In the name of human rights

By : ( Thierry Meyssan )

Human beings throughout the world have always sought equality.

Perhaps the earliest known example is the cylindrical figure of the Persian emperor Cyrus (5th century BC), an original copy of which adorns the headquarters of the United Nations in New York whichembodies the equality of all individuals, regardless of their religion.

The League of Nations in Paris (1948) drafted a variety of traditions in this field, and headed the editorial committee, which included a Syrian delegation, Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of the US President, and resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Declaration initially stated that all human beings “are born free, equal in dignity and rights” and that they are responsible not only for themselves, but for each other (article. 1).

For the first time, the Universal Declaration affirmed that human rights are not only identical in every country, but they are identical despite their different countries (article.2); whichis what the League of Nations has refused to implement in order to protect the colonial system.

The Declaration also states that there is a hierarchy between these rights, the most important of which is “life, liberty and security” (Article 3) Because it is not a question of creating a “catalogue” of good and contradictory intentions, but of organizing the world community.

Then comes the fight against slavery (Article 4), and then the issue of combating torture (Article 5).

These principles are very important, but they are difficult to apply in this order, because they do not appeal to Europeans.

When Syria was overwhelmingly attacked by hordes of armed jihadists from abroad, President Bashar al-Assad had a duty to defend these ideals of human rights, first and foremost: “life, liberty and security.” That’s what he did.

Therefore, the position of Germany, Belgium and Kuwait was very hypocritical in the Security Council, when they accused President Assad of “killing his people” in Idlib under the pretext of fighting the invaders, especially since these three countries are funding the jihad in Syria, whose leadership declared a unilateral ceasefire in Idlib, to allow Syrian citizens to flee the area occupied by jihadists.

Based on the above, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China strongly condemned the Western arrogance, which is based on directing indictment in the name of human rights, for those who actually defend human rights and ultimately help those who violate those rights.

Similar clashes took place in the Security Council during the liberation of Aleppo and then Ghouta, but we did not see them when the United States destroyed much of Raqqa. Not only do Westerners apply double standards, but they do not draw lessons over time.

The mere introduction of a draft resolution in this way would have instigated the use of the Russian and Chinese veto again, and exposed the three countries to the sharp divisions that plague the Security Council and weaken its authority.

But they came back and presented a new draft resolution before the General Assembly, in a desperate attempt to circumvent the veto power of the superpowers, isolating Russia and China.

It is as if the Europeans were afraid that the lines of the previous Cold War would move; or that the traditional East-West clash would be replaced with another line that combines Russia, China and the United States, and eliminates them to the second row.

( )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *