This one comes from our mysterious Masked Poster. Were his identity revealed, it would cause the downfall of civilisation as we know it:
It would be a touch of an understatement to say that I’ve been vexed about this stupid British state of affairs or should I say Foreign Affairs for more than a few years – why Britain trucks at all with that set of devils, those beasts running and peddling: the Wahhabist doctrine out of the Arabian peninsula with particular respect to the crooks and deviants running the show in Riyadh erm: Medina.
Occasionally, a chink of light lights up the shenanigans and insanity of UK Foreign purblind policy, its blinkered idiocy and unfathomable short sightedness, it betrays our betrayers, if you catch my drift.
UK Foreign Policy and insane it really is:
The Saudi foreign ministry files, passed to Wikileaks in June, refer to talks with British diplomats ahead of the November 2013 vote in New York. The documents have now been been translated by the organisation UN Watch – a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights organisation that scrutinises the world body – and newspaper the Australian.
The classified exchanges, the paper said, suggest that the UK initiated the secret negotiations by asking Saudi Arabia for its support. Both countries were eventually elected to the UNHRC, which has 47 member states.
Or, how about this:
According to UNHRC documents obtained by UN Watch, Saudi Arabia was chosen to head a 5-member group of ambassadors, known as the Consultative Group, which has the power to select applicants from around the world for more than 77 positions dealing with country-specific and thematic human rights mandates.
“The UN often describes these experts as the ‘crown jewels’ of its Human Rights Council, yet the world body only undermines their legitimacy by picking a fundamentalist theocracy that oppresses women and minorities to preside over the experts’ appointment.”
A quote also from that same article [above] goes: ““This UN appointment is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief”[…].
Indeed it does.
The questions on my mind;
Why do the British so obsequiously do the bidding of the Saudis?
What do they [FCO, the executive/Brussels] believe they gain from such assistance?
Furthermore, do we, does Britain, ever gain anything from this heinous, incestuous relationship?
My guess is, not bloody much comes our way other than, arms sales and some Bedouin robed bedecked ponce prince giving a sword or two to some other numbnuts poncy prince.
All this was boiling my blood and next I read some obscure report printed in the Times dated June 9 in their ‘World’ section, entitled: ‘Saudi ‘threat of fatwa made UN change child deaths report’….[needless to say, I can provide no link – this item is under a paywall – I am hoping you can link]
Here’s a sample or two:
“The UN caved in to intense pressure from Saudi Arabia including the threat of a fatwa and removed the kingdom from a list of countries accused of serious crimes against children diplomatic sources have revealed.
Riyadh is said to have threatened to cut millions of dollars for UN aid programmes ater it was condemned for its bombing campaing in Yemen.”
The threats worked, the Saudis name was removed from the report [oh really?!].
But get this, they are fussed not at all about killing kids, are they?
Sources said that, the decision to revise the report followed a campaign of “bullying, threats and pressure” from Saudi Arabia and Gulf allies who feared it could have far reaching diplomatic ramifications and prevent arms deals.
Diplomats said that the Saudis had warned that clerics in Riyadh were poised to issue a fatwa or religious edict against the UN, declaring it anti Muslim. This would have effectively mounted a boycott of the UN by the 56 member states of the Orgnization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Saudis also said that the report put millions of dollars of funding to UN programmes in the region under threat.
This would have meant “no contacts of OIC members, no relations, contributions, support, to any UN projects programmes.” a diplomatic source said.
Uh huh, but aren’t most of the petro dollars doled out – given, allotted TO OIC members = anyhow? For crying out loud!
The really funny bits are right at the end……..blackly ironic really.
‘Human Rights Watch’ called the UN revision of the report a “new low”.
Abdullah Al-Mouallimi Saudi Ambassador to the UN, vehemently denied the claims, saying that Riyadh doesn’t “use threats or intimidation” and was “very committed to the United Nations.”
Living in a parallel universe and Saudi Arabian deference to human rights – has never been heard of in this world.
“this would have effectively mounted a boycott of the UN by the 56 member states of the Orgnization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).” Hmm, it would take me long to answer that.
My final questions;
Via the EU and which provides some 40% of UN funds and Britain is enforced to contribute plus no doubt, the US equally provides probably another 40+% – why does the UN not take up the Saudi’s-OIC generous offer?
More, why does the UN still exist, why is it that and do, the Islamic states have such an undue influence? Again, does promoting and peddling that evil filth stained doctrine of Wahhabism totally, traduce and trash everything the UN is supposed to represent?
In the end, we should go it alone, USA, Scandi [Danes, Norway, Sweden] and maybe Finland, Poland, Hungary too, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand?