Do We Care? Should We?

The narrative got a little carried away with itself. The world's past-perfect number one terror agent did not, after all, grab for the nearest machine gun in his bedroom when confronted with U.S. Navy SEALS but his astonishment at being accosted was taken as a signal that he was resisting his own abduction, so he was therefore put out of commission, and the abduction carried out without any further fuss or mess.

Oh, apart from his wife also being put out of commission in a far gentler way that she will recover from.

Osama bin Laden, not so much. Shots aimed directly at the head, and another for good measure at the heart have that long-lasting effect, after all. Should we mourn the passing of this dread menace to the world? Only if you enjoy the spectacle of masses of innocents dying long before their time. Only if you're a devoted member of violent jihad. Only if you belong to Hamas and Hezbollah; if you're part of the Iranian establishment.

Oops, wrong there; for it seems that ordinary Muslims, some of whom would be dispatched on his orders without the blink of an eye, feel that whatever else he was, he was a Muslim and as such being killed by infidels is a travesty, a dishonour, an affront to all Muslims. Of course the reverse is also true, that non-Muslims felt rather put-upon being mortally threatened by someone who espoused it as a solemn and sacred duty to kill them in the name of Islam.

To take this lethal threat to the international community out of commission is not, on a scale of to-dos to make the world a better place, too low a priority. Having done so, it has caused a sense of quiet satisfaction among those whom al-Qaeda has threatened, among those who have lost loved ones, among those who believe he had no right to live while others died at his command.

And, of course, it has caused shrill outrage among those who venerated him.

Who are, even now, feverishly planning how they may best undertake to avenge their peerless martyr. The entire event has captured the attention of the United Nations, as well. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, considers the event a "watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism." An opinion not shared by Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Who qualifies the operation as an 'illegal' act by a state entity. The High Commissioner has requested that Washington supply her with minute details to convince that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was a needfully necessary act of spring cleaning. This was a stealthy operation, one long planned, to extinguish the evil genius of jihad central. There are no rules to this particular game.

The United States more or less made up its own rules on the fly. There were existing templates and they were taken due note of. Success builds upon future successes. Kill and be killed. The niceties of legal conventions occasionally should be dispensed with.

UN's High Commission for Human Rights Coming to a Country Near You

What concerning news. Canada is set - again - to be investigated by the UN High Commission for Human Rights. Navi Pillay is dispatching a committee upon Canada again to look carefully at our human rights' record. For it is entirely possible that in some obscure manner Canadian society - even government agencies - may be guilty of making light of someone's human rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is not fond, we are informed, of Canada's cavalier attitude toward people of colour. Naming them "visible minorities" as a way of readily distinguishing the most obvious characteristics setting some ethnic groups aside from the bland majority to expedite documentation is considered to be horribly insulting.

But that's the thing about Canadians; we are so out of tune with the real world of careful dignity allocated to all those who declare themselves to have been ill done by because of perceived physical differences. An alienating process, recognizing that people look different from one another, in a way that identifies which part of the world they come from.

That's another thing about most people; they're curious about one another, about various ethnic and cultural experiences and differences. We are curious animals; we like to look around us, make sense of what we see. And when we identify differences we assimilate the fact that they exist, while clarifying at the same time our awareness of how much more we share as human beings.

The UN's Working Group on People of African Descent will have none of this. They know racism when they see it, sniff it, feel it. The group plans to visit Canada in May. They will be busily engaged in rooting out any and all instances of persecution suffered by black African-Canadians.

Our neighbour, the United States, has been visited by them; no word whether they interviewed Barack Obama.

This working group sees no need nor merit in visiting countries like Sudan or Libya. UN Watch, unaffiliated with the UN, but keeping a close eye on what the UN does on behalf of the great, wide world, has noted the acute persecution black Africans suffer in Libya and Sudan, but this appears of little interest to the working group.

It would be a fitting welcome if black Canadians courteously entertained the group, and speedily ushered them on their way, pointing in the direction of Sudan and elsewhere in the world where black Africans are exploited and suffer, usually by their own; Zimbabwe, Congo, Somalia come readily to mind.

Syria's Uncontested UNHRC Seat

Bashar al-Assad does not seem to mind the well-earned obloquy with which he is regarded. After all, it is not Muslim states, and his neighbours in the Middle East who are looking at him askance, naming him now for what he has always represented; a repressive, murderous tyrant. It is only Europe and North America, perhaps the United Nations marginally. But he has his friends and supporters.

Turkey, as intermediary, merely requests that Syria not be so embarrassingly blatant about sending in those Alawite-majority militias so capable of brutally dispatching protesters. Political repression is being condemned by European countries, but Middle Eastern governments know what is involved here; a pathology of unrest spread like a virus among ingrates.

It will only be when civil war can no longer be averted that Syria will demonstrate exactly what it is capable of. Behind the scenes people are being abducted, towns emptied of males older than 15 and spirited away; women raped, children and the elderly used as target practise for army marksmen; instilling fear is practical and useful in stifling dissent.

Libya's situation, where government installations are being bombed by NATO, is not quite so feasible for transference to Syria. That kind of scenario would simply represent as too volatile, a slow-spreading fire of animosity toward the interference of the West in Arab affairs. The Arab League would certainly look upon any such move as insufferably arrogant and divisive.

Libya is seen as a pariah state. Syria, practising now what Libya pioneered so recently, remains in high regard. The 53 Asian group choice among India, Indonesia and the Philippines includes Syria to sit on the UN's Human Rights Council. After all, if Libya could be represented on the Council, and Iran be considered for placement on the UN's Rights of Women's group, why not Syria on the UNHRC?

Yes, the United States led a censure proposal at the UNHRC, mildly condemning Syria, which Arab states abstained from while Russia and China campaigned against the resolution, but that embarrassing bit in the proposal making mention of Syria's candidacy for the Council while making use of lethal force against its people, was cut.

So Syria has been "unequivocally condemned" for killings and arrests of protesters. Isn't that a relief? Now that's out of the way, matters can move forward and Syria, along with the three other nominated Asian countries can sit in comfort on the Human Rights Council. Sit in judgement on others whom they may accuse of violations of human rights.

Israel comes quickly to mind. For no other country in the world is recognized as so manifestly involved in human rights abuses as the one country in the Middle East where all religions and ethnic groups are granted citizenship and given the guarantee of free access to justice under the law of the land.

Sadistic Cynicism

Britain has formally withdrawn the wedding invitation extended to the Embassy of Syria, in London. And the Syrian Ambassador, surprised and somewhat crestfallen at the dis-invitation, does not in fact think it advisable that he attend. Will they courteously usher him out of Westminster Abbey should he defy them, waving his invitation as proof that he was invited - or put him in the stocks on public display for further humiliation?

Not that there is any really good reason to feel compassion for the man. He does, after all, represent the government and the leader of his country while abroad. And the government and President Bashar al-Assad deserve little respect from the international community, much less Britain and the Royal Family. Both of which, truth be told, saw nothing amiss in sending out the original invitation until the embarrassment of public criticism had them take a second look.

After all, if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and Sara Ferguson are persona non grata, it does look rather peculiar if Syria's representative appears as an honoured guest. But that's Britain, after all, the country that personifies eccentricity and the class-culture structure, and entitlements. If we think that Britain's sordid and dilatory attention to class-corrective actions and cultural niceties leave something to be desired, look to the United Nations.

Ah, the United Nations, where there are no class distinctions and where all countries are considered to be equally endowed and equally entitled. Belying reality, but making for political correctness, which is the standard-bearer of conduct within that august body. The UN's Human Rights Council presents as one of those creatures of the UN that stands above and apart; perhaps that should be descends below standards.

Canada, among another 36 co-sponsors requesting the scheduling of an emergency session on exploring what can be done about Syria's brutal crackdown on its own citizens clamouring for freedom from classic repression, would like some accountability. It was largely responsible for introducing into the UN the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which the UN is now grappling with, pleading with Bashar al-Assad to stop killing Syrian protesters.

But the Human Rights Council, having received from Syria a key membership prerequisite in the form of a written pledge to respect the human rights of its own population, and to promote human rights internationally - a standard document required of all potential members elected to the HRC - is prepared to proceed to induct Syria into its 47-member council for a 3-year term.

Like Britain's invitation, away back in January the UN Asian group submitted the names of Syria and three other countries to fill four vacant "Asian" seats. With that submission, the admission of the four are rubber-stamped for acceptance, requiring only a simple majority of the 192-member UN General Assembly in a month's time. The international community, let alone the Arab League, is making no fuss about the Syrian situation, unlike the attention given to Libya.

Neither Russia nor China are prepared to issue a condemnation of the Syrian government, unlike Europe and the U.S. and Canada. Russian Deputy Ambassador Alexander Pankin claims that the situation in Syria "does not present a threat to international peace and security", therefore it is clearly not needful that the Security Council get involved in anything distastefully interfering like sanctions against Syria.

Syria, a clear threat in the Middle East and beyond, with its support for and links to terrorist Islamists militias, Hezbollah and Hamas; with its active encouragement and support of Islamist jihadists entering Iraq to confront and attack both Iraqis and U.S. and British troops there; with its closely supportive friendship with Iran; with its own attempts to build nuclear installations; with its Lebanese occupation; with its involvement in political assassinations; with its violation of its citizens' human rights, was still seen as deserving of an invitation to the royal wedding.

And it stands now, as of May 20, to join the UN's Human Rights Council. This blatant parody of concern for human rights represents the ultimate in paradoxically sadistic cynicism.

Middle East Human Rights

Syrians are furious that their calls for human rights within their own country are being defied by their dictatorial government. More furious yet that government troops are opening fire on protesters. Funeral processions to mourn the death of civilians, of a child, fired upon with live bullets. More deaths, more funerals, more attacks.

President Bashar al-Assad is being informed by the international community that his handling of the situation defies human rights, that he is trampling on the aspirations of his people, that he is violating their rights. He has gone to great lengths to impress upon onlookers that what is occurring is the result of a foreign conspiracy, that it is 'gangs' and 'criminals' and jihadists who are defying his order.

Moammar Gadhafi has infuriated the West and his own Arab neighbours by dispatching his military to destroy the demonstrators and protesters who have assembled themselves into a righteous army determined to unseat him. They also represent 'gangs', 'criminals' and al-Qaeda in origin. And foreign interlopers; the Western crusaders are in league with them.

But for President al-Assad no such labelling as a human-rights violator, no threats of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, no concerted effort to assist the Syrians who scream their defiance of their dictator, shrieking that he should be turning his armed forces against the Golan-Heights-holding Zionists, not Syrians.

Syria, protector and patron of Hamas, whose leader lives in safety in Damascus, and the generously-supporting patron of Hezbollah, both of which terrorist groups are labelled as such by the West, appears to present as the known devil and conceivably tolerable. From the Arab League no condemnations, no intervention, no discussions similar to those taking place with Yemen.

Arab human rights groups, however, have an argument with the Arab League for their support of Syria's candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, set for a May vote. Egyptian, Bahraini, Algerian, Saudi, Yemeni, Syrian, Sudanese and Iraqi NGO groups claim the support of the Arab League "shows flagrant disregard for the feelings and rights of the Syrian people, who have broken the barrier of fear and risen up in revolt".

And so, what else is new? Libya too was on the UN's Human Rights Council. Iran has been lauded for its record on human rights through the Human Rights Council. Simply put, it's business as usual in the Middle East. And at the United Nations. That business represents utter failure in the areas of human rights and entitlements.

Reforming The Taliban

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai loves all his people. His people also comprise the Taliban. They have no love for him.

But President Karzai is well aware that time is running down where he can depend on the international community to sacrifice its military on behalf of his government. Training of the national police and the Afghanistan military by foreign military associated with NATO and the UN ISAF mission is ongoing and it is hoped that Afghans will finally be able to cope on their own in controlling violent jihadists among them.

The Taliban believe otherwise. They have nothing but contempt for Karzai, his corrupt instruments of administration, and his police and his military. Covertly they have proven themselves quite capable of infiltrating both the military and the police. In uniform as trainees or as simple impostors they have continued their jihadist agenda of wreaking vengeance against foreign interlopers, with Afghans in uniform turning against their foreign trainers.

Three police chiefs have been assassinated thus far, in Kandahar, along with a governor of the province in Kunduz - and police stations are continually being assaulted, new recruits slaughtered. Some of these attacks are not successful, many more are; some are "martyrdom" attacks, and with some the attackers successfully escape to go on to other exploits as Talib faithful.

The Taliban show no mercy, quite capable of the task they have set themselves, attacking and murdering villagers whom they suspect of working with foreign forces, laying traps for foreign forces through the expert manufacture and placing of improvised explosive devices, and withdrawing over the border to sanctuary within the mountainous badlands of Pakistan to regroup and spend the winter before beginning spring assaults.

When they lose members there are always more, eager new recruits to take their place, to be trained and energized in the struggle of the mujahadeen against the foreign elements who have once again invaded their country. A Taliban by the name of Toor Jan was recently interviewed for the National Post by Brian Hutchinson, in Kandahar City.

This commander of the Taliban troops decided he would take advantage of President Karzai's appeal to the militantly violent 'scholars' that if they abandoned their war with Afghanistan they would be welcomed back to normal society, given good employment and protection, cars and housing. Jan was actively involved manufacturing and setting IEDs at a time that Canadian forces were installed in Kandahar. During the 7 years he fought there, 126 Canadian soldiers died.

"We seized opportunities. Sometimes we ambushed. We would sit in a trench, waiting for the foreigners to approach, and then attack. Then we would run away fast, so they had no chance to counterattack. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we failed. But the IEDs were fantastic. We would plant them in areas where we knew the foreign troops were coming, and when they came we would just blow them up. From Iran we received RPGs and machine guns."

He described also how he and his men had no compunction about beheading 26 Afghan civilians in a small village. Encouraging them through fear and lies to join them, or at least not to betray their activities to the foreign soldiers. "We told them the foreigners were destroying their houses, their fields, their orchards, and killing their children. That is why the people became angry against them. They became violent against them."

That made recruitment among the villagers far easier. "We had 60 groups of Taliban fighters in Panjwaii. Each group had five to ten Talibs, and they were spread around the district. When we lost someone more fighters would arrive to take their place." He was himself so successful at what he did, he was given the post of district commander.

Finally he decided that the ongoing slaughter on both sides accomplished nothing at all for Afghans and Afghanistan. "The benefits only go to neighbouring countries. The sufferers and the casualties are Afghans. So I decided to switch sides. I heard about this reconciliation process. The government claimed that anyone who comes forward will be saved and can live in Afghanistan in peace."

Although he took part in the interview, and he was candidly clear about what he had done, with no apologies, no hesitation about revealing the atrocities he was involved with, he clearly felt he had nothing to apologize for, even while speaking to a representative of a foreign country, many of whose soldiers he had personally gone out of his way to kill.

But he was clearly less than satisfied with the bargain he had made with the government of Afghanistan. He was under Taliban threat, and had no bodyguards. ISAF had arrested one of his men who had surrendered with him, and his brother remains imprisoned. These are the factions of a country that is expecting that reconciliation will finalize a peace.

Just Who Rules Here?

Indigenous people everywhere believe they are far more in touch with nature than the cosmopolitan, urban, European-influenced types that conventionally hold them in minor contempt for their naivete. It makes sense that those who are indigenous to a country live attuned to nature, for by and large they haven't managed to transcend their dependence on nature, they are less technologically and socially advantaged, as it were.

And, seeking to find some message to convey the idea that they are more authentic in their very nature than those whose imperialist sophistication find the simplicity of thought and action of the indigenous people unworthy of notice, the idea of capitalizing on respect for nature arises. So, under an nature-enlightened president who is proudly indigenous, Bolivia has raised its naturalist credentials.

Censuring all those who seek to "dominate and exploit" nature. Not simply nature, but "Mother Earth". And to that end, Bolivia has written up a constitution for Mother Earth, introducing it into the United Nations to mirror Bolivia's own Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, courtesy of President Evo Morales.

The country has established a Ministry of Mother Earth. That ministry recognizes the rights of the planet through the interlocutory skills of an ombudsman to sympathetically hear out nature's complaints brought forward by eco-activists and those representing the state itself.
"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?"

A circuitous but well-meaning argument one supposes, posed by Bolivia's ambassador to the UN. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance." In other words, taking a unique but not all that different perspective from most countries' established and responsible environmental protection programs.

Bolivia under its Evo Morales has gone a little further in its commitment to preserving and encouraging natural progression, setting out the need to "save the planet", starting with recognizing the need "to end capitalism". The manifesto that is being introduced as a draft United Nations treaty asserts that "Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings."

It seems we, or rather Bolivia, doth protest too much. Mother Earth, after all, is engrossed in her business, sidelined by no one, no force unequal to her own capacity to dominate the planet and the beings upon it. She flicks aside with imperious disdain human endeavours to make an impression upon her mantle. When she feels she has been insulted, she revokes calm and invokes chaos.

The template that we all know and love suddenly shudders and shatters. From tectonic plates brushing against one another and the Earth's crust rumbling and all upon it trembling and shattering, to oceanic responses washing away all of humankind's puny constructions. Hurricane-force winds, monsoon rains, dreadful droughts, firestorms and misery she rains down upon her creature to remind them just who rules.

The Peoples' War

They were described as ordinary people, store owners, doctors, lawyers, clerks. People with one thing in common. They were fed up with living in a police state ruled by a tyrant with little resort to basic human rights and they weren't prepared to take it any longer. They had the example of Egypt, their populous neighbour in North Africa which had undergone a successful revolt of the ordinary people against their far more tolerant dictator.

And before Egypt, Tunisia.

So why not Libya? The rulers of Egypt and Tunisia had some compunction about conducting a reprisal campaign of mass murder against their own people. Their own ruler is possessed of a far less troublesome conscience. He was and is more than prepared to sacrifice as many Libyan lives as necessary to beat back the revolutionary zeal. The initial days of the rebels' attacks against government forces were surprisingly successful.

Encouraging the rebels to forge on, determined to reach success and eventually Tripoli, to unseat Moammar Gadhafi, his family and his supporters. Encouraged even further by the defection of key government ministers, diplomats and military personnel. They were on a roll to successfully combating Gadhafi and his forces and reaching the victory of the deserving.

The outside world looking on was perturbed at what they saw and what they anticipated was yet to come. A certain slaughter of civilians. So France and Britain urged the UN Security Council to condemn Moammar Gadhafi and to exact sanctions. And finally a no-fly zone, which China and Russia abstained from voting for, but did not defeat.

The rebels were overjoyed, knowing that foreign intervention in the form of fly-overs that would target government planes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and tanks that were bombing, strafing and attacking them would decimate the Libyan armaments. They were equally adamant that they had no wish to see foreign troops on their land.

This was their war, and they would be more than adequate in numbers and determination to successfully prosecute it.

That was then, when they were fully confident, fully zealous and fully motivated to their task. Now, the Libyan rebels who cheered on lustily with news that NATO had taken over responsibility for enforcing and co-ordinating the no-fly zone and wiping up Col. Gadhafi's mechanized artillery, are well and truly embattled.

And bitter that the advantage they anticipated would result from NATO intervention has not yet won the war for them.

While the intervention has enabled them to certain advantages, the successfully aggressive push-back from government forces has disabled their progress. And they are now accusing the NATO-led air mission of not sufficiently aiding them. While NATO's chief of allied operations claims the alliance is doing all it can to protect civilians under the UN mandate, the rebels are bitter.

They are furious over their loss of territory at the advance of government troops; the loyalists' artillery barrages are too fast and furious for them, causing them to fall back from their early advances. This is a stinging reversal. "There is no revolution without setbacks", sighed a spokesman for the Transitional National Council.

Which hasn't stopped them from berating NATO for not accelerating attacks and bailing them out of their dilemma.

Mea Culpa? Not Quite

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document." Judge Richard Goldstone

Admission of failure in apportioning blame? Mildly regretful, more likely. Not his fault, though. He invited the Government of Israel to co-operate, they chose not to. He did what he could, after all. Which was to alter the obvious bias that pertained with the original wording of the UN Human Rights Council's mandate for Judge Richard Goldstone's investigation into the Israel-Gaza conflict.

He iterates his acknowledgement of the UN Human Rights Council's "history of bias against Israel", which "cannot be doubted". Which did not hamper him from accepting the invitation to chair the UN Human Rights Council-sponsored fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. He alludes in his article published in The Washington Post, to Israel's disinterest in co-operation with his investigation.

" Israel's lack of co-operation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians..." and "...our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government"

All the while being very aware that Israel had no reason, given the undeniable fact that the UN Human Rights Council constantly focuses on blaming-and-shaming one country alone in the entire Globe, and that as their chosen lead investigator into Israel's presumed crimes in prosecuting a war deliberately targeting civilians (a pre-ordained outcome anticipated) there was no reason to trust him, either.

Judge Goldstone condemns Hamas now for its lack of interest in pursuing its own investigation into charges of human rights abuses conducted by Hamas forces, allowing that he placed too much trust in anticipating that Hamas would pursue such internal investigations as urged by his report. Now, he clearly states that Hamas, though not constituting a "state' entity was guilty of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Hamas administers the Gaza Strip. Hamas in fact was duly and democratically elected to share governance with Fatah, of both Palestinian Territories. Hamas chose to forcibly remove Fatah from Gaza so it could singly govern the Palestinians there and mould them into an Islamist society, one at war with the more secular-minded Fatah. In essence, then, Hamas does constitute a "state" authority.

As for Fatah which heads the Palestinian Authority, the Goldstone Report alleged they were guilty of human rights abuses - assassinations, torture and illegal detentions "perpetrated by Fatah in the West bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry."

Judge Goldstone mentions the final report of the UN committee of independent experts chaired by former N.Y. Judge Mary McGowan Davis, which weighed the recommendations of his Goldstone Report and Israel's internal fact-finding of allegations of its "operational misconduct in Gaza". Which found that Israel commendably "dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations...", whereas Hamas committed to not one.

Judge Goldstone's semi-conciliatory explanations, his expressions of regret: "I would have welcomed Israel's co-operation...", his admissions of acknowledgement of the skewed judgement held by the UN's Human Rights Council against Israel, and his insistence that "I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within", seem reproachfully self-serving.

Not his fault that the Goldstone Report issued a condemnation of Israel, assuming that the data collected from Hamas which was eager to "co-operate", in detailing the IDF's vicious intention to destroy Gaza and murder its citizens through state-sponsored genocide (who just happened to be living in very closely crowded conditions precisely where Hamas stored its munitions and shot rockets into Israel), was fact, not fiction.

Israel, after all, was invited to co-operate with the investigation and chose to conduct its own investigation. And did so in such an exemplary manner, although it is not entirely concluded, that its estimate of Palestinian citizens inadvertently killed by IDF forces came very close to the estimate of Hamas detailing the numbers that IDF forces deliberately slaughtered.

Judge Goldstone deplores the fact that Hamas has continued its rocket attacks into Israel. Although he thought that Hamas would "curtail its attacks", this has not occurred. "Sadly that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel.... The UN Human Rights council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms."

As if.

Conclusions Faulted

Judge Richard Goldstone was the right man to be appointed by the United Nations to hold an enquiry into the decision by Israel to dispatch the IDF into Gaza to put an end to the incessant rocket attacks across the border. Judge Goldstone, after all, a South African judge, knew all about apartheid, could recognize it when he saw it. He would be neutral, he would discover, through assiduous research, what occurred, and then apportion blame.

Could the United Nations conceivably have found a more impressive candidate for this mission than Judge Goldstone? A Jew, a seasoned jurist, an avowed Zionist. He loved Israel, he once said, which was why he felt it was his mission to point out, honestly and without favour, where she had diverted from her social conscience to commit a historical moral blot. That kind of 'tough love' is sometimes needed to enable those who should know better, that they have behaved badly.

This kind of sanctimonious righteousness does not however, fully explain why Judge Goldstone barely made mention of the provocations that Israel suffered well in advance of finally deciding it could no longer countenance them. Deciding to act in the very same manner in which other sovereign nations would, to protect their territory, their people, their integrity. For it took integrity to acknowledge that Hamas was using its own dense-neighbourhood centres as covers from which to attack Israel.

Judge Goldstone's characterization of Hamas as a non-state entity which must nonetheless be held to the same standard of moral and ethical behaviour as a state actor does not quite stand upto close scrutiny since effectively Hamas thinks of itself and seeks to comports itself as the political head of a state, governing Gaza with its 'political' wing and imposing its standards, values and priorities upon the population as such.

But Judge Goldstone has had a change of heart. He now expresses reservations and some remorse at his conclusions that have had the effect of casting Israel and its population and its government as an outcast in world opinion. Thanks to the infamous Goldstone Report, those who consider Israel to be a human-rights-denier for the Palestinian people, feel fully vindicated in continuing to portray Israel as an apartheid state.

Thanks to the Goldstone Report, those who passionately espouse the views of the Palestinians as victims to the heartless Israelis, will evermore point at the conclusions that Judge Goldstone reached and was obliged and felt obligated to present as truth incarnate. This will support the schemes to continue de-legitimizing Israel, to boycott its academics, its products, investment in the country, and the constant barrage of left-wing and union-led criticisms.

It will inspire greater efforts at slandering Israel, it will continue to support the left-leaning academic and student movements that make common cause with the Palestinians with their yearly "Israeli Apartheid Week", and the intentions of groups to lease ships and fill them with "humanitarian" supplies and passionate volunteers to make more well-advertised runs to challenge the blockade of Gaza.

It will empower the world's anti-Semites who owe Judge Goldstone a huge hug of appreciation for his complicity in their agenda. For it was he and he alone who is responsible for tarnishing Israel with the brush of deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians. When he should have known and likely did know that Israel's military went to great lengths to attempt to avoid such civilian disasters.

And that when civilians did die under suspicious circumstances those events were investigated and those held responsible lawfully penalized.

"If I had known then what I know now, The Goldstone Report would have been a different document" may soothe the conscience of Judge Goldstone as he now laments what is history. But we know all too well that the charges as originally laid are the ones that stick. Remediation and reconsideration after the fact have never been known to invalidate the original charges.

His mea culpa is not without some self-exculpation. He holds Israel to blame for not fully co-operating with his mission to discover it to be lop-sidedly to blame for the defensive attack on Gaza, for the deaths of Palestinian civilians. His own slender references to terrorist attacks from Gaza on Israel, the stricken Jewish population, the proclivity of Hamas to seek shelter behind the shields of their own population, all given short shrift.

Impressions are indelible when issued from respectable sources. That which has been accepted cannot readily be set aside and honour restored. Neither his nor those whom his conclusion slurred.

What If?

It's not all that far a stretch of probability. It happened in Afghanistan with the U.S. and Pakistan conspiring to aid the mujahadeen, training and arming them to confront Soviet forces in the invasion of Afghanistan. And those mujahadeen formed the core of the Taliban which then ruled Afghanistan when the Soviet troops left.

And from among the mujahadeen another corps was formed, that of al-Qaeda. The alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaeda was a natural one.

And the flaming enmity of al-Qaeda toward the West and specifically the United States became the most evident turning point of the Islamist revival. Which has since spread incorrigibly throughout the Muslim world. The Islamists have succeeded in overturning moderate Islam to reflect a fundamentalist, fanatic version of Islam which conducted its own internal war within the ummah.

Islamists who fought in Afghanistan were recruited from all over the Muslim and Arab world. Many of them returned to their source, and one of those sources was eastern Libya. In 2009 a Canadian intelligence report described eastern Libya as an "epicentre of Islamist extremism", where "extremist cells" were well represented.

Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Centre identified "several Islamist insurgent groups" based in mosques in Benghazi, urging its members to fight in Iraq. They are suspected of having infiltrated the ranks of the rebel forces now battling Moammar Gadhafi's forces. And, like a nightmare recurring, the United States, Britain , France and Qatar are considering arming the rebels.

A recently-convened conference of 40 governments and international bodies reached agreement to continue the NATO-led aerial bombing of Libyan forces, hoping to force Gadhafi to comply with the United Nations resolution to end its violence against its civilians. The conflict in Libya is between the West and the East of the country; a tribal conflict.

In many of the cities that rebound from government control to rebel occupation and then back again, there are citizens who battle on the government side, against the rebel forces. This is a country that has been riven by clan warfare and tribal antipathies, a reflection of what exists in every Arab and Muslim country globally.

It is into this melee that the West has intervened, focusing on the presence of a maniacal tyrant determined to continue his personal ownership of a country, violating the human rights of his own exploited people, celebrating his ownership of the proceeds of the country's natural resources. In the West this is considered moral anathema; in the Middle East it reflects tradition.

International aid agencies are on the scene, concerned that the conflict has cut off medical supplies, water, electricity and food to countless civilians. The focus of concern from within the international community and the reason for their involvement has been the security and safety of the civilian population. But the civilian population appears fractionated by loyalties, further complicating matters.

And through all of this, while the West and their Arab and African state allies remain anxious to have Western powers involved and commit to what they will not, Moammar Gadhafi keeps insisting that he is concerned for his peoples' welfare: "Stop your brutal and unjust attack on our country ... Hundreds of Libyans are being killed because of this bombardment. Massacres are being mercilessly committed against the Libyan people."

And on their part, the spokesmen for the rebels deny al-Qaeda links, despite damning admissions seen elsewhere. And the head of the U.S. European Command informs the U.S. Senate that American intelligence on rebel forces, while demonstrating some involvement of al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, they are lacking "detail sufficient to say there is a significant al-Qaeda presence."

UN Effectiveness

"There is rarely a vision beyond fundraising, and rarely an organizing narrative that draws together disparate capacities. What is needed is a complete overhaul of strategic and operational leadership in the UN. Regrettably, the leadership, management and co-ordination of the international community's efforts have not risen even to the challenges we currently face. Unless we radically improve the quality of the leadership of the international effort in humanitarian crises, we will not succeed in dealing with what is ahead. In all but one of the case studies for this review, UN leadership was poor. This was especially true in the larger disasters." Paddy Ashdown, Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

So much for the salvation of the world at the dedicated and faithful hands of the experts assembled by that great world body, the United Nations. Acquiring the required operating funds to launch humanitarian missions all around the Globe on behalf of global citizenry, those who live in countries who are advantaged by good governance and wealth, transferring funding to the world body on behalf of the disadvantaged has not resulted in needed resource delivery.

Raising funding is evidently no problem; those member countries who can afford the tariff cough it up, leaving it to the expert panels working on behalf of humanity under the auspices of the United Nations, to spend it wisely. Spending the funding raised by UN appeals to its membership to ameliorate natural disasters, bringing medical and food aid and shelter where it is required; operating refugee camps; diplomatically intervening in calamitous conflicts.

The world depends on the work of the United Nations. That august body was organized, established and is trusted to launch missions to rescue humanity from nature's disasters, and more tellingly from humanity's own folly. The study just concluded on the effectiveness of the UN's various humanitarian missions studied responses to recent humanitarian disasters; famine in Niger, flooding in Pakistan, earthquake in Haiti.

The conclusion reached is dispiriting and most definitely unflattering to the purported professionalism of the world body. While governments regard the United Nations as the "only legitimate authority" in grave and desperate situations where a specific government of a country affected by some kind of disaster proves incapable of mounting its own humanitarian response, the result of the study indicates the authority's effectiveness is sadly lacking.

Only the UN's World Food Program is exonerated for the extent and value of its effectiveness in its ability to "rapidly deliver[ing] food to seven million people in flood-hit Pakistan". And UNICEF is pointed out as another success story, supplying infant food throughout Niger. But the failure of the UN seen in its "inability to treat and contain" Haiti's cholera outbreak does not reflect well on its capabilities and dedication.

The report points out the communication dysfunctionality of the various UN agencies, commenting on their need to work together "more collegially". Critics of the United Nations - and there are many, mostly those drawing their conclusions from the political sphere of diplomatic influence and ingrained corruption - will not be surprised that this aspect of the world body's vital work is also horribly impaired by incompetence.

The United Nations has become a lobby emporium for some of the world's most human-rights-abusing nations; its effectiveness is stifled by bureaucratic ennui and moral corruption. Its submission to the ideological dictates of member-countries outnumbering democratic, forward-looking countries of the world merely reflect its unforgivable inadequacies.

Just Too Precious

What a coalition this is! Western powers and a few Arab countries united in opposition to Moammar Gadhafi's determination to remain in power and to punish those of his people with the temerity to oppose his continued rule. The united front is anything but united. It is fractious and querulous.

While France and Britain took the initiative with huge umbrage at the prospect of Gadhafi targeting his own people with wild brutality, insisting that the United Nations pass a resolution for a no-fly zone as a humanitarian necessity, they rely on the fire-power of the United States.

The United States, willing enough to be involved - but unwilling this time around to be the presumptive leader where it remains a target of Arab loathing for interfering in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries in its zeal to protect its oil interests - awaits leadership from elsewhere.

Standing ready and eager to hand that leadership over to France, to Britain, to NATO. But NATO's participation requires all 28 of its members to agree. And Turkey, the sole Muslim member of NATO, is abrasively resistant to NATO's involvement in the battering and bombing of Libya.

Along with China and Russia, both of whom have their own internal dissents to cope with. Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has described the Allied bombing of Libya's military as "indiscriminate force", as "a medieval call for a crusade". No one has mentioned Russia's brutal incursion into Georgia and its support of South Ossetia.

China for its part, describes the air strikes on Libya as comparable to "the blood-soaked tempests that Iraq has undergone for eight years and the unspeakable suffering of its people". No one has made any mention of the blood-soaked tempests in Tibet and the unspeakable suffering of the Tibetans with the loss of their culture, their heritage, their lives. And perhaps that is just as well.

The Arab League has now back-tracked on its complaints that in calling for the United Nations to authorize a no-fly zone, it had no intention of seeing civilians killed - as they contend was occurring under the coalition attacks. It has now re-affirmed its commitment to ensuring that mad-dog Gadhafi no longer wages war on his own.

Although that sentiment has not yet been communicated to Moammar Gadhafi and his forces are busily engaged doing just that.

Italy now threatens to take back control of its air bases. Italy doesn't mind being militarily subservient and at the service of the United States' forces, but it takes umbrage at being used and taken-for-granted by France and by Great Britain. Italy foresees the feasibility of NATO taking charge in the absence of American leadership.

Germany, along with Turkey, has no wish to see NATO involved. That would force Berlin to backtrack on its refusal to become involved in the entire inconvenient mess.

And so, what's the agenda? Protection of the rebels? The long shilly-shallying until the Arab League decided to back a no-fly option gave the Gadhafi regime ample opportunity to strengthen and consolidate its resources, and weaken the initial successful advance of the rebels.

What happens if there is a stand-off between the government forces and the rebels? And a division of the country ensues? Leaving Gadhafi in control of the north, the rebels the south. That would result in a waiting game. The coalition will not be around forever. And the battle will re-commence.

And here's a funny thing; the coalition heads of state all favour the elimination of Moammar Gadhafi. That he flee with his family, which he is not inclined to do, or that he be 'eliminated', which is to say dispatched, or rather assassinated, or killed by bombing. The bombing of his compound did not succeed in dispatching him.

And while the heads of state anticipate his removal by means fair and foul, it is their military chiefs who want no part of anything like that, considering it to be an 'unwise' move, and not within their mandate.

Isn't that just too precious?

Straining The Imagination

France and Britain agitated forcefully for intervention in Libya. Italy offered its air bases. The United States remained hesitant of embroiling itself once again in a conflict pitting it against a Muslim country. It is heavily mired down in Afghanistan and still involved in Iraq. Both of which arenas have garnered it hostility in the Arab world, as an occupier of Arab land. All Western countries are garishly brushed with the imperialist colours of petroleum greed.

Moammar Gadhafi went a bit too far in his arrogant incitement of fear and misgivings threatening the rebels in his country, promising that they would not live to see the light of another day once his troops retook the cities the rebels had taken. His is famously a scorched-earth mentality. The rebels had full knowledge of his vicious intentions, which spurred them on to battle more deliriously determinedly with the intention of giving as good as they prepared themselves to get.

They were, all the while, awaiting rescue by the West. Their initial assertions that they wanted a safe sky and nothing more. That they would not tolerate foreign boots on their ground, in anticipation that they would lose their sovereignty by an influx of troops they had no stomach to receive. The pride in their capabilities as a fighting force to the fore. And the Arab and Muslim disgust with the presence of U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is manifest and deeply entrenched.

But when there was no response reflecting the intention to act on their behalf, only brave words of inspiration that the world was watching and hoping for their victory, matched by government forces managing to take the upper hand, desperation overcame caution. Still, not much could be done...until the Gulf States managed to convince the Arab League that a no-fly zone was desperately needed lest Gadhafi, who always offended everyone, succeed in obliterating the rebel alliance in a sea of blood.

The League took it upon itself to authorize the United Nations to take all necessary measures. Which went quite a bit further, as it happened than merely instituting a no-fly zone, which in and of itself would have been a declaration of war. The resolution that was passed by a vote of 10, with no dissenting votes, just 5 abstentions, went further, much further. Including a no-drive zone, a maritime exclusion zone, and the disruption of official Libyan communications.

Then began the almost immediate response with French and British jets bombing Libyan armoured vehicles and artillery, and U.S. missiles being fired from offshore ships in the Mediterranean. And then the Arab League suffering grave misgivings, denying that this was what they wanted when they asked the UN to intervene. It seems unlikely that any of the Arab states, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia will become involved.

Particularly with their own problems of protests against their traditional rule with their populations seeking more freedoms and fewer authoritarian governments. And with that unrest within their own borders, concerns that their having become involved in the affairs of another Arab country while affairs within their own have not been settled they would not want to be viewed as becoming increasingly involved with the United States' interests.

In short, it is the typical Arab situation, waffling and weaving and wavering; exhorting on the one hand, denying on the other. And the Arab League has no wish to become involved in a situation whose longevity no one can predict. With a possibility that tribal antipathies within Libya could even divide the country and a prolonged civil war ensue. Which would trap Western powers already committed to the rebel cause.

Who knows, in the end, whether the bloody tyrant that will be replaced will have his place taken by someone equally horrendous, or, straining the imagination, even worse? And who might have imagined all this occurring when the new year of 2011 bade adieu to 2010?

Taking Sides

"The sun has risen and the darkness has been removed and the truth will prevail."

The truth is, in this instance of time and place which will eventually take its part in history that a devious, implacable and vicious tyrant has been destroying the lives of his own people, those who have lived for 42 years under his rule as the "King of Africa". These are the people who appear to have determined for themselves that they will no longer live as crushed and repressed people without the civilizing and needful benefits of basic human rights.

Their revolt, inspired by liberty-inspired revolutionary zeal expressed by other rebels in other countries of the near-geography, in Africa and in the Middle East, has resulted in a punitive back-lash that has raised the indignant ire of the world. Of the West, and of some parts of the Arab and Muslim world, in any event. Some of whose governments were prepared to take action beyond expressing dismay and anger.

The 'leader' of the free world, the United States of America, imperiously instructed Moammar Gadhafi that he must 'step down' instanter. That message was just as imperiously flicked off the radar. Watch me and learn by my example, he effectively informed the world. And the rebels whose amazingly audacious and determined blow-back against the tyrant in capturing and holding Benghzi and other Libyan cities, kept advancing.

But then the metal gauntlet of Gadhafi's brutal and stifling reign was thrown down and the rebels finally understood that their assembled arms and defences were like children's toys against the armoured vehicles, gun ships, artillery, mechanized armoured vehicles, warplanes of the government forces. The civil war that ensued saw a speedy retreat, and desperate refugees trying to escape the war zones.

And then, fearful Libyans who gathered themselves about television sets, witnessed the United Nations Security Council voting through resolution 1973 and hope blazed anew. Their tyrant proclaimed the resolution "invalid", yet on the strength of the potential, assured the world that a ceasefire was in effect, while his troops were ordered to strafe and bomb and kill civilians in the towns of Ajdabiya, Misratah, Zawiyah and Benghazi.

The rebels, attempting to defend Ajdabiya, had suffered many losses, and the euphoria that had fed their determination to succeed in the upheaval of the dark forces of tyranny turned to fear as they were pushed back to 140 kilometres from Benghazi, their main stronghold. And the government warplanes flying over Benghazi let loose their bombs there too. Promising to lethally punish all who were involved in the revolt.

"They said we just had to keep going until we got the no-fly zone. this week people started to think it would never come. I don't know how much longer we could have held on."

They did, and it did. And as the G8-member Paris meeting to discuss the situation and the members' involvement wound up, President Nicolas Sarkozy grimly asserted that France would intervene momentarily. Then twenty French military planes bombed military installations in Tripoli. The United Kingdom hot on their heels to do their part to neutralize government tanks and artillery.

Not to be undone the reluctant United States stated that cruise missiles aboard their ships in the Mediterranean were placed on active alert. Col. Gadhafi now knows of a certainty that his bluff has been called. He can no longer play for time. His ferocious onslaught of the rebels is being met and rebuffed and his armour destroyed.

This is meet and this is just. And then one's mind lingers on Darfur/Sudan, on Rwanda, on Iran; why here, not there?

Ten Agreeing, Five Abstaining

Credit is due Britain and France for their unwavering determination to halt Moammar Gadhafi's determination to brutally crush the opposition to his continued rule in Libya. Where other Arab and Muslim regimes have recognized the merit in their populations' clamour for liberty and human rights, and have begun to make accommodation to meet some of those demands as just, Libya's bloody-minded dictator is determined to wipe out his opposition.

And where, just a week earlier, that scenario was not really on the international radar with the determined rebels' advances into former Gadhafi strongholds, government forces with their vastly superior military war machines have turned the tide of rebellion. And Gadhafi boasts that another 48 hours will see the rebellion fully stifled, with those among the rebels who insist on holding their own to pay fully for their folly in opposing him.

While the world waited with bated breath for the new American administration to step firmly into the breach and commit to aiding the rebels not with brave words but with active commitment, nothing of the kind occurred. But Britain and France doggedly lobbied the United Nations, NATO and the European Union for consensus on a unified front to dislodge one of the world's most infamous tyrants from imposing any further carnage on his own people.

The Arab League finally succumbed and agreed, along with the Gulf States, that Gadhafi must be halted in his advance to obliterate any vestige of home-grown opposition. A no-fly zone would suit them just fine, they said, cautioning that they would never support a foreign army marching into Libya. A no-fly zone would, of necessity, require bombing raids against Libyan airfields and warplanes. And now, the Security Council, having finally debated the issue as Libyan government troops are marching toward Bengazhi, the die is cast.

Ten votes for a no-fly zone to be imposed over rebel-held areas of the country, with five abstentions. Paradoxically, Lebanon, with its place on the temporary Council, helped Britain and France circulate the resolution. Lebanon, high-jacked by its very own Islamist-jihad militia serving Iran and Syria as their proxies within that country, whose political wing has trumped despite having murdered a former prime minister of the country, has paradoxically committed to freeing Libya in essence, from a brutal tyrant.

Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's former deputy ambassador to the UN, now a passionately vocal voice in the effort to unseat Moammar Gadhafi, who commented that the "international community has to act in the next ten hours", must feel some measure of relief and satisfaction that finally his appeals have been answered.

All to the good, if words can be matched with action in good enough time to halt the troops advancing toward Benghazi before a slaughter ensues.

Asylum of Lunatic Dictators

The United Nations seems well on its way to becoming a truly perversely evil institution. One that began life with such promise as the League of Nations, determined to lead the world away from institutionalized and systemic racism, tribalism, tyrannies and global poverty, has allowed itself to become infected with the bacterium that gives rise to all those failures of humanity's propensity to social decay.

It is now, unquestionably, the greater preponderance of world leaders and governments that are classified by civil society as representative of traditional monarchies, theocracies, tyrannies, autocracies, dictatorships and their totalitarian fascist ideologies that deny their citizens human rights opportunities, freedoms and justice that are in the ascendancy of power in the UN.

It is they, the vast bloc of like-minded nations and governments who hold sway, who order the agendas, who inhabit the seats of authority in UN-sponsored and -linked councils and groups like the Human Rights Council and others of its ilk. Invariably, those most ill-suited by their established record and reputation who invest themselves with authority, backed by their like-minded cliques.

China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Russia, are enabled to pronounce judgement, or withhold it, as the case may be, on matters relating to human rights and entitlements, justice and peace-keeping even while they present as some of the worst offenders whose activities imperil those very attributes of good governance in their own countries. They can persecute their own people relentlessly, but pass judgement on the governance of countries dedicated to human rights.

So Libya, which is busily exterminating opposition to its dictator Moammar Gadhafi, is removed from membership of the UN's human rights body, but it may continue to serve on the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice as well as the UN Committee on Information and the executive board of UN Women. Libya under Col. Gadhafi, the King of Kings, is right now exercising its mandate to prevent the crime of overthrowing its tyranny and meting out justice to the criminals who are protesting.

And Iran, which mocks all UN and IAEA efforts to bring its nuclear program into line with international standards, intent on its state program led by the Ayatollahs and the Republican Guard to achieve nuclear advantage in atomic weaponry, remains a respected member of the world body. In a world body whose purpose is dedicated to harmony and respect among nations, Iran remains an influential member, while threatening to exterminate a fellow member nation.

In a perversion of absolute verities of good and evil, evil appears to be triumphing, calling itself good, while good is gradually becoming submerged by evil. In a grand celebration of totalitarian rule of the United Nations, the aggressor nations, the human-rights defilers, the existential national threats to their own people, are in the ascendancy.

In a country like Iran where women are oppressed and their rights repressed, where prison rapes prior to executions take place routinely to ensure that upon death the women are not given the status of virgins and taken up into heaven, the UN has welcomed the country into the Commission on the Status of Women.

Women accused of adultery are stoned to death under a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in Iran. Morality police are sent out into the streets to harass, intimidate and sometimes arrest and beat women whose mode of dress does not reflect sufficient Islamist modesty. Iran is being welcomed - named by acclamation to serve for four years on the UN's Commission on the Status of Women body.

Franz Kafka would have appreciated this hugely, he would have been inspired to write a tome on the insanity of a lunatic bureaucracy invented out of some inscrutably menacing brain gone berserk.

Moral Bankruptcy Extraordinaire

Where else could the degradation of the principle behind respect for universal human rights take place than in the very bastion of international support for the dignity and humanity and freedoms and entitlements of populations and individuals, the United Nations? The noble conceit of formulating a representative body of nations whose singular purpose would be to champion human rights, to extol the virtues of peace and compassion, and exert the soft pressure of the nobility of humanity was exemplified in the creation of that august body.

And what could be more natural than the election of member states representatives to sit on a special committee functioning under the aegis of the United Nations, as a group dedicated to the furtherance of human rights? They would call themselves the UN Human Rights Commission and then a few years on amend that to the UN Human Rights Council. For, unfortunately the group of the original name, championed by some of the world's worst human-rights abusers soiled the purpose of the group.

And now, the latterly-named Human Rights Council, similarly comprised of states representative of some of the most repressive, autocratic regimes in the world simply continues the culture and the dedication of the original one, focusing primarily on the slanderous and slanted view of one country alone on the international stage whom they have determined represents the ultimate in all that is to be shunned. Resolution after condemnation after citation is given dignity and purpose by this unashamedly corrupt group condemning the State of Israel.

One of the UN Human Rights Commission's most flamboyant and certainly highly respected members is currently embarked on a campaign to de-legitimize the concerns of a vast proportion of its citizenry. Citizens who have gathered in illegal protest in a country that brooks no criticism of its leader, long accustomed to using brutal force to tamp down protest. Libya, under Col. Moammar Gadhafi, has explained to the world how much his people adore him. He has raged against the perfidious Western media for suggesting he is waging war on his people.

Coinciding with the UN Human Rights Council being forced through outraged public opinion to suspend Libya's membership in its UN-sponsored body until such time as its leader ceases bludgeoning his people into early graves, the Council is also prepared to adopt a major report in recognition of Libya's human rights improvements. Various countries are seen to be applauding and commending Libya, noting "with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

This truly hideous farce is set to play out applauding Libya for its "respect for human rights" before the Geneva-based, 47-member council on March 18. By that time much will have occurred. Many more thousands of Libyans may have met their maker. A full-blown civil war will have been in progress for a week or so, promising to stretch a little further into the future. Or, alternately, the international community might finally have got its outrage into a place where they could no longer simply fulminate futiley, and decide to do something practical.

To assist the people of Libya to free themselves finally, from the intolerable burden of living under a psychopathic criminal. By taking it upon themselves to protect Libyans and to assist them in unseating their tyrant. Meanwhile, in the annals of infamy it will have been recorded that Iran, Sudan and Cuba, among other countries fulsomely praised Libya's human rights record. They in particular should know all the fine points about human rights, since they honour and practise to the letter the diplomacy the offering of dignity and freedom to their own.

Long live the United Nations! Long live the UN Human Rights Council!

Saving Libya

"The international community must send a very clear message: the killing of innocent civilians - the citizens of its own country - constitutes a gross violation of human rights and must carry serious consequences." Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Citizens of countries other than Libya are also at grave risk. Their governments are hastily assembling means and methods of delivering them to safety, away from strife-torn Libya. But there are citizens of African countries whose governments are not so well organized, have not the wherewithal to come to the aid of their citizens, and perhaps would not even if they could.

Col. Moammar Gadhafi has engaged thousands of Africans to come to Libya to work as labourers. He has, more latterly, brought in additional thousands of Africans soldiers as mercenaries, arming and instructing them to violently assist in putting down the insurrection that has broken out across the country.

Unlike Libyan soldiers who might hesitate to murder Libyans, the African mercenaries harbour no humanitarian scruples.

They have paid dearly for the reputation they swiftly gained by the use of extraordinary violence against Libyan protesters. Any that have been separated from their units have been summarily dispatched by angry Libyan mobs. But the larger fall-out for Africans in Libya is that innocent black African workers are being wrongly identified as mercenaries and they now fear for their lives.

On a larger, country-wide scale, anti-regime forces are meeting against pro-regime forces, but it can be assured that the former represent the majority. It is assumed that several thousand Libyans have already given up their lives in battling for the cause of their country's freedom from the tyrannical rule of Moammar Gadhafi, the King of Kings, their great revolutionary hero, a much-misunderstood figure of benevolent love for his people.

He has addressed his countrymen declaring his love for them and his bellicose determination to settle with blood the criminal acts of defiance on the part of regime protesters. He has urged Libyans to: "Feel at ease in the squares and the streets. Live the life of dignity. Moammar Gadhafi is one of you. Dance, sing, rejoice!".

They would dearly love to do all of these things, but without Moammar Gadhafi. Currently they are unable to dance, sing and rejoice, nor do they have much dignity in their desperate search for security from the threats imposed on their longevity by the helicopter gunships, warplanes and other similar threats mounted against them by their great benefactor.

Moreover, because the country is in a dreadful turmoil and chaos itself reigns comfortably along with the delusional Gadhafi, transportation has been hobbled. Desperate people willing to become refugees fleeing their country are finding it difficult to find refuge elsewhere. Worse, those undertaking the dangerous and arduous migration out of country are being set upon and robbed of their meager possessions.

And the UN's World Food Program is warning that the country's food supply chain has been disrupted and is "at risk of collapsing". Aid agencies fear that many Libyans are trapped, unable to travel, and unable to find sources of available food in a country that is a net food importer. People are fast running out of what little food they have, but fear exposing themselves to harm should they exit their homes.

All eyes have turned to the American President Barack Obama and his careful announcements. Registering that caution against the recent situation in Egypt which resolved relatively peacefully with a minimum of lives lost, and when the U.S. turned against a long-time ally, urging President Hosni Mubarak to leave office and depart his country.

Toward a long-time adversary, a known supporter of international terrorism, a human-rights abusing megalomaniac, the U.S. administration has made nothing resembling a direct call for the relinquishing of power by Moammar Gadhafi, even while Libya's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Shalgham, addressed that body, imploring of them "Please UN, save Libya.

The World Watches

The vicious rogue regimes of Africa and the Middle East that prey on their people and from time to time run amok destroying lives, are routinely condemned by the United Nations, the Security Council, Ban Ki-moon who theatrically wrings his hands in despair, and world leaders. The institution of the United Nations is geared and dedicated to upholding the rights of people to live decent and free lives under just administrations.

This they do through the many pronouncements that issue from that august body. When issues arise in places like Serbia-Croatia-Bosnia, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea and Libya, the United Nations condemns the violence and issues a call to immediate cessation of that violence and restoration of order and good government. The United Nations Human Rights Commission sits in judgement.

Overlooking the distracting events taking place in Sudan, Georgia, Belarus, Pakistan, Iran, and dedicating themselves to covering the backsides of those among them whose human rights violations are never to be impolitely mentioned, directing attention rather to the singular world state deserving of condemnation and the issuance of resolutions denouncing the human rights violations committed by Israel.

The African Union and those that represent North, South, West and East African regions do nothing to intervene when chaos and mass destruction ensues due to internal unrest in one country after another. The Arab League takes steps to temporarily expel one of its member-states when, for example, the Bad Boy of the Arab League bombs and strafes his people in Libya.

It is, in these circumstances, left to the members of the developed world community to step in. If they dare. If they dare do more than fulminate and denounce. Kuwait's invasion by Iraq represented a true anomaly in the organized response led by the United States, its Western supporters and members of the Arab League.

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, whose defenders are now isolated to the regimes in South America whose socialist ethos they all share, has been rejected by most of the world, and Britain wrings its conscience over having sold Libya the riot-control ammunition it now uses to shatter the lives of its people. Russia may also be slightly perturbed at its huge munitions sales in arms to Libya, but then perhaps not.

NATO, the European Union, the United States and Canada fret about their verbal responses to the carnage being played out in Libya as forces still loyal to Gadhafi slaughter those civilians still continuing their vocal opposition to his brutally tyrannical rule. What can they do other than that? Consider an invasion?

So that Africa and the Middle East can surmise that it is the country's oil resources they wish to capture and to colonize and enslave Libyans under European rule? Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain; in all those countries it is the people who have spoken and their rulers paid the price.

Libya's tyrant is not quite as obliging, intent on dredging the last drop of blood on the field of battle, intent on his lunatic will prevailing.