UN 'regrets' Ahmadinejad speech

UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "misused" an anti-racism conference at which he called Israel a racist state.

The Iranian president's speech sparked wide condemnation and a walkout by EU delegates. Iran criticised Mr Ban's comments as "one-sided".

The UN said Mr Ahmadinejad had dropped language from his speech describing the Holocaust as "ambiguous and dubious".

Meanwhile, conference delegates adopted a resolution against racism.

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay said the declaration, which also covered issues such as xenophobia and intolerance, was an answer to Mr Ahmadinejad's tirade.

She said the document included a line stating that "the Holocaust must never be forgotten," and that Iran, as a participating state, had signed up to it.

But the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the controversy surrounding the Iranian president's comments turned what should have been a shining example of the UN at its best into a bitter and divisive farce.

'Very regretful'

The original text of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech said that after World War II, Western nations had "resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of Holocaust".

But UN officials said the Iranian president had dropped the terms "ambiguous and dubious", speaking instead of "exploiting the Holocaust".

Related Content

1. Ahmadinejad speech: full text
2. Iran: Ahmadinejad welcomed home
3. US boycotts UN racism conference

Nevertheless, during a trip to Malta on Tuesday, Mr Ban said it was "very regretful that the conference was misused by the Iranian president for political purposes".

"Before the speech I had a long bilateral meeting with President Ahmadinejad and urged him to give a balanced and constructive contribution to the conference because he was the only head of state present," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

Mr Ahmadinejad spoke on Monday at the start of the five-day UN conference in Geneva.

Jewish migrants, he said, had been sent from Europe and the US after World War II "in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine".

Applause

He continued: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

His comments prompted a walkout by delegates from at least 30 countries, and a raft of condemnation from Western officials.

Diplomats who remained, however, applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.

Some countries, including the US and Israel, had boycotted the conference because the Iranian president was appearing.

On Tuesday US President Barack Obama said that the kind of rhetoric Mr Ahmadinejad had used was "harmful" to Iran's relations with the US and its position in the world.

But he also said the US would "continue to pursue the possibility of improved relations and a resolution to some of the critical issues in which there have been differences - particularly around the nuclear issue".

Earlier, Mr Ban had expressed dismay at both the boycotts and Mr Ahmadinejad's speech.

He said the speech had been used "to accuse, divide and even incite".

Iranian state TV quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying that Mr Ban's comments "displayed a one-sided and unreasonable approach".

Mr Ahmadinejad returned home on Tuesday to what was officially described as a "sensational" welcome.continues here

1. Post a comment on AAWR


2. Subscribe to AAWR


3. link to AAWR


4. Bookmark AAWR


5. View Incidence Map

Analyst condemns UN 'double standard' on human rights

AT the United Nations, human rights have become a weapon, "not in the hands of the abused, but the abusers", according to visiting New York-based activist Professor Anne Bayefsky.

Professor Bayefsky delivered this year's B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) Gandel Oration to more than 400 at Mount Scopus College's Besen Centre in Burwood on Sunday.

Professor Bayefsky, who was a delegate at the UN's 2001 racism conference in Durban, South Africa, told The AJN last month that Australia should join Canada, the US and Israel in boycotting next year's Durban review conference in Geneva because there is no chance of reversing anti-Israel resolutions by taking part in the event.

The international legal scholar and human rights monitor runs eyeontheun.com, a website that analyses abuse of the UN's human rights system.

In her Melbourne address, Professor Bayefsky said countries with abysmal records run the UN's human rights agenda and consistently condemn Israel in its struggle for survival, equating Zionism with Nazism and condemning western democracies, while ignoring abuses in Communist countries and much of the Islamic world.

At the same time, the UN has taken "a few baby steps" in facing up to Iran's nuclear program and the threat it poses to Israel and other countries, she said. 

Professor Bayefsky said the UN's voting record on Israel "is a betrayal of the victims of the Holocaust" and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fostered by figures such as Australia's Herbert Evatt.

"What has emerged instead, powered by a global $US20 billion a year megaphone, is the collective depravity of an immoral majority," she said.

The UN Human Rights Commission, which was abolished in 2006, passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country "and adopted nothing ever on serial abusers such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe". continues here


It must be difficult for a nation barely sixty years old, a nation stolen from others, to assert that it is legitimate, that it has the right to exist, it must be difficult for a nation, to condemn another for endeavouring to build a nuclear arsenal, when they themselves stole the self same technology. It must be hard to defend a country that imposes rigid controls upon which citizens live where, upon immigration whilst its supporters worldwide advocate the exact opposite for western nations, it must be hard to be a hypocrite. 14

The Lessons Kosovo Teaches

As readers of AAWR will know, the European Union has endorsed and plans to act in support of the illegal and completely immoral Kosovan 'independence' action. With senior Western officials claiming that the butchering of the nation of Serbia is worth clashing with Russia over, the UN and NATO sending reinforcements to the new 'border', and many EU member states joining the US in 'recognising' Kosovo as a nation state, it would seem that the whole Western world stands unified in support of the legal atrocity. Or, rather, much of its government. The populace of the West, those within it who know the score on Kosovo, Serbia, and the Albanian demographic invasion, are not happy with this, and I hope many readers will join AAWR in cheering on the Serbians who refuse to tolerate and actively demonstrate against this evil.

While the saga unfolds, it is worth taking a moment to look at the reasons behind the actions of Western governments in all of this. The strangely un-named Western official mentioned above is reported by the Telegraph as saying that 'Europe has stood up and been counted' in backing Kosovan 'independence, and as far as that goes he's absolutely right. When diplomats like that talk about 'Europe', the last thing on their minds is the real Europe of historical and cultural and ethnic history. What they mean is the EU (sometimes jokingly and more accurately described as the EUSSR) and that has certainly been counted, it has been measured and found wanting time and again. Yet still it goes on, an empty, meaningless and soul-less entity with no real tangible goal other than to dissolve nationalities, peoples, histories, and everything that makes European identities real. What we are seeing in the actions of the EU (and the US, sadly) is nothing else than a continuation of an ongoing international effort to abolish nationhood, race, and natural identity itself.

A commenter at View From the Right illustrates this principle very well by pulling out an excerpt of a congratulatory letter sent by US president George W Bush to the 'president' of 'Kosovo' :

"In your request to establish diplomatic relations with the United States, you expressed Kosovo's desire to attain the highest standards of democracy and freedom," Bush wrote. "I fully welcome this sentiment. In particular, I support your embrace of multi-ethnicity as a principle of good governance and your commitment to developing accountable institutions in which all citizens are equal under the law." [emphasis added by commenter]"

Kosovan demographics are about 95% Albanian, with a surviving 5% Serbian. The 'multi' in this equation is horribly one-sided. British readers may remember the remarks made by Greg Dyke on becoming director of the BBC that the BBC was 'hideously white'. It appears that Mr Bush has been taking notes from Mr Dyke and is now rejoicing that Kosovo is no longer 'hideously Serb'. The base line in all 'diversity' and 'multi-' talk, whether the talk is of multiculturalism or multiethnicism, is always that the greater the dilution of the indigenous population, the closer to the extermination of the homeland and the people thereof, the better. The Serbs, having had to face the sharp end of this truth unmasked, are simply faster to realise this than many of us in the anaesthetised West, with the result that as well as protesting and planning rallies against this genocidal plan, some Serbs are taking matters literally into their own hands.


The Brussels Journal explains the matter well when it says:

"[After the Kosovo civil war of the 1990s, t]he Western leaders aimed for the establishment of a multicultural (Christian and Muslim), multi-ethnic (Albanian and Serb) artificial state of Kosovo – a “Kosovar nation” not based on a genuine nation, but on the idealist, postmodern utopias of Western liberalism. They wanted to create another Belgium, a state without national loyalty, without an identity, without a sense of nationhood. The postmodernists reckon that if people have no identity they will stop fighting each other, because there is no flag worth dying for. In order to achieve this chimera, the American and EU armies allied themselves in the Kosovo civil war with the Kosovo Liberation Army, an Albanian Muslim militia trained by al-Qa’eda.

It is no wonder that Belgium, this multinational artificial bogus state that serves as the EU’s model in its attempts to transform the whole of Europe into a multicultural, multinational superstate, was one of the very first to recognize the independence of Kosovo. So did the governing elites of France and Germany, the cheerleaders of the EU project, and the liberal elites that rule Britain and America and that do not believe in national identities either."

The Brussels Journal mistakes Mr Bush's comments for an inability to understand that there is no Kosovan nation. I think the inability lies with the Brussels Journal, in an inability to accept that Mr Bush knows damn well there is no such thing as a Kosovar nation (one doesn't become the absolute leader of the most powerful nation on earth by being a complete dunce), but he does not care. Why should he? The governments of the world are moving away from all the old tried and true models of governance and care for the populace towards a New World Order model where the people are answerable to the government (not the government to the people) and the State defines the Nation rather than the Nation defining the State. The old models arose in a bottom-upwards way from a racial and ethnic group organising itself for its benefit and health, looking for and trying methods to improve its lot in a way that benefitted its members, but the new models are imposed arbitrarily in a top-down way that benefits nobody but the social engineers at the top. The controlling interests, the people pulling the strings, are the ones behind this and benefitting from it, and this plan of genocidal destruction of national and ethnic integrity is shown at its most explicit and educational in today's Kosovan situation. More recent events, especially condemnation from international forces such as the UN and EU of Serbs' protests in Belgrade and Serbs' attacks on embassies of the powers who would so butcher their nation, only serve to highlight this truth.

In the absence of a way to make a concrete difference to help our Serbian friends, we in the West and the rest of the world have the responsibility to at least learn from their misfortunes. Western nations, Christian nations, White nations, these are all on the international social engineer hitlist, and are all under assault to different degrees and in different ways. It is simply the case that in the Serbian Kosovo situation this is easiest to see. What the West, and all white Christian nations must learn from Serbia's troubles is that our culture, our people, our homelands and our futures are all under severe threat, and that if the rot and infection of this genocide are resisted, the 'proper authorities' will come down on the resistance hard and fast. We must make arrangements for the resistance in our own places, in whatever ways and levels we can. Those are the lessons we outside Serbia must learn from Kosovo. For the Serbs themselves, AAWR can only offer the immortal words of British seaside legend Mr Punch:

"That's the way to do it!"