Seeing behind the Global Iron Curtain.
Some of what I saw behind the Global Iron Curtain which, in my view, exists between the United Nations and the rest of humanity. I consider I describe matters of enormous and profound importance which have been hidden from people.
Seeing behind the Global Iron Curtain.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
The following is a comment on, and my response, to my article, ‘Global Iron Curtain: Repressive States control human rights at UN’ (see Ireland Indymedia, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105318?userlanguage=ga, Anthony Ravlich Google+) on linkedin site, Amnesty International - working to protect human rights world-wide (35,665 members).
In the above article an American Professor describes human rights issues being decided by the World's State Criminals at the international level while I describe a Global Iron Curtain with, in my view, the UN hiding very much of enormous and profound importance from the rest of humanity.
In the following I describe some of what I saw behind the Global Iron Curtain so I could tell the world.
Tola Thompson Ade-Bayor, Regional Director at Regional Watch for Human Rights Inc., stated:
“Fantastic description Anthony! A Global Iron Curtain, and also a Professional Dentist [referring to America] doing things at its own will and caprice, characterized with culture of introversion in the name of human rights and global democracy”.
Anthony Ravlich “America has not ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and was very much marginalized in the vote to adopt the Optional Protocol [OP, Optional Protocol for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enables complaints to be made to UN for violations of the latter rights] which was passed by the considerable consensus of the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008.
It established the equal status of both civil and political rights [already has a complaints procedure] and economic, social and cultural rights. They were at the center of the major ideological battle in the Cold War between Western civil and political rights and the economic, social and cultural rights championed by the Soviet bloc. So it was not surprising that the equal status (which also involves an extended hidden UN collectivist agenda, see Anthony Ravlich Google+) would have devastating and profound effects.
In my view, while at the same time resulting in the global financial crisis 2008 with the West suffering by far the most [the epicenter of the crisis was the European Union] it led to a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to other regions which means a virtual 'permanent' decline in individual freedoms, in particular individual self-determination e.g. the iconic American super-hero, seeking of truth (including, in my personal opinion, God's Universal Truth), the growth of human knowledge, creativity replacing exploitation, individual thought and conscience rather than collective thought and conscience.
You [I am referring to Tola] would understand international law please investigate the adoption of the OP which does not include the core minimum obligations of the State as grounds for complaint (economic, social and cultural rights are meant to protect against exploitation) - with no socio-economic bottom-line it means International Law sanctions exploitation by omission and so portends a global slave economy.
The OP has now been ratified by 20 States largely, in my view, to force America into abject obedience to repressive States and decent-based leadership [see Additional below] . I consider the latter hate truth and any cultures (e.g. also Israel, in my view) that place a premium on it. In my view, the OP is worse than fraudulent. I fought for many years for economic, social and cultural rights and care very much about that covenant but so much is being done under the cover of darkness and the secular, liberal collectivists, who I consider are driving it, are incapable i.e. collective thought, of open debate so won't.
But, in my view, when ethical human rights, development and globalization gets into the mainstream both America's neoliberalism (although now, it seems US is planning a 'turn-around' also to give youth a future [I believe the US will]) and the UN's neoliberal absolutism will collapse. So I disagree with you Tola even though the West may have dominated the general assembly in the past, on the occasion of the OP America was very much marginalized.
Also, Islamic terrorists, who would be concerned regarding secularization, should be told that it was not America which made all behavior under the Universal Declaration secular - many lives are at stake. I thank God that I was able to see behind the Global Iron Curtain so I can tell the world.
The question is how long can the above be hidden from the mainstream as I am almost certain there is no one who can prove me wrong.
Additional. I consider the race is on to have the OP, whose adoption at the UN I see led to the creation of neoliberal absolutism and the dominance of repressive States at the UN, ratified by States before America turns its country around (‘Mitch McConnell pledges ‘to turn this country around’…http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/05/mitch-mcconnell-midterm-election-victory-speech-video). So far 20 States, including Belgium, Italy, Finland, and more recently France have ratified the OP (UN Treaty collection, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-... ). In my view, countries that ratify indicate that they are less likely to follow America and turn their countries around and sufficient numbers could even deter a ‘turn around’ in America.
The NGO Coalition for the Optional Protocol which is driving the ratifications is supported by many human rights organizations (‘About the NGO Coalition…’, http://op-icescr.escr-net.org/about-ngo-coalition-op-icescr ). Given the involvement of many human rights organizations in promoting the OP, which, in my view, led to the dominance of repressive States, may well explain why America’s NSA is described by Edward Snowden as spying on such organizations as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (‘Edward Snowden: US government spied on human rights workers’, 8 April 2015,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/edwards-snowden-us-government-spied-human-rights-workers).