German AfD MP Markus Frohnmaier says he is most disconcerted by the latest developments. Piled up on his desk, is a mountain of papers with the headers showing the logo of the United Nations.

“Every MP of Europe, every MEP and even every mayor should be forced to read this”, says 27-year-old Frohnmaier, one of the youngest deputies in the Bundestag.

In September 2017, he was elected to parliament on the list of the Eurosceptic party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). “If there had not been the AfD in the German parliament, no other political force would dare to criticise this monstrous document.”

The document in question, is the draft text for the so-called Global Compact for Migration for UN member states. It is more or less a globalist project where all signatory states declare their will to abolish the current different categories of migrants in order to declare migration a blanket “human right”.

The only leaders unwilling to go along are US President Donald Trump and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban. They have both declared that they would not sign the Global Compact.

“This document will enforce migration to Europe. It is open-border propaganda on steroids,” says Frohnmaier. The young politician is part of a European alliance of politicians of sovereignist conservatives who have been organising the political opposition against the “crazy concoction” as Frohnmaier calls the final draft of the Global Compact.

Indeed, if this international agreement is implemented by signatory states, it practically means an end to controlled migration and borders as we we know it. The agreement does not distinguish between refugees and migrants anymore.

Thus even illegal migrants can no longer be deported. In fact, it will be the end of the very notion of an “illegal migrant”. Illegal border crossings will no longer be considered a crime – since migration will be considered to be a “human right”.

The draft for the Global Compact took 18 months to finalise and was approved in July by 191 UN member nations except the United States, which pulled out last year saying it was “inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies”.

Hungary resisted as well. “This document is entirely against Hungary’s security interests,” said Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. He described the Compact as an “extreme” measure, which was also “biased and facilitated migration”.

And he added: “This pact poses a threat to the world as it could inspire millions [of migrants].”

Peter Szijjarto is succinct in his condemnation: “Its main premise is that migration is a good and inevitable phenomenon. We consider migration a bad process, which has extremely serious security implications.”

Frohnmaier agrees: “This document is a smoke screen. It describes migration as a pure enrichment for Europe and totally ignores any negative effects on our societies.”

The starting point for the Global Compact was a summit on flight and migration that took place under the aegis of the UN in September 2016, with Barack Obama issuing the invitation.

In contrast to refugee policy, where there are specific global and regional (protection) conventions. The UN refugee body, the UNHCR only monitors observance, as there is no global or UN migration organisation with one set of rules for migration.

The Global Compact for Migration, which essentially comprises 23 goals, claims to focus on protection, the rights and improved living and working conditions of migrants and their families.

Civil society organisations in particular were successful in promoting their goals in the negotiating process. Moreover, the Compact calls for improved data management regarding international migration processes, while it envisions probing economic, environmental as well as political causes of forced migration.

The Compact aims to create a global framework for managing migration, called a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework” to encourage “international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no state can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of states and their obligations under international law”.

But the term “non-legally binding”  has riled critics such as Frohnmaier. For him such terms are just “soft liberal poetry, a chill pill for those who do not agree with the scandalous content of the Compact”.

The circle of opponents is growing day by day. Austria’s vice chancellor and leader of the conservative Freedom Party, Heinz Christian Strache, said in an interview with the Austrian daily Kronen Zeitung: “Migration should never become a human right.”

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini from the anti-immigration Lega, may not be signing the controversial document either.

But why do so many European and especially German lawmakers support or at least seem wholly unmoved by the Global Compact? Markus Frohnmaier suggests that it is because his European colleagues are so ill-informed: “I doubt that most of the MPs especially from the mainstream parties know about the content of the document. And many of those who know at least the name of the Global Compact, might think it includes a strategy to address the causes of migration.”

The young German politician, who is also a member of the Committee for Economic Cooperation and Development of the Bundestag, doubts too that the Global Compact includes any positive outcomes for the migrants’ countries of origin.

“This is a deeply naïve, almost religious credo of the migration lobby. The opposite will happen: the Global Contract will encourage masses of especially young people to leave their home countries because they believe they will have a better life in Europe. This will drain – and not strengthen – the developing economies in the countries of origin.”

The Inter-Governmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Migration will take place in Marrakech, Morocco on the 10th and 11th of December. Most of the European states will sign the document there.

The Conference will be convened under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly, held pursuant to resolution 71/1 of 19 September 2016, entitled “New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants,” which decided to launch a process of intergovernmental negotiations leading to the adoption of the Compact.

Is this the end of borders as we know it? Frohnmaier shakes his head: “The last word has not yet been spoken.”

The young politician is convinced that opposition to such a notion is gathering speed: “More and more Europeans will vote in future for political forces rejecting the open border policy. This process is ongoing and unstoppable.”

And the adopted Global Compact? Frohnmaier smiles ruefully: “A piece of paper.”

freewestmedia.com

Haley has also made a number of other comments relating to the United Nations and Israel. Immediately upon taking office she complained that “nowhere has the U.N.’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel” and vowed that the “days of Israel bashing are over.” In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: “Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?” Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

There is clearly a disinclination on the part of the Trump Administration to support multinational bodies, evident in the rejection of climate, trade and non-proliferation agreements. Complete withdrawal from the United Nations is not unthinkable in the current climate, though the Democrats and some moderate Republicans would no doubt strongly resist such a move. In my opinion, the United Nations is a dystopian mess but it is better to have it than not as it provides a forum where nations that otherwise cannot meet are able too do so and discuss transnational issues. And it should be conceded that the U.N.’s inability to actually function is largely both structural and bureaucratic due to the veto power given to the Security Council’s five permanent members, a function that Nikki Haley has repeatedly used to stop resolutions that might be offensive to the United States or Israel.

Beyond that, Haley’s constant citation of concern for Israel gives strength to the suggestion that there is something unnatural about its bilateral “special” relationship with the United States. In the Middle East in particular, Israel would seem to be driving U.S. policy, particularly vis-à-vis Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Israel is intent on continuing political chaos in Syria lest there be a threat to its continued occupation of the Golan Heights and has warned about possible preemptive action in Lebanon to punish Hezbollah. It also wants the United States to deal decisively with Iran. By all accounts, those agendas are proceeding very well as Washington has been regularly threatening Iran and last week vowed to take military action if Damascus seeks to recover territory in the Syrian southwest that until recently was held by terrorists.

It is difficult to discern what the joint United States-Israeli strategy might be towards the United Nations and other international bodies. Neither has recognized the authority of the International Criminal Court in The Hague for fear that its own senior officials might be arrested and tried for war crimes. To be sure, both countries are protected against any serious challenges in the U.N. itself by the American veto power over the Security Council, which alone has the authority to mandate sanctions or peacekeeping operations.

But the U.S. withdrawal from U.N. agencies is, if anything, a sign of weakness rather than strength. If Washington were indeed confident in its own brand of international leadership it would welcome the opportunity to sit on panels and help shape the views of other countries with which it has a politically neutral or adversarial relationships. That it does not choose to do so suggests that there is an understanding that what Washington is selling no one is buying. The complete isolation of the United States at the United Nations and also elsewhere, to include G-7, was exhibited recently during June 1^st votes at the U.N. Security Council. A resolution sponsored by Kuwait seeking an inquiry into the Israeli killing of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and a motion by Haley seeking to blame Hamas for the deaths both were voted on. Haley’s was the only vote against the former and the only vote in favor of the latter. She predictably commented afterwards that “Further proof was not needed, but it is now completely clear that the U.N. is hopelessly biased against Israel.”

In explanation of its exit, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Hayley, declared that “When a so-called human rights council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran . . . the council ceases to be worthy of its name.”

To be sure, the Human Rights Council has some member nations with appalling human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia, about which the State Department highlights numerous human rights violations, including “unlawful killings, executions for other than the most serious offenses and without requisite due process; torture; arbitrary arrest and detention, including of lawyers, human rights activists, and anti-government reformists; political prisoners; and arbitrary interference with privacy.” Further, there is a major difference between its system of governance and that of much-vilified Iran, because Iran’s president is elected by the people whereas Saudi Arabia, as described by the State Department, is “a monarchy without elected representative institutions or political parties.”

So why is Saudi Arabia not named by Washington’s Nikki Hayley as a country that indulges in “massive abuses” of human rights?

The State Department makes it abundantly clear why Washington is perfectly happy with Saudi Arabia’s abuses of human rights, because “the United States and Saudi Arabia enjoy a strong economic relationship, as the United States is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ largest trading partners in the Middle East.”

So the Saudis’ absolute monarch, the dictator King Abdullah, can continue with impunity and without the slightest criticism by Nikki Hayley and her ilk to indulge in “torture, arbitrary arrest and detention.”

Which brings us to instances of arbitrary arrest and detention rather closer to Washington, involving pitiable and wretched would-be immigrants to the United States.

The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour, gifted to the American people by France in 1886, has the inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It used to be an example of national compassion and understanding to the rest of the world.

But Trump Washington and many millions of Americans are passionately opposed to immigration. They believe that their Golden Door should remain firmly closed against people beckoned by the lamp. President Trump leads them in his hatred and last month declared that would-be migrants “aren’t people, these are animals” and tweeted that they want “to pour into and infest our country.”

The message from the Trump Administration is clear and revolting — and even clearer and more horrifying is the manner in which these “animals” who want to “infest our country” are treated by those who enforce the law inside the Golden Door.

One of the latest displays of repulsive callousness by the Trump Administration involves separation of migrant children from their parents. A description of how this was effected on the border with Mexico, where there are so many refugees and migrants, was provided by a US Member of Congress, Representative Pramila Jayapal (herself of Indian origin) in a barely credible account of ice-hearted cruelty.

She recounted that in detention camps she met 174 women of whom 30-40 percent “came with children who had been forcibly taken away from them. None got a chance to say goodbye to their children — they were forcibly taken away. One said she was deceived, because they were in detention together. Then the Customs and Border Protection officials told her she was going out to get her photograph taken. When she came back, she was put in a different room, and she never got to see the child again. Some of them said they could hear their children screaming for them in the next room.”

Can you imagine what goes on in the mind of a person who could do this to a mother and her child? What sort of man or woman could remove a tiny child from a mother? It happened in Hitler’s concentration camps, of course, but most of us thought we had moved on a bit since then. The New York Times summed it up in an Editorial by saying that “It may be hard to believe that this is happening in the United States in 2018, that hundreds of children are being snatched from their parents, frequently under false pretences, often screaming . . . The parents often don’t know where their children are, or when they will see them again.”

A Washington Post reporter visited a detention centre in Texas where “They divided the young children who had been separated from their parents, placing 20 or more in a concrete-floor cage and providing foil blankets, thin mattress pads, bottled water and food. The migrant children, some confused or expressionless, watched as uniformed officials led reporters on a brief tour … of a processing centre and temporary detention facility.”

Try to imagine what sort of person willingly carries out orders to separate little children from their mothers. Reflect on the report in the Washington Post that scores of these little children were “screaming ‘Mami’ and ‘Papá’ over and over again, as if those are the only words they know.” Then, unbelievably, “the baritone voice of a Border Patrol agent booms above the crying. ‘Well, we have an orchestra here,’ he jokes. ‘What’s missing is a conductor’.”

Can you comprehend the mindset of this man? This trusted government official, this representative of a country that prides itself on representing all the virtues, was actually joking about the noise being made by terrified and defenceless little children who had been torn from their mothers. The New York Times reported children at a detention camp as saying “they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells… Children as young as 14 said the guards there stripped them of their clothes and strapped them to chairs with bags placed over their heads.”

These evil cruelties are taking place in a country whose representative to the world, its ambassador to the United Nations, declared that “for too long the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.”

On 18 June the UN spoke out, and its “top human rights official… cited an observation by the president of the American Association of Paediatrics that locking the children up separately from their parents constituted ‘government-sanctioned child abuse’,” so it is not surprising that the following day the US slouched out of the Human Rights Commission with a blasting fanfare of insults.

As Amnesty International observed, “Once again, President Trump is showing his complete disregard for the fundamental rights and freedoms the US claims to uphold. While the Human Rights Council is by no means perfect and its membership is frequently under scrutiny, it remains an important force for accountability and justice.”

But an Administration that is based on hatred and intolerance pays no attention to accountability and justice. Human rights hypocrisy snarls from the twisted lips behind the Golden Door to Washington.

When Nikki Haley was tapped by President Donald Trump to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, most who were in the know scratched their heads. The governor of South Carolina seemed like a strange pick for this very important job—and not only because Haley had sparred with Trump during the 2016 Republican presidential primary. Unlike Richard Holbrooke and John Negroponte, Haley wasn’t plucked from the State Department’s diplomatic corps. And unlike Madeleine Albright and Susan Rice, she had very little—if any—foreign policy experience.

Haley, however, has proven herself to be a survivor, hitting the U.N. every chance she gets while ingratiating herself to Trump, who bemoans multilateral institutions in general and the United Nations in particular. From her very first speech in which she told U.N. members states (allies and adversaries alike) that “for those who don’t have our backs, we’re taking names,” Ambassador Haley has been the chief enforcer of the president’s America First foreign policy vision. Anyone can wail about the U.N. in the State Department briefing room, but Haley is in the eye of the storm, poking the international body—and doing it proudly—from within.

Haley’s latest broadside occurred this week when she announced the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council, a collection of 47 nations that focus on—you guessed it—human rights violations around the world. The U.N. as a whole is often depicted as a bunch of incompetents who suck the American taxpayer dry, and the Human Rights Council, which has featured some of the world’s worst abusers of human rights, is a standout example of why that image persists. The words and phrases Haley used to describe the Council during her briefing this week—“a protector of human rights abusers“ and a “cesspool of political bias”—are quintessential Trump and a reflection of the widespread conservative opposition to the Council ever since it was established 12 years ago.

America’s departure from the Council, of course, didn’t come out of nowhere. It was only a matter of time before Washington withdrew. Ambassador Haley has used the body as her proverbial punching bag from the beginning. And the Council’s intense focus—some would call it an unhealthy obsession—on Israel’s actions in the Palestinian Territories grates on Republicans and Democrats alike. Nations widely regarded as major human rights abusers (Egypt, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and Pakistan) have either served or are serving as members. Even the U.N.’s greatest admirers would admit that the Council has problems, the least of which is its pathetic criteria for membership.

Haley wanted those problems addressed. She hoped to work with European allies to introduce more stringent vetting so countries with industrial-scale torture regimes weren’t able to be elected. She wanted Israel off the permanent agenda. When it became obvious that other members were not willing to cooperate, she chose the nuclear option.

It’s still far too early to tell whether the administration’s decision will pay off. The benefits of withdrawal are clear enough: the American delegation will no longer have to sit in the room and listen to lectures about human rights coming from countries that are, strangely enough, human rights violators.

The costs, however, outweigh whatever symbolic and moral benefits Washington has accrued. Absent from the table, the United States is no longer a player. Crimes that America wishes to bring to the Council’s attention may now be ignored altogether. Israel will be even more exposed to censure. The Trump administration is forfeiting its right to influence whatever debates are on the Council’s docket, a sophomoric move that will impact the U.N. human rights agenda. Yet again, the U.S. is isolating itself from the rest of the global community. First it was the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Then it was the Paris climate change and Iran nuclear agreements. Now it’s the Human Rights Council.

For Nikki Haley, this is a personal win and a nice notch on her belt as she thinks about her political future. For the United States, it’s something altogether less encouraging.

theamericanconservative.com

Formally, the reason is the bias against Israel, the failure to hold human rights abusers accountable and US calls for reforms remaining unheeded. Strange logic! Being a member, the US could protect its Middle East ally and attract world attention to violations of human rights. The premier intergovernmental human rights body may not be as effective as it could be but it is a platform to address the burning problems and a dialogue bridge.

The ambassador added that the council could be rejoined in the future if reforms were made. That’s the essence of Washington’s approach. Either the US has it its way or it quits, there is nothing in between: no compromise, no discussions, and no diplomacy. More and more often, the US demonstrates its “it’s my way or no way” approach to international problems.

The opposition to the withdrawal is strong, including US lawmakers and well-known NGOs, such as the Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Campaign, Save the Children, Freedom House and many others but their arguments have been ignored. Washington came under strong criticism internationally.

The pullout is a very decisive step conforming to the trend of the US stepping back from multilateral accords, international bodies and forums. Under the current administration, America has pulled out from the Paris climate accord, the UN educational, scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO) and the Iran nuclear deal. It also defied the world by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving its embassy there. Its participation in UN activities has been curtailed recently. For instance, in January, the US announced the decision to cut funds for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. In March, Ambassador Haley said that UN peacekeeping operations will be axed. The idea to withdraw from the United Nations Organization has been reinvigorated recently in the US.

There are other reasons the US officials prefer not to mention. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is pressing ahead with the investigation of mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by British forces in 2003-2008. This is a warning for America. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was headed by the US without the approval by the UN Security Council. Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has mentioned alleged US violations to be investigated. She says the United States may have abused human rights in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The US strongly opposes the ICC, so it’s only natural for it to be against the UNHRC and the UN in general. Washington has not ratified various international human rights related agreements. The country still has death penalty. It has failed to cope with police brutality and is known to have the world's largest prison population (about two million people).

In 2014, the UN Committee Against Torture released a report that deeply criticized the US for racial discrimination and other human rights abuses, including electronic surveillance, CIA interrogations, immigrant detentions, the failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay etc. In 2015, a UN report slammed America for being the only country in the world to imprison children for life without parole. According to the recent Human Rights Watch paper, the US moved backward on human rights at home and abroad last year.

On many occasions, the legality of using armed drones by the US military and the CIA has been questioned by the international community. Last December, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution calling on the US to reverse its decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Washington threatened those who backed the document with retaliation. The US sanctions policy has been criticized by UN officials saying it constitutes the violation of human rights. Actually, Russia or any other country under sanctions could launch a complaint with the UN Human Rights committee in accordance with Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Nobody’s perfect. So is the UN. Still the organization remains a vital instrument of international governance. It has managed many conflicts preventing abuses and saving lives. The UN Human Rights High Commissioner as well as a half dozen core human rights treaties have played an important role to protect human rights. An extensive international criminal justice system exists under the UN auspices. The attempts to free America from the burden of international law and global commitments in a high-tech era are hardly implementable. With the UN jettisoned, the US would return to pre-Second World War isolationism but will it make it richer, stronger, or more influential? How does the concept of the whole world marching out of step benefit the United States?

True, the council has serious drawbacks but the US leaves for another reason. While lecturing others on human rights, values and freedom, the US is far from being lily-white but it wants no curbs on what it does and no criticism, objections and discussions. Looks like “America First” and “America Isolated” have a lot in common. 

The US sanctions policy came under sharp criticism in the United Nations. Addressing the UN General Assembly on October 18, United Nations Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy said “Damaging a country’s economy with sanctions usually leads to violations of the rights of ordinary people. Sanctions are disruptive for any State, and can have a particularly devastating impact on the citizens of developing countries when they impair the economy.” He expressed concern about sanctions which had an impact outside the territory being targeted. “It is well established that sanctions which apply to parties outside of the dispute are illegal, but sanctions which lead to human rights violations also create an obligation on the imposing state to take measures to repair the harm they have caused,” the expert noted.

Reporting on his visit to Russia in April, Jazairy said sanctions had not achieved the desired effect but had damaged others. “It appears that sanctions have not changed Russia’s position, but instead have caused economic losses for agricultural producers in both the EU and Russia,” he noted, adding “Serious, credible dialogue and negotiations are needed to resolve political issues, without creating additional harm for farmers.”

Jazairy urged the UN member states to adopt a Declaration on Unilateral Coercive Measures and the Rule of Law, which would set out shared principles on the use of sanctions and international law, renewing the call for a registry of sanctions, to bring greater transparency to the practice. “A registry would allow States, civil society and any other interested parties to know at all times what sanctions are in place, helping companies to conduct their businesses, and ensuring the sanctions meet human rights standards,” he said.

In his report (A/HRC/33/48) issued in September, the rapporteur urged the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, through a solemn Declaration, to reaffirm “the right of victims to an effective remedy, including appropriate and effective financial compensation, in all situations where their human rights are affected by unilateral coercive measures.” The report also highlighted the importance of setting up a consolidated central register within the UN system of all the international sanctions in force, adding that these findings should be made public. This mechanism, which would enhance transparency and accountability, could draw on the model of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms set up in 1991.

A new research by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) suggests the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia introduced three years ago have cost European countries billions of euros. The survey, which was conducted at the request of the European Parliament, and published on October 6, showed that the EU has lost €30bn due to sanctions.

Unilateral sanctions are increasingly ineffective in a more globalized economy. The United States has imposed many different sanctions against Russia but there are many more nations ready to boost economic cooperation with Moscow. The US has got a reputation for imposing economic sanctions liberally to make other nations reluctant to do business with it. European leaders and much of the rest of the world view economic sanctions as counterproductive and generally favor them only in extraordinary circumstances, such as war. In July, France's foreign ministry said new US penalties against Iran, Russia appeared at odds with international law due to their extra-territorial reach

From a legal point of view, only the UN Security Council has the right to impose sanctions against a state. Unilateral coercive measures violate the spirit and letter of the UN Charter, in particular its preamble and Articles 1 and 2. The organization rests on the principle of equality of all its member states. A state can resort to sanctions for self-defense purposes but Russia did not attack the United States. Thus, the United States is destroying the integrity of international organizations and agreements to which it is a party.

For instance, the policy of sanctions runs counter to the WTO fundamental principle of trade free of discrimination, which envisages respect for market principles and honest competition. Parties should maintain government restraints on the movement of goods at a minimum, and if changed, the restraints should be reduced, not increased. The conditions of trade, including the level of tariffs and other, must be discussed and agreed on within a multilateral framework.

In theory, a state complaint procedure of the UN Human Rights committee could be launched according to Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – that way the UN would have to deal with the matter. The US has recently announced its intent to drop out from the United Nations Human Rights Council. This month it left UNESCO. No surprise as the idea to leave the United Nations has been floating in the US for some time. In January, 2017, Alabama congressman Mike Rogers sponsored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, referred to the House, which calls to leave the United Nations. Utah state representative Don Bush, has claimed that many programs by the supranational entity have violated the US Constitution, such as the implementation of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea Treaty, both of which the United States does not currently endorse. Much has been said in the United States about Russia’s international isolation. In practice, the United States, not Russia, is getting increasingly isolated internationally.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the United States will not continue participating in the Human Rights Council unless the UN rights agency undergoes «considerable reform».

Washington has long complained about the body’s actions in general and the fact that the Geneva-based Human Rights Council unduly focuses on Israel and includes member countries with poor rights records. The Trump administration has questioned the Council’s usefulness.

State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in US funding for UN programs, including peacekeeping operations. The United States provides about $2.5 billion per year to fund peacekeepers. The budget proposal reinforces the Trump administration’s shift from diplomacy and foreign assistance to increased support of the military.

The 2018 draft budget proposal released on March 16 includes cuts of 28 percent for spending on the State Department, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign assistance programs, including the UN. The cuts affect the World Food Program’s work to feed those dying from starvation; UNICEF’s child vaccination program, the UN Refugee Agency’s sheltering of refugees fleeing from war and peacekeeping missions, which affect millions and contain the spread of terrorism across the world.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has suggested phasing in the major reductions over the coming three years. The country is  the biggest contributor to the UN budget, funding 22 per cent of the Organization's annual costs. Additionally, the US funds 29 per cent of peacekeeping operations. All in all, the US spends $10 billion yearly on the UN.

If Washington fails to honor its funding commitments to the UN’s regular budget, which is obligatory, it could lose its voting rights in the General Assembly. Actually, the stage is already set. The «American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017» was introduced in the House on January 3 and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), the legislation proposes that the US terminate its membership in the UN, that the organization removes its headquarters from the country, and that the US stops participating in the World Health Organization. Should it pass, the act would take effect two years after it is signed. Also in January, Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to defund the United Nations.

The anti-UN sentiments are fueled by the fact that in recent years the Organization has become increasingly vocal criticizing America for violations of human rights and international laws. For instance, in 2014 the United Nations Committee Against Torture released a report that deeply criticized the US for racial discrimination and other Civil Rights issues, including electronic surveillance, CIA interrogations, immigrant detentions, the failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay etc.

A new UN report in 2015 criticized the United States for being the only country in the world that imprisons children for life without parole. The US was blasted at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council being over its human rights record, including racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. The legality of using drones in other countries the US is not at war with has been questioned many times by international community.

In 2003 the US attacked Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. In 2011 as a member of NATO it went beyond the UN resolution on Libya.

There are other examples to prove that the US has many times gone around the international law. But will the withdrawal from the Organization meet US national interests?

Actually, the arguments for leaving the UN hold no water. The $10 billion, about one-quarter of one percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget that the United States provides to the UN each year is crucial for worldwide humanitarian aid, fighting terrorism and discouraging nuclear proliferation. The contribution into stabilizing fragile economies helps to keep trade partners afloat or create new ones.

The UN has helped more than 100 other countries implement or improve existing counterterrorism laws. Today, the organization maintains 16 UN peacekeeping operations with 117,000 troops, police, military observers, civilian personnel and volunteers from 125 countries. The importance of UN for arms control, disarmament and, especially, non-proliferation is indisputable. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency have greatly contributed into preventing a nuclear war. The Organization is the depositary of more than 560 multilateral treaties.

A half dozen core human rights agreements and the creation of a Human Rights High Commissioner to monitor the compliance have made life better for many people. The Organization has helped to provide education to millions of children around the world.

The UN may be imperfect and needs to be reformed but it remains a vital instrument of international governance in the interdependent world at a time when the global security is under threat, let it be rogue states, terrorists, contentious deceases or climate change. All these problems can be addressed only through engagement and cooperation, not isolation or unilateralism. Nobody can tackle them alone.

Shaking off the burden of international law and global commitments does not lead to the solution of the problems. Leaving the Organization, the US will be deprived of a vital institution to communicate with the world. It will lose a lot and gain nothing. Hopefully, will prevail to stem the dangerous trend. 

On February 16, Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, called out the HRC for «breathtaking double standards» and «outrageously biased resolutions» against Israel, during a press conference after her meeting with the UN Security Council. She lashed out at the council for failing to discuss the buildup of illegal Hezbollah weapons, provided by Iran; strategies for defeating the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group; or holding Syrian President Bashar Assad accountable for the alleged crimes against civilians.

According to Politico, US State Secretary Rex Tillerson is questioning the value of the US belonging to the Human Rights Council.

The US believes that the countries which violate human rights are members of the council. In 2012, the body was slammed for allowing a representative of the Palestinian Hamas group to speak.

The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 26, 2016

Indeed, the council has been many times criticized for being biased and incompetent. Russia has blasted the body for confrontational approaches. Speaking at the UN General Assembly session in November, 2016, Grigori Lukyantsev, Russian Foreign Ministry’s deputy director of Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights, accused the UNHRC of becoming a platform for lambasting certain countries and settling political scores. «We have to note that the Council’s agenda has become an instrument for promoting conjunctural interests of several countries and groups. Discussions more and more often turn to settling political scores, mentorship, defamation of states. Moreover, the ungrounded geographical imbalance in the matter of human rights situations in one or another country does not reflect real tendencies, but rather represents a result of political orders», he noted. The deputy director also noted that Russia decries «attempts to use the HRC for including different politically charged issues on the agenda for the UN General Assembly».

In October, 2016, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticized the re-election of Saudi Arabia to the UNHRC, saying that the election is, «the best indication that human rights is merely in direction of political interests». Human rights groups had called on countries to reject the candidacy of Saudi Arabia, which has been accused of indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Yemen. The kingdom was elected for its calls to protect women’s rights, which are widely believed to be violated by Riyadh.

No doubt the US is serious about pulling out from the council. The calls for leaving have been heard there since a long time ago. Actually, Republicans have always been prone to minimize the role of the UN. In 2003, many US officials and lawmakers were stunned by the fact that the UN Human Rights Commission elected the Libyan ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji its president yesterday, overriding a US objection that her country's «horrible» record disqualified it for the post. Many Americans hold the opinion that the withdrawal from the UNHRC will not hurt the United States in any way.

They may be right; the decision to withdraw will not have grave consequences. It’s not the membership in the council that matters but rather the US disparaging attitude towards the United Nations in general. The views of President Trump and his advisers – combined with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress – indicate that Washington is poised to change its policy towards the UN. In the 1980s, President Ronald Regan was antagonistic to the international body. The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation acted as the leading anti-UN lobby at that time. It campaigned for defunding the organization. George W. Bush Jr. openly derided the UN and renounced many multilateral treaties.

President Trump has made making derogatory comments about the United Nations. The UN has «such great potential,» but it has become «a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!» he tweeted in December, 2016. A couple of days later he tweeted again: «As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20^th».

The new US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, had argued for a review of US expenditure on the UN to ensure America «gets what it pays for» though she cautioned in her confirmation hearing against «slash and burn» cuts.

The administration is preparing to order sweeping cuts in funding to the UN and other international organizations, while potentially walking away from some treaties. A president’s draft executive order would reduce voluntary contributions to international bodies by 40% and complains of ‘burdensome’ commitment to UN. The draft order could reverse or roll back funding for priorities championed by former President Barack Obama, including international peacekeeping missions and US support for development work under the UN umbrella. A second order calls for a review and possible withdrawal from certain forms of multilateral treaties that do not involve «national security, extradition or international trade». Potential targets include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

According to the Washington Post, the proposed funding review is envisaged to take a year and be overseen by a panel including the departments of defence, state, justice, the office of the director of national security, the office of management and budget and the national security adviser. It is likely to attract only limited opposition in Congress. «The United States is in fact the United Nations’ largest supporter, providing nearly a quarter of its total revenues, and the American contribution continues to grow annually», the Guardian cites the text of the order on international funding cuts, titled Auditing and Reducing US Funding of International Organizations.

Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said «I think that heavy cuts to US funding to the UN are likely, and Trump will keep on kicking the institution to score cheap political points».

Alabama representative and senior Republican Mike Rogers drafted a bill to terminate the US membership in the UN. In early January, a bill known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 was introduced to US Congress. The bill aims to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It requires the president to terminate US membership in the UN and to close the America’s Mission to the United Nations. The legislation prohibits the authorization of funds for the US assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN, the authorization of funds for any US contribution to any UN military or peacekeeping operation, the expenditure of funds to support the participation of US armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation, US Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and diplomatic immunity for UN officers or employees.

Also in January, Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to defund the United Nations. Many Republicans see the Trump presidency as the best opportunity to pull out from the UN.

True, the organization is certainly overdue for serious internal changes but the world needs it as the only universal body able to take on the challenges to humanity and maintain global security, including the fight against terror. The UN is a communication platform bringing states together to talk instead of plunging into endless conflicts.

After the Cold War, the UN saw a radical expansion in its peacekeeping duties, taking on more missions in ten years than it had in the previous four decades. Between 1988 and 2000, the number of adopted Security Council resolutions more than doubled, and the peacekeeping budget increased more than tenfold. Today, the organization maintains 16 UN peacekeeping operations with 117,000 troops, police, military observers, civilian personnel and volunteers from 125 countries.

In the current UN budget, these operations cost $7.87bn a year. The US defense budget in FY 2016 was approximately $600bn. The Guardian emphasizes that «for a truly tiny cost, close to 1% of the American defense budget, America receives a huge dividend from the UN – peace in many remote parts of the world, making them safe for American trade, investment and tourism. If the US tried to do all this alone (which it would be unable to), it would cost first, American lives, and second, billions more in US tax dollars». The UN’s role in tackling the problem of refugees around the world is immense.

The UN isn’t perfect but it’s the best international body to address international problems. To reject the organization will rob the US of a vital institution to communicate with the world. To disregard the UN means to disregard international law. Hopefully, this is only a temporary trend and reason will prevail. By leaving, the US will shoot itself in the foot. 

It’s worth to have a closer look at the organizations that make up this coalition. The list of signatories is reported to include Human Rights Watch, CARE International and several Syrian non-governmental organizations (NGO).

Syrian NGOs with HQs located abroad? It’s well known that many of them are represented by one person who has no access to the real situation in Syria. For example, the most frequently cited one – The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) – is run by Rami Abdulrahman (pseudonym Osama Suleiman), a Syrian Sunni Muslim who owns a clothes shop. He left Syria in 2000 and lives in Coventry now. Can the news he spreads around be considered as reliable information received on the spot? Any person, who has left Syria, no matter what were the reasons, can be considered as a «Syrian NGO». No «Syrian NGO» was mentioned in the report published by The Independent, the media outlet that reported the news first, but it does not matter. Few of them, if any, can provide reliable information on what is taking place in Syria.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a well-known US-founded international NGO that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. It has always been hostile to Russia. It’s record includes praises sung to glorify Chechen terrorists.

The organization blasts each and every thing Russia does or says. HRW has been criticized for bias by the national governments and by its own founder and former chairman, Robert L. Bernstein. Contrary to what it claims, its income comes from government funded foundations and the people like George Soros, who donated $100 million in 2010. Along with Georg Soros’ Open Society Foundations, HRW is among least transparent organization in the United States.

Activists have charged the organization with having a «revolving door» relationship with the US government. According to Keane Bhatt, an activist residing in Washington, DC., «A revolving-door policy as pertains to Human Rights Watch is one in which high-level US foreign policy staff — those who have crafted and executed US foreign policy – are allowed into Human Rights Watch as staffers, advisory committee members, and as board members. These people can wield an enormous as influence on the priorities and advocacy of HRW».

For example, Tom Malinowski served as the senior director of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, then as HRW’s Washington director, and then assistant secretary of state for President Obama.

In 2014, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 academics, journalists, and human rights activists questioned the HRW activities in a letter.

«HRW's close ties to the US government call into question its independence,» the letter states. «It’s impartiality is seriously doubted. For instance, it turns a blind eye on the human rights violations committed by Saudi Arabia and other America allies», the document notes.

In contrast, CARE International is not so much politicized as HRW. It does much more fighting poverty around the world, so its voice has more weight. But its evidently biased stance on Syria is not a feather in the hat of the organization. It puts the blame for everything going wrong solely on Syria’s President Bashar Assad. The watchdog never mentions Western air strikes hitting wrong targets «by mistake» and things like that.

Russia won three-year seats on the Geneva-based UNHRC in 2013. No country is eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms. If elected, Russia will be represented in the 47-nation Council for three years, starting from 2017 till 2019.There is little the Council can do in pure practical terms. Losing a seat does not mean much for Russia. It does not affect its far more important activities in the UN Security Council and other UN agencies. Anyway, the letter signed by 80 humanitarian groups will not have any influence on the results of the vote.

The Independent article and other reports are nothing but an element of information war waged against Russia.

True, Syria is in dire straits today and the best way to address the problem is to launch an international joint effort, as Russia proposes, instead of putting the blame on Moscow for striking «good guys» or «moderate» opposition to President Bashar Assad. No «good terrorists» worth to be supported by supplies and information campaigns exist. Civilian suffering is an inevitable part of operations, as the ongoing fight in Mosul shows. But in the case of Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian government get all the blame with the NGOs acting as propaganda pawns. The human rights activists would be much more helpful providing real help to the Syrians who need it than by signing letters and petitions that have no whatsoever relation to reality.

1. A UN report orchestrated by Washington has accused Syria and Russia of war crimes in Aleppo. According to the report, «indiscriminate airstrikes across the eastern part of the city by Government forces and their allies [Russia] are responsible for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties. These violations constitute war crimes. And if knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians, they constitute crimes against humanity». 

The UN Human Rights Council has now voted to start an «independent» investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to indict Russia and Putin as war criminals and to «bring to justice those responsible for the alleged abuses». Moreover, «the situation should be urgently referred to the International Criminal Court. Every party to this conflict must know that they will be held accountable for the international crimes they commit – all, without selective protection or discrimination». Keep in mind that Washington provides the largest share of the UN’s budget, and the UN will overlook that it was Washington that sent ISIS to Aleppo.

Obviously, neither Washington nor the UN will be able to drag Putin into the International Criminal Court. The purpose of this orchestrated exercise is its propaganda value. Among Washington’s many concerns is that some Eastern European countries, alarmed by the conflict that Washington is leading them into with Russia, will threaten NATO with a non-participation statement. If Russia is branded a war criminal, it becomes even more difficult for countries that foolishly and thoughtlessly joined NATO to extricate themselves from the consequences.

2. Washington has succeeded in bringing to power in Poland the far right-wing Law and Justice Party. These agents of Washington have re-opened the matter of the death of Poland’s President Kaczynski in a plane crash, making wild claims that the crash was a terror attack by Russia aimed at depriving Poland of its political leadership. 

Despite massive and convincing evidence to the contrary, the Law and Justice Party’s claims will find traction thanks to the scary portrait of Russia painted by Washington’s demonization campaign. The intended result is to further blacken and isolate Russia and its government.

3. As the anointed spokesperson for the neoconservative warmongers, Hillary wants Washington to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. A no-fly zone would require Washington to attempt to prevent Syrian and Russian air strikes against ISIS positions. It seems clear enough that Syria and Russia would not accept any attempt to deny Syria the use of the country’s own airspace in the conflict against forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government, as happened to Gaddafi in Libya. Hillary’s no-fly zone would result in military conflict between Russia and the US.

To advance the no-fly zone proposal, the «use of chemical weapons» ruse has been resurrected. Fabricated reports are appearing that the Syrian air force is guilty of dropping chemical weapons on the Syrian population. On October 22, the Indian Express reported that on October 21 the UN-Led Joint Investigative Mechanism informed the UN Security Council that the chemical attack on Qmenas «was caused by a Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter dropping a device from a high altitude which hit the ground and released the toxic substance that affected the population».

The report concluded that three of the chemical attacks investigated were made by Syria and one by the Islamic State. The fact that the Russians resolved the chemical weapons issue in 2014, a year before the alleged attack on Qmenas, by taking possession of the weapons and removing them from Syria means that the report has little credibility. However, at no time during Washington’s 15-year-old attack on Muslim countries have facts played any role, and certainly facts have played no role in Washington’s demonization of Russia.

4. Diana Johnstone has concluded that Hillary intends regime change for Russia and will use the presidency for that purpose.

It is impossible to imagine a purpose more reckless and irresponsible. Many members of the Russian government have stated that Washington’s provocation and demonization of Russia have brought trust between the nuclear powers close to zero and that Russia will never again fight a war on her own territory. Sergey Karaganov told the German news magazine, Der Spiegel, that if Washington and NATO move from provocations to encroachments against Russia, a nuclear power, they will be punished.

Many foolish people believe that nuclear war cannot happen, because there can be no winner. However, the American war planners, who elevated US nuclear weapons from a retaliatory role to a pre-emptive first strike function, obviously do not agree that nuclear war cannot be won. If nuclear war is believed to be unwinnable, there is no point in a war doctrine that assigns the weapons the role of surprise attack.

The Russians are aware and disturbed that Washington has made the situation between the US and Russia more dangerous than during the Cold War. Vladimir Putin himself has stated that the West does not hear his warnings. In an effort to avoid war, Putin wrings everything possible out of diplomacy. He enters into agreements with Washington that he must know will not be kept.

So much has happened to teach him this lesson — the Washington instigated invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia while he was at the Beijing Olympics, Washington’s coup in Ukraine while he was at the Sochi Olympics, Washington’s abandonment of the Minsk Agreement, the advantage Washington took of the Syrian ceasefire agreements, the violation of Washington’s promise not to move NATO to Russia’s border, Washington’s sacking of the Anti-ABM Treaty, the orchestrated blame of Russia for MH-17, Hillary’s hacked emails, etc.

Washington clearly intends to use Russia’s military and diplomatic assistance to Syria to convict Russia in world public opinion of war crimes. It was Russia’s hesitancy in Syria that enabled Washington to recover from the defeat of its ISIS mercenaries and substitute control of the explanation for defeat on the ground. 

Russia’s air assault on ISIS in Syria caught Washington off guard and quickly rolled up the Washington-supported ISIS forces, completely reversing the tide of war. Had Russia finished the job, Syria would have been cleared of hostile forces before Washington could catch its breath. 

Instead, pressured by the Atlanticist Integrationist element in the Russian elite, the Russian government withdrew, announcing mission accomplished and relying on the Syrian Army to complete the job. This strategic error allowed Washington not merely to replenish the ISIS munitions that had been destroyed and to muster more mercenaries, but more importantly to come up with a plan for Russia’s and Assad’s undoing.

By the time that the Russian government realized that early withdrawal was a mistake and re-entered the conflict, Washington had decided that if Damascus could not be «liberated», Syria could be partitioned and pressure kept on Assad in that way. Yet the Russian government continued to postpone victory by cease fire agreements that Washington used to rearm ISIS and as propaganda weapons against Russia.

Whatever the outcome of the military conflict in Syria, Russia faces a war criminal conviction by the Western media, if not by the UN Human Rights Council, and a no-fly zone in Syria if Hillary becomes president of the US.

This is the huge cost that Putin paid for listening to the unrealistic, American-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists who are determined that Russia be accepted by the West even if it means being a semi-vassal. If there is nuclear war, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists will share the blame with the American neoconservatives. And all of us will pay the price for the disaster produced by these few, the neoconservatives demanding war and the Atlanticist Integrationists demanding appeasement of Washington.