"So far it's been enormously disappointing, and the opponents of human rights enforcement are running circles around the proponents," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

The council was created in a 170-4 vote of the General Assembly a year ago to replace the Human Rights Commission, which had been widely discredited for allowing participation by countries like Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe that used membership to prevent scrutiny of their own records.

The commission was long a major embarrassment to the United Nations, with former Secretary-General Kofi Annan commenting that it "cast a shadow on the reputation of the U.N. system as a whole."

When the 47 members of the new council were elected last March, tighter entry requirements succeeded in keeping the most notorious rights abusers off the panel, and there was some hope of less politicized behavior.

But member countries from Africa and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 57 states promoting Muslim solidarity, have dashed those hopes by voting as a bloc to stymie Western efforts to direct serious attention to situations like the killings, rapes and pillage in Sudan's Darfur region, which the United Nations has declared the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Instead, the council has focused its condemnation almost exclusively on Israel. It has passed eight resolutions against Israel, and has cited no other country for human rights violations.

The United States voted against creating the council last year on the basis that it was not a sufficient improvement over the commission. This past week, it decided for the second straight year not to seek membership on the panel, and Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, linked the decision to the council's focus on Israel.

"It spent the entire year slamming Israel," Burns told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. He noted that the council had conducted formal hearings against Israel "but not against Burma and not against Zimbabwe and not against North Korea and not against Iran."

The new session is the fourth formal meeting in the last nine months, and an immediate issue attracting attention as a measure of the council's purposefulness is what it will do about an assessment mission to Darfur that was barred from entering Sudan last month. The options are to publish a factual report, publish a report with recommendations or take no action.

"What they do with the Sudan mission will be a bellwether for the future of the council," said Peter Splinter, the Amnesty International representative in Geneva. He indicated that he was not optimistic.

"Sudan took the floor last week and said they rejected the mission entirely, and they are going to have the backing of the Organization of the Islamic Conference," he said. "If the council ducks the situation in Darfur, that's not going to speak highly to its credibility."

In another potential blow to the council's effectiveness, a proposal is circulating that would do away with many of the council's 41 rapporteurs, the experts who produce sometimes graphic reports of abuses in individual countries. The proposal specifically ensures the continuation of the mission that monitors the Palestinian territories.

Despite the disappointment with the council's early performance, Splinter said that it was premature to give up on the panel because it was still setting up its rules and procedures. It is supposed to resolve these institutional matters by the first anniversary of its opening session, in mid-June.

"It's going through its adolescence, and it's awfully painful, but we have to get past it and see what we have in the end," he said.

Save Darfur… from Bush

Exposing the Darfur Deception

Who is behind the conflict in Darfur and other conflicts elsewhere in Africa? That should be the central question for those truly concerned about human rights violations in the region. There has been much in the press of atrocities in the region, yet the details of the situation and the groups involved are not clearly explained.

Exactly what is going on is unclear for a number of reasons: first the region is dangerous so the number of independent journalists there is very small. There are no large news organizations with the kind of resources there to cover the story comprehensively.

Secondly, the corporate media outlets that are issuing news about Darfur are doing so not by reporting from the region but by broadcasting pre-prepared material provided to them from government agencies and special interest advocacy groups.

Without reliable sources of information the question of who is behind the conflict in Darfur can not be answered. In the absence of such information one is forced to try and read though the lines of the information being distributed via the corporate media and statements from the government. Not an easy task. However recent events and a statement by Bush may help to reveal something about the source of the conflict in Darfur.

Let’s take a look at the group of organizations that are making noise about Darfur. Most of these groups are religious organizations, many of which are recipients of Bush’s faith based initiative program of funding church groups with taxpayer dollars.

Notably absent from this group are those peace organizations that typically hold demonstartions against the horrors of war. One would think that the issue of atrocities in Darfur would be of concern to those organizing against the war in Iraq for example. Yet these groups are not part of those organizing for Darfur

But what is even more unusual is Bush’s endorsement of recent Darfur protests. President Bush actually met with the groups planning the protests last year and made this statement: "There will be rallies all across the country," Bush said at the White House. "And for those of you who are going out to march for justice, you represent the best of our country. We believe every life is precious, every human being is important. And the signal you send to the world is a strong signal, and I welcome your participation."

This from a man who has been the subject of historic nationwide peace protests for the last four years. Peace protests that he has ignored and ridiculed. The statement is truly Orwellian.

Also telling is the current campaign of the Save Darfur Coalition, in this from their website: “…demand a stronger and more effective U.S. response to the violence and atrocities plaguing the region. The Save Darfur Coalition and its partners will collect one million signed postcards urging President Bush to take action.” Q: What is the kind of action are they suggesting Bush take in Darfur? A: Military action.

True anti-war activists, and those faith based groups with a long standing history of working for peace and justice should be wary of groups operating with Bush’s support. People concerned about Darfur should consider the following:

1. Bush has ordered the unprovoked invasion and occupation of a number of countries since taking office, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti and most recently Somalia. He now seems posed to start a war with a another country, Iran. Given this, how can he be of any help to the people of Darfur?

2. What is the neo-con agenda for Africa? And how would an excuse to send troops into Sudan further that agenda?

How has the crisis creation tactic been used in the past to advance their agenda?

3. Is the Save Darfur Coalition is a government agency front group?

The groups rallying this Sunday are funded in part by Bush’s programs and Bush has endorsed the protest, which is slated as a protest against him. (Bush is endorsing a peace rally against himself?)

Submitted herein to the reader, The media coverage of Darfur in the US could be another manufacturing consent campaign in the run up to war. It’s different from the WMDs in Iraq lie, in that instead of using people’s fears it exploits people’s sense of charity. This is not to assert that there are not atrocities occurring in the region. That has been documented. The issue of this article is how the news of those events in being used by Neo-Cons to co-opt support from unsuspecting peace and justice groups.

The peace movement should not fall for this. Those concerned about the situation in Darfur should not join any groups endorsed by Bush and instead form their own independent groups.



List of groups in the Bush backed Save Darfur Coalition

Source: http://www.millionvoicesfordarfur.org/?page=about

Alliance of Baptists

American Humanist Association

American Jewish Committee

American Jewish World Service

Amnesty International USA

Anti-Defamation League

Archdiocesan Office for Social Justice, Saint Paul and Minneapolis

Armenian National Committee of America

B’nai B’rith International

Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Central Conference of American Rabbis

Church Alliance for a New Sudan

Church World Service

Church World Service Minn-Kota

Dallas Peace Center

Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy

Darfur Rehabilitation Project

Dear Sudan

Democrats for Life of New York

DevArts: Development and Art

Echo Foundation

Edah

The Episcopal Church, USA

Facing History and Ourselves

Friends Committee on National Legislation

Feminist Majority

Foundation for Ethnic Understanding

Genocide Intervention Network

Greater Washington Jewish Task Force on Darfur

Global Youth Partnership for Africa

Hadassah

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Hillel

Help Darfur Now

Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington

Interfaith Council

International Crises Group

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Dallas

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas

Jewish Federation of the Berkshires

Jewish Federation of Central New Jersey

Jewish Federation of St. Joseph Valley

Jewish Labor Committee

Jewish World Watch

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation

Jubilee Campaign USA

Maryknoll office for Global Concern

MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger

Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society

mtvU

Metropolitan Community of Churches

Minnesota Council of Churches

My Sister's Keeper

National Association of Evangelicals

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA and Faithful America

NetAid

Omidyar Foundation

Open Doors USA

Pax Christi USA

Physicians for Human Rights

Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition

Progressive Democrats of America

Red Carpet Media Partners

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Riverdale Jewish Community Council

Union for Reform Judaism

Religions for Peace

Save Darfur, Silicon Valley

Save Darfur Coalition of South Palm Beach

Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, Los Angeles

Sojourners

STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur)

Stop Genocide Now

Students Against Silence

The ETHIC

Union of Reform Judaism

Unitarian Universalist Association and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC)

The United Jewish Community of Broward County

United Methodist Church

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbinical Assembly and Cantors Assembly

Washington Office of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Women’s Commission on Refugee Women and Children and NetAid

Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring

World Evangelical Alliance

Western Massachusetts Save Darfur Coalition

Youth Against Poverty

Q: What is the kind of action are they suggesting Bush take in Darfur? A: Military action.

No. They are asking for increased funding for the African peacekeeping forces that are currently in the area. They are not asking for US military intervention.

In the meanwhile, while we delay, 10,000 people are dying each month. Two million are in exile. And 250,000 are dead. That is the cost of our silence.

No Jews are involved in Darfur and so the "progessives" don't care. Pretty revealing. No comment on Muslim hypocracy?