The West should boycott the UN.

It is the introduction to my forthcoming book, 'The War on Truth'. Other chapters can be located on Anthony Ravlich Google+. It gives an example of American exceptionalism and why the West should boycott the UN.

The West should boycott the UN.

Anthony Ravlich MA, BSc, Dip Crim (Hons)
Human Rights author and activist (25 years)
Chairperson
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
Any global citizen can ring me and ask questions without having to reveal their identity.

For those who might like to read the introduction (short) to my forthcoming book, 'The War on Truth'. Describes example of American exceptionalism and why the West should boycott the UN.

Introduction

The dream is to have ethical human rights, which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reflected in domestic and international human rights law.
The ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization would replace neoliberalism and, in my view, the recently created new globally dominant ideology, neoliberal absolutism.
Ethical human rights requires that all should have, at the very least, the core minimums of all the rights in the Universal Declaration sufficient to permit individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams.
There are also duties, domestic and global, with the prime duty of the State to ensure all their own population have their ethical human rights and next there is a duty to help other countries unable to ensure ethical human rights for their population.
Ethical human rights has received some top support e.g. save the children (US), the UN itself, the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House and the US State Department etc., but only on the internet. Despite all my attempts I have not been able to get it into the mainstream media where it could reach the democratic majority.
My previous book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) outlines the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization.
The Universal Declaration consists of two sets of rights, civil and political rights e.g. ‘freedom and democracy’, and economic, social and cultural rights, which is concerned with social justice e.g. freedom from exploitation.
The two sets of rights had been at the centre of the ideological battle during the Cold War with America promoting civil and political rights and the communists of Eastern Europe championing economic, social and cultural right.
Until 10 December 2008 civil and political rights universal truth dominated (as in the American constitution) but when coupled with a United Nation’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda created an ideology i.e. neoliberalism, which America promoted.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda can be verified by comparing the Universal Declaration with international human rights law and seeing the human rights omitted.
The UN’s collectivist agenda which seeks to replace individual self-determination, which is in the Universal Declaration, with collective self-determination which is not in the Universal Declaration.
The collectivist agenda promotes the dominance of collectives, repressive and totalitarian States and seeks to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination i.e. the seeking of truth, hopes and dream, in what amounts to a global war on truth even, in my personal view, God’s Universal Truth.
Chapter 5 of the above book follows the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008 on the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which was a complaints procedure whereby if a person cannot get justice for violations of economic, social and cultural rights in their own country they can take a complaint to the United Nations.
However, as I was to discover the adoption of the OP by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008, with America the major opposition, was to have profound and momentous consequences but which would hidden behind a global iron curtain.
America's opposition could be described as American exceptionalism.
The OP established the equal status of the two sets of rights in the Universal Declaration and when coupled with the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda created yet another ideology, neoliberal absolutism.
I consider neoliberal absolutism resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest.
I observed a global media ‘blackout’ with virtually no mention of the new globally dominant ideology, neoliberal absolutism, America’s dissent or that Western States had been marginalized in the UN General Assembly perhaps for the first time.
Neoliberal absolutism also, in my view, permitted exploitation by omission under international law which I consider was the major cause of the global financial crisis 2008/9 with its epicentre in the European Union.
In addition, I consider neoliberal absolutism led to the rise of repressive States at the UN to virtually control the human rights agenda.
While in the chapter on Bangladesh I show how extending the domain of secularism to cover all behaviour under the Universal Declaration seems to have led to an eruption of violence by Islamic extremists.
I provide what I see as a solution whereby religious political parties, by adopting ethical human rights as their ethical base, can help overcome the secular/religious divide and allow religious political parties to play a greater role in the public domain
In the chapter on New Zealand I show how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was hijacked ‘by and for’ a left-minority and only passed by 36 per cent of MPs in parliament. The hijacking was, in my view, to permit the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to be implemented which resulted in a mass exodus of about one million New Zealanders (out of a population of 4.6 million) which included very many of New Zealand’s ‘best and brightest’.
I consider exodus left few in the country who were sufficiently articulate enough to challenge Government policies. Nearly all other State constitutions seemed to permit the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
The left-minority I call liberal collectivists whose rise to become the domestic and globally dominant elite was, in my view, largely due to the UN’s collectivist agenda.
The liberal collectivists, who promote collective self-determination, are largely class-based and replaced the post second world war liberal individualists who promote individual self-determination.
The politics of human rights can very largely be seen as an ideological war with deadly consequences between these two groups.
I consider the collectivist agenda involves very serious violations of the Universal Declaration and I regard it as constituting a global crime against humanity and, in my view, the West would be justified in boycotting the UN until the collectivist agenda is removed.
Reaching a similar conclusion UN Watch, an Geneva based NGO with consultative status at the UN, when testifying before the US Congress on 17 May 2016 asked whether the UN Human Rights Council has turned into a 'Frankenstein' and stated that 'the U.S. and fellow democracies can and must fight back'.
It seems apparent, States are using the United Nations as a means of consolidating their power which is out of the sight of their own populations and voters.

Comments

Commenting has now closed on this article.

The Indymedia Network

Global
Oceania
Latin America
Europe
Africa
Canada
United States
East Asia
South Asia
West Asia