Cardassians versus Israel at U.N.
on October 29, 2013
10 Comments
In the more recent iterations of the Star Trek television show, there were villains called Cardassians. They were even more ruthless than the Klingons.
They also had a remarkable justice system as is shown in the following dialogue:
Gul Dukat: In Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins; and it's always the same. Commander Sisko: In that case, why bother with a trial at all? Gul Dukat: Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil, every time. They find it comforting. Commander Sisko: Isn't there ever a chance you might try an innocent man by mistake? Gul Dukat: Cardassians don't make mistakes. Commander Sisko: I'll have to remember that.When reading Anne Bayefsky's latest account of the machinations of UN Human Rights Council, it's hard to think of a better analogy than the Cardassia's predetermined verdicts. Israel is scheduled to sit before the UNHRC and be subjected to its Universal Periodic Review (UPR), here's how it works, as Anne Bayefsky explains:
As the UPR theory goes, once every four years the Council spends a few hours talking about the human rights record of each UN member state. The process has a number of stages. The country under consideration sends representatives to make some speeches about its terrific human rights situation. Other states are each given no more than two minutes to comment and make recommendations for improvement. The state concerned voices its acceptance or rejection of those recommendations. NGOs – including phony NGOs sponsored by governments – are allotted a limited time to make comments. And then the recommendations – and the government’s rejection of any of them – are put into a report which is perfunctorily “adopted.” In practice, the UPR looks like this. A very large number of friends of each rights-abusing country line up to praise its human rights record and generate a long list of faux congratulatory recommendations which can be easily “accepted.” The favor is repaid when their pals’ turns come along. These states then announce that serious recommendations “do not enjoy their support.” The praise and the rejections, all get included in a report that contains no findings and no conclusions, and there are no decisions to take action.
