The recent outrageous decision to appoint Saudi Arabia as a key member of a UN Human Rights panel is more than just another exercise in cynicism. From the Times (£):
Saudi Arabia has used its position on the United Nations human rights council to block an international inquiry into the conflict in Yemen, where Saudi air strikes have been blamed for killing civilians.
A resolution passed yesterday by the council instructs the body’s representative in Yemen to “provide technical assistance” to the Yemen government in its own investigation. However, a provision to set up an international inquiry, and deploy outside experts to investigate possible war crimes, which was proposed by the Netherlands, has been stripped from the resolution which was presented to the council following Saudi opposition. Western nations consented to the toned-down resolution, which was passed yesterday.
“The US, the UK and France allowed Saudi Arabia to quash an investigation into its own abuse, as well as others, dealing a severe blow to the credibility of the HRC,” said Philippe Bolopion, of Human Rights Watch, a non-profit group which investigates human rights abuses.
What credibility, you may be forgiven for wondering, is that?
This week the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said 2,355 civilians had been killed in the conflict, with more than 4,862 wounded, between July 1 last year and June 30 this year. It blamed a naval blockade, by Saudi Arabia and its allies, for deepening the humanitarian crisis.
As a commenter sourly notes - "No Israel involvement - what did you expect?"
I agree that saudi arabia having a position on a 'human rights' council is absurd and makes a mockery of the body, and the Israel comment seems accurate, but with regard to the apparent civilian death toll in Yemen I find these convincing: http://www.thomaswictor.com/the-war-is-saving-yemeni-lives/
http://www.thomaswictor.com/in-yemen-no-evidence-is-required/
Posted by: Graham | October 03, 2015 at 06:43 PM
Well maybe - I'm unconvinced - but that's no excuse for blocking an investigation.
Posted by: Mick H | October 03, 2015 at 11:30 PM
It would be interesting to see the results of an investigation and obviously it is ridiculous if Saudi is in a position to block one being conducted. As you say, the HRC lacks credibility, as do many other aspects of the UN and HRW for that matter. I'm interested which elements of those links you found unconvincing.
FWIW, Amnesty International also report the vast majority of civilian casualties in Yemen result from Houthi anti-aircraft fire:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/yemen-scores-of-civilians-killed-and-injured-by-anti-aircraft-fire-and-airstrikes-on-weapons-depots/
'A doctor at al-Thawra hospital, one of the largest public hospitals in Sana’a, told Amnesty International that the vast majority - around 90% - of war wounded patients admitted to the hospital had been injured by anti-aircraft fire.'
Posted by: Graham | October 05, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Oh I don't know. I just had a brief look at that Thomas Wicker site - white writing on black, pieces about "The BBC, a propaganda arm of Iran" - and assumed it was another somewhat cranky American take. No doubt I'm being unfair, but there's only so much web stuff you can read. The Amnesty article is certainly persuasive.
Posted by: Mick H | October 05, 2015 at 02:39 PM
Appears as black on white on mine, & that title is OTT, but I don't think he can fairly be dismissed as a crank or an extremist, & his knowledge of munitions, military matters and geopolitics seems genuine, sane & useful to me.
Posted by: Graham | October 05, 2015 at 06:56 PM