands personal accountability and introspection for authentic peace.

Standing firm in this testimony, amidst prevalent violence and aggression, signifies an acceptance of our limitations and a faith in the divine ability to heal and transform challenging situations. It acknowledges the slow and arduous path to peace and the significance of our efforts as part of a greater, transcendent purpose. Acts of love and compassion, however small and even on the other side of the planet, are seeds with the potential for profound transformation.

This advice encourages us to remember that even those involved in violence are human beings with inherent worth. It doesn’t excuse their actions but invites us to consider their potential for redemption. In the Gaza situation, understanding everyone involved, rather than making quick judgments or taking sides, is key. Talking openly and honestly about difficult issues, in line with the Quaker tradition of plain speaking, can lead to real solutions and healing.

The recent ICJ ruling, calling for accountability and improved conditions in Gaza, mirrors this approach, highlighting the importance of clear and committed efforts in complex conflict resolution. Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong would do well to not reframe the findings of the Court. Their interpretation and response to the ruling should align with its unambiguous recommendations, reflecting a commitment to justice and peace.

The advice to live in the virtue that removes the occasion for all wars calls for a reflective and transformative stance. It urges us to examine our roles in conflicts and approach situations like the Gaza conflict with understanding and compassion. This commitment is exemplified by the Friends School in Ramallah and the Quaker United Nations Offices, which advocate for peace and human rights through quiet diplomacy.

Pacifism, as this advice suggests, is an active, forthright, and courageous stand for peace, not to be mistaken for passivity.

https://johnmenadue.com/calling-all-pacifists/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............SEE: ..rotten pompeo.....

 

NOTE: GUS IS A FIERCE ATHEIST IN FAVOUR OF PEACE....