Who is the supreme human rights judge in Europe?
Up to 18 December 2014, it was taught or hoped to be the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR). Now, having the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected the draft accession agreement of the European Union to European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the issue remains unsolved. The final link in the human rights protection in Europe is still missing. The strength of the negative opinion and the crucial points of non-compliance of the accession agreement with the EU law, as presented by the ECJ, leave a lacuna in the European system of protection of human rights.
The system which lives for more then 6 decades in Europe, and which is often considered to be one of the most effective regional mechanisms of human rights protection, despite of several necessary improvements to deal with its backlog.
The system which may make the respondent state to redress the human rights violations, provide the affected victims with just satisfaction, or even undertake some general measures such as to amend or adopt laws, change inappropriate practices, etc.
The only loophole in the protection of human rights in Europe, however, remains a loophole. The gap was not closed.
The European Union has indeed recognized the European Convention as an instrument by which general principles it shall be led in accordance with constitutional traditions of Member States (Article 6 para 3 of TEU/TFEU). But there comes a question of the extent of influence of the Convention. To respect human rights as a principle, or to be bound by the European Convention and ready to take consequences of potential human rights violations?
The EU was supposed to submit itself to the Court which is not an EU court but the court belonging to a regional international organization consisting of 47 states, the Council of Europe, including at the same time all member states of the EU.
EU provided in the Lisbon treaty its will to accede to ECHR. Although this would come as a precedent, as members to the Convention are only sovereign states, it was eagerly awaited as another signal that EU does carry state elements. The accession would have covered the only loophole in Europe which is not covered directly by the ECHR, and which are the institutions of the EU. Every citizen of the EU could complain to the ECtHR, not only against its national state, but also against a EU body. However, with the ECJ decision as such, the EU citizens seem to be deprived of this control of EU bodies. They can complain to the European Ombudsman, however the ombudsman nature of controlling affairs cannot be compared to judicial control of human rights violations, and is more relied upon the power of authority of ombudsman without an executive power as to its recommendations.
It appears that the ECJ opinion brings out not only the question of the human rights protection instrument applicable in the EU, but one more important question as well. What is the nature of the EU? Is it a sui generis state, a quasistate or a regional international or supranational organization?
Elements that a state should have in classical theories encompass the citizens, government and the territory.
Citizens of the EU are recognized by their EU affiliation and hold the EU citizenship. However, the citizenship is not exercised by the EU itself. It has only accessory nature to national citizenship. The member states are the ones that decide upon the terms of acquiring and loosing one’s citizenship. Naturalization rules differ from state to state, in duration of residence, duration of marriage/partnership, and even in (non)necessity of actual residence in the state granting citizenship. Therefore, there are no unified rules at the EU level governing the acquiring or loosing a EU citizenship.
EU territory is to a large extent unified by the single market, freedom of movement of persons, goods, capital and services, which might be scrutinized only for public good purposes, i.e. protection of public morals, health, prevention of crime etc.
Government in abstract sense, is a bit more complex. Once upon a time, it entailed only state governing power directed to inward, and was considered to be absolute, sovereign, not touchable by any more supreme power. With the atrocities of two world wars the government split to the inner, controllable by the state and outer, states willingly giving to a third objective authority, which led to further development of principles of monism and dualism in international law. Younger democracies opt for dualism, asking for an international recognition of their newly acquired values, while older more traditional democracies stick to monism preserving their inner values and being less susceptible to outer voices. Thus came the Council of Europe. For the cause of safeguarding of values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, 47 states are now bound to give the part of their sovereign government to CoE bodies, guaranteeing that they will live by these principles. Their will was expressed by their ratification of the ECHR, which is still, despite of occasionally slow procedure by the Convention bodies, considered to be most effective human rights instrument. Differing from other instruments protecting human rights, it provided for direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, acting upon a complaint against a respondent state. So it brought not only material but procedural guarantees as well. On the other hand the EU Charter, provides for material provisions mainly taken from the ECHR.
EU seems not ready to submit itself to an outer, third body which could control its acts or procedures in the human rights aspect and eventually request certain actions to be done.
EU thus twice failed at the statehood exam. First, when its constitution was not upheld and now when the ECJ did not uphold its accession to ECHR.
Preparatory work for the accession
The grounds for the accession is Lisbon treaty, in force since 1 December 2009, which in Article 6 para 2 of TEU and TFEU, stipulates that EU shall accede to ECHR provided that EU competences are not affected by the accession. Having in mind that only sovereign states might be member states to the Convention, the first formal link between the CoE and the EU was made by the adoption of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which provided in its Article 17 that: ‘The European Union may accede to this Convention’. The said Protocol entered into force on 1 June 2010.
A specially assigned Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), on the side of Council of Europe, and European Commission, on the side of European Union, started their task to prepare the legal instrument of the accession. In mid June 2010, CDDH appointed an informal group of 14 members chosen on the basis of their expertise (seven from EU member States and seven from non-EU member states), and it held eight working meetings with the European Commission and subsequently the ad hoc group (47+1) held another five negotiation meetings with the European Commission. As a result of joint efforts by both the CoE and the EU, a package of text including the draft accession agreement was adopted on 10 June 2013.
Accordingly, the accession agreement did not come at once, nor was it imposed by the Council of Europe. It came as a result of long negotiation process that took more then three years.
That is why the opinion by the ECJ was a surprise to many scholars and practitioners. Could it be that negotiations were not thorough enough? Or that the ECJ was too strong in defending its position? It appears that the ECJ took the role not only of adjudicator but of a (de)creator of political approach towards ECHR undermining the very essence of the whole idea of accession to ECHR. It did not take the negative opinion as to formal grounds but it referred to crucial elements of the Convention system and its procedural safeguards towards the EU. It almost totally detached from the approach agreed upon 7 years earlier in Lisbon.
Essence of the opinion of the ECJ
EU Charter v. the ECHR and ECJ v. the ECtHR
At the outset of its reasoning the ECJ points out that it has only been possible for State entities to be parties to the Convention, and that the EU has created a new kind of legal order with its peculiar nature (para 155, 158 of the Opinion 2/13) which resulted from the Member states limiting their sovereign rights for the benefit of EU (157). It stresses out that the Treaties retain primacy over the laws of the Member States, and that at the heart of that system is the Charter and the fundamental rights it protects with the ECJ giving the judicial protection of individual’s rights. Thus at the very beginning of its reasoning the ECJ wanted to put itself and the EU human rights instrument, the Charter, at the strong first position regarding the issue of human rights protection in EU.
Concern about external control
The ECJ was concerned about its future role in case the EU acceded to ECHR. It contended that the interpretation of the ECHR by the ECtHR would be binding on the EU and that the interpretation by the Court of Justice of a rights recognized by the ECHR would not be binding, vice versa, on the ECtHR. The ECJ has thus clearly refused to be controlled by the ECtHR and to have a subordinated position in the Strasbourg system of human rights protection, which is the exact mode of functioning of Strasbourg system.
Concern about the Convention minimal standards
The crucial point of the ECHR is that it gives only the minimum standards below which the states cannot go. It however does not prevent the states to provide more rights then prescribed by the Convention. The ECJ however fears that the states giving higher standards of human rights protection could jeopardize the Charter having primacy in the EU law. If we have in mind that the Charter mainly incorporated ECHR rights, (and added some more, for example the right to work), can we imagine how could better protection of human rights jeopardize Charter?
Principle of mutual trust-Interstate applications
Interstate applications under the Convention according to which any state may initiate proceedings against any other member state to the Convention, are aimed to preserving the peace and giving every state the right to be a watchdog over possible massive violations of human rights. During the whole life time of the Convention the ECtHR issued only 5 judgments upon interstate applications, in cases of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Cyprus v. Turkey (2), Denmark v. Turkey and Georgia v. Russian Federation. The ECJ however stressed out that ‘checking’ by one Member state of another Member state would upset the underlying balance of the EU and undermine the autonomy of EU law. (194) Moreover, it said that if the EU states would be able to submit the application to the ECtHR it would undermine the very nature of EU law which requires that relations between the Member states be governed by the EU law to the exclusion. (212) By such a reasoning the ECJ very avariciously preserves its legal system from any outer influence or control.
Advisory opinions by ECtHR v. preliminary rulings by ECJ
Under Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR the Member states could ask the advisory opinion by the ECtHR about the interpretation or application of the European Convention. However, the ECJ fears that the state could circumvent the procedure for preliminary ruling by ECJ by which it interprets EU law?!
Interference into division of powers?
The ECJ contends that ECtHR might be required to assess the rules of EU law governing the division of powers between the EU and its Member states or the criteria for their acts or omissions, and thus interfere into division of powers (224, 225). Could the ECJ be considered overcautious?
Subsidiarity of ECHR system
The very important feature of the ECHR protection system is that it has a subsidiary nature, i.e. it gives first the chance to national system to address the potential human rights violation and only if it fails, there comes the Convention system. That also goes in line with the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement prior to addressing to the ECtHR. Logically, in case of EU accession to ECHR, the domestic remedy to be exhausted, in case it is effective, would involve the ECJ. However the ECJ contends that if such a possibility would be permitted then the ECtHR would interpret the case-law of the Court of Justice (239). Well it is true, but only when there is a human rights violation under the European Convention, at stake and in accordance with its well established case-law. However the ECJ remains of the opinion that if it (ECJ) were not allowed to provide the definitive interpretation of secondary law, and if ECtHR would provide for its interpretation, it would breach the exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU Law of the ECJ.
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
The ECJ finds problematic any possibility of interfering into the acts of EU under CFSP. But the European Convention does recognize the right of states (EU) to limit certain rights and freedoms (for example Articles 8-12 of the Convention) for the purposes of safeguarding public peace, security, morals, etc. It also provides for the right of depositing reservations regarding certain provisions. Absolute rights, off course, are excluded from this option, such as the right not to be tortured.
It seems from the above considerations that the EU is an international regional organization not yet ready to submit its system to external control. EU remains traditional, not allowing for external control, fearing from loosing the consistency of its well established system. And as dr. Walter Schwimmer rightfully remarked in his recent ‘Human Rights violations inside EU’ ‘if one believes that political persecution, police brutality, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, illegal detention, unfair trial could not happen on EU territory one should look to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and to the reports of Council of Europe’s Commission for the Prevention of Torture’.
So, how shall the negative ECJ opinion affect the human rights gap that remained in relation of ECHR towards the EU? Well, the future is ours to see.
Undemocratic United Nations and Global Peace
War is not the solution to any problem rather war is a problem itself. Many countries believe in diplomacy and peaceful means of problem-solving and conflict resolution. But, unfortunately, many nations still seek solutions of problems and continuity of politics in wars.
If we look at any newspaper, we find too many armed conflicts going on around the globe. To name a few would include a catastrophic war between Russian Federation and Ukraine which has caused tens of thousands of casualties, with millions displaced. Decades-long civil wars and subsequent US-led NATO intervention and withdrawal has brought Afghanistan to the brink of famine and hunger. The whole Middle Eastern region is unstable and striving with civil wars for long. The Arab -Israel conflict and Kashmir Dispute have been there for more than seven decades.
Above-mentioned and many others examples of armed conflicts prove that there is no durable peace in the world. Here one thing that needs to be noted is that conflict is always inevitable among individuals, societies and nations, because the interests of individuals, societies and nations do not always converge. When there is divergence of interests, conflict arises.
What is needed to be done is the resolution of these conflicts. There are two ways to resolve conflicts: one is violent way (use of force) and the other is peaceful way (diplomacy and negotiations). More than seven decades ago, after World War 2, nations realized that war is not solution to any problem and they established United Nations Organization (UNO). Primary objective of UN was and is the maintenance of peace and security in the world.
But, if we look at history, it seems the UN has failed to achieve international peace and security. UN may have had role in preventing the outbreak of another world war, but it could not stop a series of conflicts from Korea, Vietnam to Afghanistan (during Cold War), and from Africa, Middle East to ongoing Russian-Ukraine conflict.
This is a question mark on the credibility of UN, that why the UN despite being guardian of international peace and security cannot stop wars.
UN has six principal organs and many Specialized Agencies and Funds for different tasks. Among them Security Council is the most powerful Organ and is mandated with enforcing international peace and security. UNSC uses two tools to enforce its decisions, one is applications of sanctions and the other is use of force (intervention).
However the concentration of power in the hands of five permanent states of Security Council, namely the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia have been problematic. These five countries use veto power whenever they perceive any resolution to be against their national interest or against the interests of their allies. Throughout the Cold War, US and USSR had paralyzed UN by vetoing resolutions. Same happened with any other conflict including when US drafted a resolution to stop the war in Ukraine.
So, it is crystal clear that if UN (specifically Security Council) is not reformed, UN can not achieve its primary goal i.e. maintenance of peace and security. UN members and experts have talked about reform in Security Council. Experts have also given suggestions and proposals to make UN more democratic and representative. One of those proposals is abandoning veto and doubling the size of SC members. This can make UN more democratic and representative to some extent. But this is not an easy job. Firstly, because P5 are reluctant to abandon this privileged position (veto power). Secondly, countries hoping for permanent membership are opposed by other countries. For example, many European countries object Germany’s membership. Pakistan objects to India’s membership.
Experts believe the solutions could be the democratization of UN system (particularly UNSC). This is done by involving General Assembly in the decision making regarding international peace and security. General Assembly is a symbol of democracy, representing almost all the states on the globe. Simple or two-third majority must be mandatory to make any decision regarding international peace and security. This could stop any powerful state to use UN as a tool for its own vested national interest , and the decision of majority will prevail. All the states, big and small, powerful and weak will have equal say in the UN. Otherwise the possibility of wars, violence, genocide and injustice will further increase.
United States thinks it’s ‘the exception to the rules of war’
The architects of those Nuremberg trials—representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France fully expected that the new United Nations would establish a permanent court where war criminals who couldn’t be tried in their home countries might be brought to justice. In the end, it took more than half a century to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC). Only in 1998 did 60 nations adopt the ICC’s founding document, the Rome Statute. Today, 123 countries have signed.
Guess what superpower has never signed the ICC? Here are a few hints? – writes Rebecca Gordon in an article at “The Nation”:
Its 2021 military budget dwarfed that of the next nine countries combined and was 1.5 times the size of what the world’s other 144 countries with such budgets spent on defense that year.
Its president has just signed a $1.7 trillion spending bill for 2023, more than half of which is devoted to “defense” (and that, in turn, is only part of that country’s full national security budget).
It operates roughly 750 publicly acknowledged military bases in at least 80 countries.
In 2003, it began an aggressive, unprovoked (and disastrous) war by invading a country 6,900 miles away.
Yes! The United States is that Great Exception to the rules of war.
While, in 2000, during the waning days of his presidency, Bill Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, the Senate never ratified it. Then, in 2002, as the Bush administration was ramping up its Global War on Terror, including its disastrous occupation of Afghanistan and an illegal CIA global torture program, the United States simply withdrew its signature entirely. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (photo) then explained why this way:
“The ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty. When the ICC treaty enters into force, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”
The assumption built into Rumsfeld’s explanation was that there was something special — even exceptional — about US citizens. Unlike the rest of the world, we have “Constitutional rights,” which apparently include the right to commit war crimes with impunity.
Even if a citizen is convicted of such a crime in a US court, he or she has a good chance of receiving a presidential pardon. And were such a person to turn out to be one of the “current and future officials” Rumsfeld mentioned, his or her chance of being hauled into court would be about the same as mine of someday being appointed secretary of defense.
The United States is not a member of the ICC, but, as it happens, Afghanistan is. In 2018, the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, formally requested that a case be opened for war crimes committed in that country. ‘The New York Times’ reported that Bensouda’s “inquiry would mostly focus on large-scale crimes against civilians attributed to the Taliban and Afghan government forces.” However, it would also examine “alleged C.I.A. and American military abuse in detention centers in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, and at sites in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, putting the court directly at odds with the United States.”
Bensouda planned an evidence-gathering trip to the United States, but in April 2019, the Trump administration revoked her visa, preventing her from interviewing any witnesses here. It then followed up with financial sanctions on Bensouda and another ICC prosecutor, Phakiso Mochochoko.
So where do those potential Afghan cases stand today? A new prosecutor, Karim Khan, took over as 2021 ended. He announced that the investigation would indeed go forward, but that acts of the United States and allies like the United Kingdom would not be examined. He would instead focus on actions of the Taliban and the Afghan offshoot of the Islamic State.
When it comes to potential war crimes, the United States remains the Great Exception. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were just a little less exceptional?
If, for instance, in this new year, we were to transfer some of those hundreds of billions of dollars Congress and the Biden administration have just committed to enriching corporate weapons makers, while propping up an ultimately unsustainable military apparatus, to the actual needs of Americans?
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if just a little of that money were put into a new child tax credit? – asks Rebecca Gordon.
Selective Standards: Fight Against Oppression or Just a Geopolitical Showdown for Global Supremacy?
The karma of destiny is perhaps the most patent representation of natural balance one could witness in a lifetime. The global divide between democracy and autocracy has been a mainstay of western diplomacy since the days of the Cold War. ‘Rule-based International Order’ has been the de facto foreign policy of subsequent western administrations – the United States, in particular. One would assume that the virtue of such an altruistic agenda would extend universally regardless of caste, creed, and ethnicity. But unfortunately, while nature could prove occasionally unfair, each successive American regime sets new records of cant and hypocrisy, as if trying to remind us of its duplicitous existence and deviant machinations.
The war in Ukraine was the grotesque highlight of the year 2022. But what notably garnered considerable spotlight was the western unity against Russian maneuvers. Placing crippling sanctions on the Kremlin – done. Cutting energy imports from Russia – mission accomplished. Military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine – $65 billion have already been appropriated to Kyiv, while an additional $47 billion got approved in a $1.7 trillion government funding bill signed by President Biden. What else? Oh, yes! Sanctions on Iran for supplying military drones to Russia, allegedly used in surveillance and targeted attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Russia got ejected from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), ridiculed in the UN General Assembly (UNGA), and suspended from the Group of Eight (G8) in 2014 for annexing Crimea. All in the name of, and I quote the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “defense of the UN Charter and in resolute opposition to Russia’s devastating war of aggression against Ukraine and its people.” Well, is the defense of the UN Charter absolute or subject to the selective judgment of the United States? Is all aggression against any innocent civilians culpable, or just Russian predation against innocent denizens of Ukraine? The answer was pretty evident on (ironically) the last day of the year that would remain earmarked in history as the year of the notorious Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The UNGA voted on a resolution calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to opine on the legal consequences of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Today, Israel colonizes swathes of Palestinian land beyond the borders established under the 1947 UN Partition Plan (contentious in itself to begin with). Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, this illegal occupation also includes Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. The resolution passed 87 to 26 with 53 abstentions. Unsurprisingly, the typical states opposing the resolution were the United States and Britain – the flag-bearers of justice in the Russian war in Ukraine. The same standard-bearers of international law that applauded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for dragging Russia to the ICJ before Russian forces even fully penetrated the Ukrainian borders. It is another rueful example of a shameless display of hypocrisy on the geopolitical canvas. And it would’ve been tragicomical had it not been par for the course – a historical cliche!
Last month, two US lawmakers: namely House Reps. Steve Cohen and Joe Wilson, introduced a bipartisan congressional resolution calling on President Biden to boot Russia from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for its “flagrant violations” of the UN Charter, including its illegal naturalization of four Ukrainian oblasts and committing atrocities against civilians in Ukraine. While the expulsion proceedings of a permanent member of the UNSC are both obscure and (frankly) unrealistic without Russian consent, this scenario is spectacularly ironic.
In November 1967, the members of the UNSC voted unanimously for Resolution 242: calling out Israel to withdraw from the annexed territories seized in the Six-Day War. Yet 55 years later, Israel not only continues to violate the resolution, it also proceeds to expand settlements on expropriated Palestinian land with impunity. In the last five decades, the Israeli regime has demolished over 28,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied territory; spawned more than 200 settlements and outposts. And between 600,000 and 750,000 Jewish settlers have been transferred to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The violence against Palestinians has never ceased.
According to the data from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), a total of 424 children have been killed in Ukraine by Russian barbarity. Apartment blocks razed mercilessly; the electricity grid battered to the brink of collapse. The United States has termed it a ’systemic’ assault on humanity, and President Biden even called it a “genocide.” The same department (OHCHR) reported in May 2021 that the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip killed 242 Palestinian children. Was Israel punished for its war crimes? Far from it. President Biden recently congratulated the incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the architect of the 11-day war in 2021, on forming the government – terming him as his “friend for decades” while conspicuously ignoring concerns regarding the inclusion of far-right racist politicians in the new cabinet.
The US officials have always maintained a programmed PR narrative of “Israel’s right to defend itself.” From what, children? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Israeli aggression in Gaza displaced more than 74,000 Palestinians, including 7,000 children without a roof, scant food supplies, and virtually no access to medical assistance. The WHO also reported the decimation of 30 health facilities in Gaza due to Israeli airstrikes. Yet, annualized military aid to the tune of $3.8 billion continues to flow to Israel from the United States. What more to explain other than the absolute mockery of international law; the farce of diplomacy of human rights and equitable justice at the behest of the apparently puritanical United States of America.
History is riddled with numerous examples of American duplicity. The American acquiescence to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which eventually galvanized the Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah. The United States vetoed the UNSC resolution – one of its 53 vetoes time and again used to shield Israel from global denunciation – calling for Israel’s immediate withdrawal from southern Lebanon. An estimated 49,600 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians died during the occupation. And then there are glaring examples of American interventions. Its outright support to the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union and the subsequent provenance of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. How can one forget the devastating invasion of Iraq on the utterly bogus canard of Saddam Hussein wielding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Between 2003 and 2006, the US-led assault resulted in over 655,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, primarily due to the indiscriminate aerial bombardment by the US forces on Iraqi towns and cities. And the civil vacuum engendered in wake of the Iraq War served as a breeding ground for radical offshoots of Al-Qaeda – later accreting under the banner of the Islamic State (IS). How can a country such as America still enjoy a moral high ground when its historical scroll stands emblazoned with unilateral aggression, illegal intervention, and unabashed prevention of justice against its genocidal allies?
The war in Ukraine is a blood-strewn conflict but a rendition of complex realpolitik import and balance of regional power dynamics. Opposing Russian cruelty should not implicitly spell out support for American rhetoric. One could still stand with Ukrainians while denouncing its backers in the name of universal covenants of justice. All humans are entitled to the right to life, security, freedom, and dignity. These fundamental rights should not waver based on alliances – political, ideological, ethnic, or otherwise.
While the passage of this UNGA resolution is a promising sign of growing global consciousness, it won’t yield any significant, policy-altering outcomes. In 2004, the ICJ weighed on the issue of Israeli occupation and ruled that the wall in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem was illegal. In response, Israel termed The Hague ‘politically motivated’ and rejected the ruling. Similarly, the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Gilad Erdan, speaking ahead of the vote, characterized this resolution as “a moral stain on the UN,” further arguing that “no international body can decide that the Jewish people are occupiers of their own homeland.” Russia makes an eerily similar argument about Ukraine; Russian President Vladimir Putin aspires to ‘Reunify the Soviet Motherland.’ Even China’s President Xi Jinping posits a parallel assertion regarding the ‘reunification’ of Taiwan with the Chinese motherland. The resemblance is uncanny. But while the US continues to support Ukraine to wrestle back lost territory from Russian troops; continues to arm Taiwan to defend against a potential amphibious invasion from China, plans are effectively underway to move the US embassy to Jerusalem – a tacit nod to Donald Trump’s aberrant recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – despite the city’s disputed status under the international law. I reckon the words of Ms. Tirana Hassan, the acting executive director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), in her introductory essay in the HRW World Report 2023 aptly bewail these double standards: “[In] a world in which power has shifted, it is no longer possible to rely on a small group of mostly Global North governments to defend human rights.
Chinese Communist Party and the path of “high-quality development” at Guangdong Province
During the meeting of “Huang Kunming”, Secretary of Guangdong Provincial Party Committee mentioned that it is significant for Guangdong embark...
Indian Republic Day: A Black Day for Kashmiris
India celebrates ‘Republic Day’ on January 26th every year to commemorate the day when the Constitution of India came into...
A Brief History of British Imperialism in India
The British Empire The British Empire or Kingdom was an imperial entity that changed the global order in every way...
Political Scientist: Taliban Rule will lead to terrorism activation in Pakistan
The strengthening of terrorist activity in the northwest of Pakistan and the country as a whole is linked with reinforcing...
F.B.I. Official’s Indictment Shows oligarch infiltrated the highest echelons of the government
The search for kompromat on his opponent in a conflict with shareholders was highly regarded by Russian aluminum magnate Oleg...
FOCUS magazine: This is how war becomes U.S. business
Former President Calvin Coolidge’s sentence has been applicable for centuries: “After all, the main business of the American people is...
7 ways to earn cryptocurrency without risks
Today we will talk about earning opportunities with the help of cryptocurrencies and technologies related to them. AirDrops The first...
Europe4 days ago
Serbia must reject the ultimatum regarding Kosovo
Economy4 days ago
Free-Market Capitalism and Climate Crisis
Science & Technology4 days ago
Deployment of 5G Technology: Scrutinizing the Potential Menace & Its Repercussions globally
Europe3 days ago
Davos more of a show, no longer so important
Eastern Europe4 days ago
A turning moment in Ukraine Crisis
South Asia4 days ago
Saudi-Chinese Friendship: Should India be Concerned?
World News3 days ago
Sabah: ‘The Americans have deceived themselves, the Europeans and Ukraine’
Southeast Asia4 days ago
China’s assurance of Rohingya repatriation between Myanmar-Bangladesh