By Tomas Zdechovsky
Disagreeing a priori with any decision of Donald Trump has already become almost a part of the European political culture. However, I consider this kind of thinking completely false and on the level of a stubborn toddler. If we want politics to be meaningful, we need to learn to distinguish.
When Trump decided to leave the Paris Agreement, I considered it to be a serious mistake and altogether very bad news for the global climate. However, I consider his decision to leave the UNHCR very positively. Why? In short, because this body does no longer fulfil its original mission. I will explain it in detail.
Bias of UN against Israel
Not only history of the aforementioned UNHCR but the entire UN is affected by bias against Israel and at the same it forgets misdemeanours of various dictatorships. Even the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted in 2006 that the supporters of Israel frequently feel that: “Israel is often judged based on standards that are not applied to its enemies.” And what is important, it is especially often true in some of the UN bodies.
This bias began in the first post-war decades, when the number of independent states increased (mostly outside the Western world) and thus also the number of the UN members. Consequently, free and democratic western countries were pulling on the shorter end of the rope. Especially since the 70s, after the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, the Arab bloc has already shown clear attempt to use the UN as a tool for enforcing their anti-Israeli policy. Similar policy was in cooperation promoted also by the Soviet block and a number of so called “neutral” countries.
Probably the most ingloriously known moment in this regard was the approval of the resolution against Zionism in the mid-70s. On the occasion of the anniversary of the anti-Jewish Kristallnacht (!) in 1975, the UN General Assembly approved in a ratio 72:35 votes (32 countries abstained) the resolution No. 3379 comparing Zionism with racism. The then communistic Czechoslovakia was among these 72 countries. Fortunately, the resolution was later revoked in a ratio 111:25 votes, but this happened only in 1991.
The UN fails in the area of human rights
Let´s come back to the activities of the UNHCR. The fact that free countries are in a minority in the world, and the proportion of powers is therefore leaning in a favour of undemocratic countries, that have problems with compliance with human rights, is also true today. That also gives a shape to the decision-making of the UN, especially when it comes to Israel. .
The reputation of the UNHCR predecessor, the Commission for Human Rights, was rather poor. Unfree member countries criticized the West for all possible reasons, they however did not admit a criticism of themselves. Eventually, even then the UN Secretary General, above mentioned Kofi Annan, admitted that the Commission was not beneficial for the reputation of the UN. The successive UNHCR established in 2006 has become the outcome of the attempt to improve the rather poor reputation of the Commission in the area of human rights. The result? The situation has not improved.
Within the UNHCR, Israel is subjected to a special item about human rights called Agenda 7. Its name is “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” According to the UN monitoring group UN Watch, the UNHCR issued in the decade of its existence (between 2006 – 2016) in total 68 resolutions condemning Israel. This was a half of the total number of the UNHCR resolutions issued in this period.
The second place was taken by Syria with 20 resolutions, third was Burma with 11 resolutions. The indisputably most horrifying totalitarian regime of today – North Korea – has been condemned only 9 times and is thus 4th on the list of the most condemned countries. The 5th position is shared by Belarus and Iran with 6 resolutions. The criticism concerning human rights issues had been aimed at several other countries, namely Eritrea (5 times), Sudan and Sri Lanka (3 times), Libya (twice) and Burundi and Honduras (once).
Someone can maybe wonder whether I didn´t forget to mention some other countries. For example Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba or Zimbabwe? No, unfortunately, I haven´t forgotten anything in this case, because none of these countries was mentioned in a resolution not even once. What else can we also expect from a body, which counts among its members Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China? If any one of you wanted to see a clear proof of bias against Israel, here you go!
Just to clarify, I would like to add that even after counting resolutions issued after 2016, the statistics have not improved. According to the UN Watch data from the end of May 2018, the UNHCR in Geneva has adopted 80 resolutions condemning Israel in the time of its existence from the total number of 169 countries that are suspected of violating human rights. In numbers, 47% of resolutions was aimed against Israel.
In comparison to what I mentioned before, there is only one little detail – the UNHCR summoned 28 special assemblies devoted to human rights and their violation, of which 8 (thus “only” 29%) was directed against Israel. Syria was a subject of 5 special assemblies, while Burma of 2.
Europe should follow the USA
The fact that the UNHCR devotes way more time to Israel than to North Korea, Cuba or Syria only confirms that its agenda is politicised and biased. The USA already reacted many times in the past on the efforts to politicize the UN activities, for instance in 1977, they left the International Labour Organisation for a period of 2 years because of its anti-Israeli stance. In 1984, the USA left UNESCO because of the bias of this organisation against Israel, they re-entered the organisation in 2003, and they left for the second time last year for the same reason.
And how about European countries? So far it seems that Europeans play a role of a quiet observer in an ugly and absurd play. This must however end and Europe can´t stay behind. The European Union, or more precisely its Member States, should follow the US lead and leave this comedy, aka UNHCR.
I cannot see one reason why we should continue in this comedy and thus willingly and continuously support the cynical agenda of dictators, which – in the fight for their aims and interests – use the argument of human rights as a currency!
Tomas Zdechovsky is a Czech member of the European Parliament for the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP-Christian Democrats).