Tuesday, June 30, 2009

UN, Why The Silence?

From the United Nations nothing is heard in condemnation of the Islamic Republic of Iran's brutality toward its protesting public that believes, on the clear evidence, that the recent presidential election constituted a fraud on the populace. Let alone even the gentlest of chiding that the Republic of Iran that celebrates its gentle theocracy as one blessed and steered by God Almighty would indulge in such underhanded and gratuitously insulting manoeuvres, assuring Iranians that Ayatollah Khamenei speaks for Allah and through Him the Guardian Council has validated the vote outcome.

Amnesty International contends that next to China Iran has executed more people than any other country, with 346 people having met their death by official diktat last year alone. Now that Iranians have dared challenge the power of their Supreme Leader and his chosen candidate to continue the presidency, and now that ominous public warnings have been pronounced about restoring law and order against "hooligans" and "terrorists" intent on upsetting the Islamic Republic of Iran, the death penalty is required.

Many countries of the world have stated their disgust, repudiating any residual support they may have had for Iran. Atrocities committed by the administration of countries against their own people under international law, and as recognized by the United Nations constitute crimes against humanity. Under the "responsibility to protect" clause of the United Nations it is abundantly clear that action should and must be taken to avert a larger tragedy in that fanatically Islamist country.

Nothing is heard from Ban Ki-Moon, deploring the situation there, although President Barack Obama has tentatively voiced his careful displeasure.

How then to explain that the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, Russia and sadly Canada too, claim to support the ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, when the country's Supreme Court and its parliamentary Council, along with most of the general population of the country consider him to have acted criminally and against the best interests of the country in attempting to tamper with the country's constitution to ensure he can emulate his great good friend, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?

No one wants to criticize left-wing Latin America, and in concert swiftly come to the defence of the new dictators of the left. Is there any comparison between the activities of the two countries? Iran, a brutal dictatorship whose human rights abuses are famously feared and criticized, and which defies international condemnation in searching for nuclear weaponization, and which, unopposed, threatens the security and well-being of other countries, one of which it insists it will destroy.

And Honduras, a democratic country of peaceful and modest means, which has duly elected a replacement for its current president who has now outlived his four-year mandate, and who insists on his right, against the wishes of the people, the governing council, and the country's Supreme Court which deems it illegal, to alter the constitution. In the interests of remaining on as president, and to expand his presidential powers. The representatives of the world communities are in an instant lather over this internal governing matter.

And Iran is left free to challenge its own people, threatening to end the lives of the leaders of the opposing parties and the protest leaders to ensure the longevity of the ruling Ayatollahs. Who may then continue their agenda of threatening world peace and further subjecting their people to intolerant fanatacism. Fascism rearing its ugly head on the left is acclaimed, on the right deplored.

Labels: ,

posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Follow @rheytah Tweet