Monday, January 6, 2020

UN: 'World In Turmoil, Geopolitical Tensions At Highest Level This Century'


UN Secretary General Punts While UN Human Rights Official Denounces U.S.




United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres read a statement to the press at UN headquarters on Monday declaring, “The New Year has begun with our world in turmoil. Geopolitical tensions are at their highest level this century.” 

The Secretary General did not refer directly to the tensions between the United States and Iran that have escalated sharply during the last week. He punted, although he did make two observations that may have been intended as oblique comments on the current situation.


Secretary General Guterres noted that “nuclear non-proliferation can no longer be taken for granted,” which could be viewed as an expression of concern over the apparent collapse of the Iranian nuclear deal in the wake of Iran’s announcement that it would no longer abide by the deal’s enrichment limitations. 


In contrast to Secretary General Guterres’ very carefully chosen words of neutrality, Agnes Callamard, the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, tweeted up a storm of outrageous denunciations against the U.S. airstrikes...

What does Callamard think the attack by the Iranian-backed, Soleimani-directed militia group, Kata’ib Hezbollah, on an Iraqi base was, which killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several American and Iraqi personnel? How about the unprovoked violent assault by Soleimani’s thugs from Kata’ib Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed militant groups on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in violation of international law?  Those are active hostilities instigated by Iran and its terrorist proxies.

What does Callamard think a country is supposed to do to protect its citizens, especially when it has sound reasons to believe that more attacks on its citizens are imminent? Sit back and wait for its citizens to be killed before taking any action?  Does Callamard have any understanding at all of what self-defense means legally in such circumstances? Obviously not.







No comments: