Here is what the smart students of Monash should ask Mr. De Schutter:

1. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, why did he just spend 11 days investigatng the food situation in Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns? Surely the scarce time and resources of the international community could have been more effectively allocated to help those who are truly starving. All of his explanations defy basic common sense.

2. Why is Mr. De Schutter now attempting to launch an investigation of the United States? Human rights should not be exploited by an extreme political agenda that seeks to blame the West for all of the world’s ills. When the U.N. General Assembly was headed by former Sandinista ideologue Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann—the one who called America a “monster,” and who hugged Ahmadinejad after the latter’s hateful U.N. rant against America and Israel—De Schutter, together with Noam Chomsky, were named his top advisers.

3. Why does De Schutter refuse to say anything for the people of Syria? On May 4th, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what De Schutter planned to say about the genuine hunger crisis facing 500,000 people in Syria. She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because he had “no first-hand knowledge of the situation,” and because other UN officials were “already dealing with it.” Yet neither of these supposed obstacles ever prevented De Schutter from opining sharply on all manner of other situations around the globe.

4. What credibility does De Schutter have when the chief sponsor of his mandate is the Communist police state of Cuba, a country where women have been documented as resorting to prostitution for food? De Schutter’s various websites mention nowhere that Havana’s government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, all of whom were seeking a political weapon to attack the West.

5. Why does De Schutter continue to praise his U.N. predecessor, Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize?

6. Why does De Schutter suggest that he speaks for the U.N., when in fact many serious hunger experts within the U.N. system completely reject his ideologically extreme policy prescriptions? As noted by World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy, U.N. experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives. Similarly, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program in 2002 privately informed Kofi Annan that De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people. Click here for more.

7. Even when De Schutter does visit legitimate countries of concern, why does he repeatedly reach the wrong conclusions? De Schutter did once go to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis. His report mentioned several problems, but took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime. De Schutter actually went at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter. These regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter? During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime as a model. He praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” Click here for more.

8. Why does he misuse his sacred mandate on hunger as a global platform to attack his political targets on unrelated subjects? Like his predecessor Jean Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal—contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

The post Prediction: UN friend of Assad will slam Australian “hunger” in Monash lecture appeared first on UN Watch.

Olivier de Schutter, who holds the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Cuban-sponsored mandate on the “right to food,” is appearing this afternoon at a special briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Charged with speaking out for starving people, he recently announced that he is seeking to investigate America. His event today is sponsored by Rep. James P. McGovern and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro. UN Watch director Hillel Neuer sent them the following letter today.

Dear Congressman McGovern,

I know that you are a sincere activist for the cause of hungry people and I salute you for that. At the same time, I must tell you that I was surprised to see that you and Rep. Rose DeLauro are today co-sponsoring a congressional briefing by such a dubious authority as Olivier De Schutter, the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food”—who, inexplicably, seeks to launch an investigation of America.

Your notice for this afternoon’s event was sent out by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which you co-chair, yet I am confident that the late Tom Lantos would never have granted a platform to someone with such a skewed sense of judgment and priorities. On the contrary, it was Tom who hosted UN Watch chairman Alfred Moses and myself to address Congress on precisely such abusers of U.N. mandates.

During today’s discussion period, I hope you will ask Mr. De Schutter to answer the following questions.

1. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, why did he just spend 11 days investigatng the food situation in Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns? Surely the scarce time and resources of the international community could have been more effectively allocated to help those who are truly starving. All of his explanations defy basic common sense.

2. Why is Mr. De Schutter now attempting to launch an investigation of the United States? Human rights should not be exploited by an extreme political agenda that seeks to blame the West for all of the world’s ills. When the U.N. General Assembly was headed by former Sandinista ideologue Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann—the one who called America a “monster,” and who hugged Ahmadinejad after the latter’s hateful U.N. rant against America and Israel—De Schutter, together with Noam Chomsky, were named his top advisers.

3. Why does De Schutter refuse to say anything for the people of Syria? On May 4th, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what De Schutter planned to say about the genuine hunger crisis facing 500,000 people in Syria. She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because he had “no first-hand knowledge of the situation,” and because other UN officials were “already dealing with it.” Yet neither of these supposed obstacles ever prevented De Schutter from opining sharply on all manner of other situations around the globe.

4. What credibility should De Schutter have in the U.S. Congress when the chief sponsor of his mandate is the Communist police state of Cuba, a country where women have been documented as resorting to prostitution for food? De Schutter’s various websites mention nowhere that Havana’s government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, all of whom were seeking a political weapon to attack the West.

5. Why does De Schutter continue to praise his U.N. predecessor, Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize?

6. Why does De Schutter suggest that he speaks for the U.N., when in fact many serious hunger experts within the U.N. system completely reject his ideologically extreme policy prescriptions? As noted by World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy, U.N. experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives. Similarly, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program in 2002 privately informed Kofi Annan that De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people. Click here for more.

7. Even when De Schutter does visit legitimate countries of concern, why does he repeatedly reach the wrong conclusions? De Schutter did once go to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis. His report mentioned several problems, but took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime. De Schutter actually went at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter. These regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter? During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime as a model. He praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” Click here for more.

8. Why does he misuse his sacred mandate on hunger as a global platform to attack his political targets on unrelated subjects? Like his predecessor Jean Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal—contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

Congressman McGovern, I understand that you may well have been unaware of the above. That said, given your role today in granting Mr. De Schutter a congressional platform, I believe the American people—who fund large portions of the UN’s work—will want you to clarify these important matters. I look forward to our discussion and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Hillel Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch

The post Seeking to investigate America, U.N.’s Cuban-sponsored “hunger expert” appears in U.S. Congress today for special briefing appeared first on UN Watch.

Olivier de Schutter, who holds the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Cuban-sponsored mandate on the “right to food,” is appearing this afternoon at a special briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Charged with speaking out for starving people, he recently announced that he is seeking to investigate America. His event today is sponsored by Rep. James P. McGovern and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro. UN Watch director Hillel Neuer sent them the following letter today.

Dear Congressman McGovern,

I know that you are a sincere activist for the cause of hungry people and I salute you for that. At the same time, I must tell you that I was surprised to see that you and Rep. Rose DeLauro are today co-sponsoring a congressional briefing by such a dubious authority as Olivier De Schutter, the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food”—who, inexplicably, seeks to launch an investigation of America.

Your notice for this afternoon’s event was sent out by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which you co-chair, yet I am confident that the late Tom Lantos would never have granted a platform to someone with such a skewed sense of judgment and priorities. On the contrary, it was Tom who hosted UN Watch chairman Alfred Moses and myself to address Congress on precisely such abusers of U.N. mandates.

During today’s discussion period, I hope you will ask Mr. De Schutter to answer the following questions.

1. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, why did he just spend 11 days investigatng the food situation in Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns? Surely the scarce time and resources of the international community could have been more effectively allocated to help those who are truly starving. All of his explanations defy basic common sense.

2. Why is Mr. De Schutter now attempting to launch an investigation of the United States? Human rights should not be exploited by an extreme political agenda that seeks to blame the West for all of the world’s ills. When the U.N. General Assembly was headed by former Sandinista ideologue Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann—the one who called America a “monster,” and who hugged Ahmadinejad after the latter’s hateful U.N. rant against America and Israel—De Schutter, together with Noam Chomsky, were named his top advisers.

3. Why does De Schutter refuse to say anything for the people of Syria? On May 4th, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what De Schutter planned to say about the genuine hunger crisis facing 500,000 people in Syria. She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because he had “no first-hand knowledge of the situation,” and because other UN officials were “already dealing with it.” Yet neither of these supposed obstacles ever prevented De Schutter from opining sharply on all manner of other situations around the globe.

4. What credibility should De Schutter have in the U.S. Congress when the chief sponsor of his mandate is the Communist police state of Cuba, a country where women have been documented as resorting to prostitution for food? De Schutter’s various websites mention nowhere that Havana’s government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, all of whom were seeking a political weapon to attack the West.

5. Why does De Schutter continue to praise his U.N. predecessor, Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize?

6. Why does De Schutter suggest that he speaks for the U.N., when in fact many serious hunger experts within the U.N. system completely reject his ideologically extreme policy prescriptions? As noted by World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy, U.N. experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives. Similarly, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program in 2002 privately informed Kofi Annan that De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people. Click here for more.

7. Even when De Schutter does visit legitimate countries of concern, why does he repeatedly reach the wrong conclusions? De Schutter did once go to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis. His report mentioned several problems, but took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime. De Schutter actually went at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter. These regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter? During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime as a model. He praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” Click here for more.

8. Why does he misuse his sacred mandate on hunger as a global platform to attack his political targets on unrelated subjects? Like his predecessor Jean Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal—contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

Congressman McGovern, I understand that you may well have been unaware of the above. That said, given your role today in granting Mr. De Schutter a congressional platform, I believe the American people—who fund large portions of the UN’s work—will want you to clarify these important matters. I look forward to our discussion and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Hillel Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch

The post Seeking to investigate America, U.N.’s Cuban-sponsored “hunger expert” appears in U.S. Congress today for special briefing appeared first on UN Watch.

“A scheduling conflict scuppered De Schutter’s plans to visit the UK in July 2011, and the United States has so far ignored his request for a mission…”  Toronto Sun

“De Schutter added that he has asked to go to the United States and a few other developed countries, but so far has not been invited. He said he chose Canada because there is a standing invitation for UN officials.” Canadian Press

The post Appearing today in Congress: Controversial UN hunger expert who seeks to investigate America appeared first on UN Watch.

Olivier De Schutter is the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” a post initiated by Cuba. He won’t comment on Syria, but wants to investigate the U.S. and other Western countries.

Olivier de Schutter, who holds the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Cuban-sponsored mandate on the “right to food,” is appearing this afternoon at a special briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Charged with speaking out for starving people, he recentlyannounced that he is seeking to investigate America. His event today is sponsored by Rep. James P. McGovern and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro. UN Watch director Hillel Neuer sent them the following letter today.

Dear Congressman McGovern,

I know that you are a sincere activist for the cause of hungry people and I salute you for that. At the same time, I must tell you that I was surprised to see that you and Rep. Rose DeLauro are today co-sponsoring a congressional briefing by such a dubious authority as Olivier De Schutter, the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food”—who, inexplicably, seeks to launch an investigation of America.

Your notice for this afternoon’s event was sent out by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which you co-chair, yet I am confident that the late Tom Lantos would never have granted a platform to someone with such a skewed sense of judgment and priorities. On the contrary, it was Tom who hosted UN Watch chairman Alfred Moses and myself to address Congress on precisely such abusers of U.N. mandates.

During today’s discussion period, I hope you will ask Mr. De Schutter to answer the following questions.

1. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, why did he just spend 11 days investigatng the food situation in Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns? Surely the scarce time and resources of the international community could have been more effectively allocated to help those who are truly starving. All of his explanations defy basic common sense.

2. Why is Mr. De Schutter now attemptingto launch an investigation of the United States? Human rights should not be exploited by an extreme political agenda that seeks to blame the West for all of the world’s ills. When the U.N. General Assembly was headed by former Sandinista ideologue Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann—the one who called America a “monster,” and who hugged Ahmadinejad after the latter’s hateful U.N. rant against America and Israel—De Schutter, together with Noam Chomsky, were named his top advisers.
In 2010 visit, U.N. official held out Syria as a model: “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. Above: De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel.

3. Why does De Schutter refuse

In 2010 visit, U.N. official held out Syria as a model: “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. Above: De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel.

to say anything for the people of Syria? On May 4th, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what De Schutter planned to say about the genuine hunger crisis facing 500,000 people in Syria. She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because he had “no first-hand knowledge of the situation,” and because other UN officials were “already dealing with it.” Yet neither of these supposed obstacles ever prevented De Schutter from opining sharply on all manner of other situations around the globe.

4. What credibility should De Schutter have in the U.S. Congress when the chief sponsor of his mandate is the Communist police state of Cuba, a country where women have been documented as resorting to prostitution for food? De Schutter’s various websites mention nowhere that Havana’s government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, all of whom were seeking a political weapon to attack the West.

5. Why does De Schutter continue to praise his U.N. predecessor, Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize?

6. Why does De Schutter suggest that he speaks for the U.N., when in fact many serious hunger experts within the U.N. system completely reject his ideologically extreme policy prescriptions? As noted by World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy, U.N. experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives. Similarly, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program in 2002 privately informed Kofi Annan that De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people.Click here for more.

7. Even when De Schutter does visit legitimate countries of concern, why does he repeatedly reach the wrong conclusions? De Schutter did once go to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis. His report mentioned several problems, but took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime. De Schutter actually went at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter. These regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter? During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime as a model. He praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” Click here for more.

8. Why does he misuse his sacred mandate on hunger as a global platform to attack his political targets on unrelated subjects? Like his predecessor Jean Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal—contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

Congressman McGovern, I understand that you may well have been unaware of the above. That said, given your role today in granting Mr. De Schutter a congressional platform, I believe the American people—who fund large portions of the UN’s work—will want you to clarify these important matters. I look forward to our discussion and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Hillel Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch

The post Issue 363: Seeking to investigate America, U.N.’s Cuban-sponsored “hunger expert” appears in U.S. Congress today for special briefing appeared first on UN Watch.

1. Contrary to what  the Toronto Star’s David Olive reported, De Schutter does not speak for the UN. As an independent expert of the UN Human Rights Council, holding a mandate initiated by Cuba and other tyrannies, he reports to the council but speaks only for himself. As High Commissioner Pillay confirmed to me in a letter, “special procedures mandate-holders are neither representatives nor employees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”; instead they  serve  “in their independent capacities.”

2. Major UN voices — those who actually do serious work — reject the Cuban-created, politicized “right to food” mandate of the Human Rights Council, first held by Jean Ziegler, and now De Schutter.

3. Though it never said so in public, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program privately informed Kofi Annan that  De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people.

4. Likewise, leading international authorities reject De Schutter’s ideologically extreme  policy prescriptions, especially those against trade. As noted by WTO chief Pascal Lamy, experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives.

5. On the contrary, most UN-led experts agree that international trade is part of the package of solutions to achieve food security. The UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis in their 2010 Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action noted that “more liberalized international markets would contribute to global food and nutrition security through increased trade volumes and access to diverse sources of food imports.” (“Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action”, United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, September 2010, paragraph 76.)

6. In addition, the G-20’s inter-agency report rejected De Schutter’s simplistic anti-trade approach by affirming that “trade is an essential component of any food security strategy.” They also found that De Schutter-like policies “that distort production and trade in agricultural commodities potentially impede the achievement of long run food security.”.(“Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses”, Policy Report including contributions by FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF, 2 June 2011, page 23.)

When even the UN thinks you’re way off, you must be really, really way off. And for a guy who thinks Canada is a world food priority, he is.

The post UN itself thinks UN rights council hunger expert is a fraud appeared first on UN Watch.

Above: The UN Human Rights Council’s Cuban-sponsored Olivier De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. Damascus, 2010.

Today the UN Human Rights Council’s “right to food” expert made international headlines with a stinging report on the urgent food crisis in. . . Canada.  How absurd.

On May 4th, just before Olivier De Schutter began his 11-day investigation of the great Canadian food emergency, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what her boss planned to say about the genuine  hunger situation facing 500,000 people in Syria.

She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because (a) he had no first-hand knowledge of the situation and (b) other UN officials were already dealing with it. Funny, neither supposed obstacle has ever prevented him from opining sharply on all kinds of other situations around the globe.

De Schutter’s defenders — including Peggy Hicks, the global advocacy director of Human Rights Watch and a former official at the UN human rights office– seek to defend his sense of judgment and priorities by pointing to his visit to Syria back in 2010. In fact it proves the exact opposite.

Consider:

1. De Schutter went to Syria at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter, just as Cuba’s regime rolled out the red carpet for De Schutter’s predecessor, the founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize, Jean Ziegler. Funny, because these regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter & Co.? Read on.

2. During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime  as a model:  “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. De Schutter has never disputed the contents of this or any other Syrian report on his visit.

3. What is more, De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel.

4. De Schutter praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.”

In light of what everyone in the world finally knows about Syria’s  regime, it is time for De Schutter to renounce his preposterous comments — and to apologize.

When I called De Schutter a fraud, linking to my recent National Post oped, Ms. Hicks tweeted this to me:

I replied in several tweets:

Hillel Neuer ‏@HillelNeuer

@hickspeggy What’s “personal” about exposing UNHRC food expert’s praise of #Syrian regime & his being a stooge of Cuba & anti-Western bloc?

My point is simple:

1: The holder of a #Cuba-created post, who curiously gets invites from Assad & China, has zero credibility.

2: Even assuming his #Canada facts are true, I query his policy prescriptions. Indeed, top UN experts reject his policies.

3: Even if his facts & remedy are true, it is foolish & criminal for a doctor to attend to broken legs (in this case, more like bruised knees) instead of heart attacks.

Your own NGO, Human Rights Watch, aims “to bring the world’s worst abusers to account.” Shouldn’t the UN’s food expert do the same? Why Canada?

________________

May 17 Update

Yesterday I invited Ms. Hicks to post a full reply here, instead of just exchanging twitter soundbites, but we haven’t received anything yet. A full debate would be a good thing. Clearly she believes De Schutter is helping the cause of hungry people, whereas I think he’s a charlatan and a fraud. Like the World Food Program  and the UN High Level Task Force, I think his approach actually harms the cause of hungry people.

Some key facts that De Schutter and his supporters didn’t want Canadians to know this week:

1. Contrary to what  the Toronto Star’s David Olive reported, De Schutter does not speak for the UN. As an independent expert of the UN Human Rights Council, holding a mandate initiated by Cuba and other tyrannies, he reports to the council but speaks only for himself. As High Commissioner Pillay confirmed to me in a letter, “special procedures mandate-holders are neither representatives nor employees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”; instead they  serve  “in their independent capacities.”

2. Major UN voices — those who actually do serious work — reject the Cuban-created, politicized “right to food” mandate of the Human Rights Council, first held by Jean Ziegler, and now De Schutter.

3. Though it never said so in public, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program privately informed Kofi Annan that  De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people.

4. Likewise, leading international authorities reject De Schutter’s ideologically extreme  policy prescriptions, especially those against trade. As noted by WTO chief Pascal Lamy, experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives.

5. On the contrary, most UN-led experts agree that international trade is part of the package of solutions to achieve food security. The UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis in their 2010 Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action noted that “more liberalized international markets would contribute to global food and nutrition security through increased trade volumes and access to diverse sources of food imports.” (“Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action”, United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, September 2010, paragraph 76.)

6. In addition, the G-20’s inter-agency report rejected De Schutter’s simplistic anti-trade approach by affirming that “trade is an essential component of any food security strategy.” They also found that De Schutter-like policies “that distort production and trade in agricultural commodities potentially impede the achievement of long run food security.”.(“Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses”, Policy Report including contributions by FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF, 2 June 2011, page 23.)

The post UN hunger expert hails Syrian “openness” & “excellent” cooperation appeared first on UN Watch.

Above: The UN Human Rights Council’s Cuban-sponsored Olivier De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. Damascus, 2010.

Today the UN Human Rights Council’s “right to food” expert made international headlines with a stinging report on the urgent food crisis in. . . Canada.  How absurd.

On May 4th, just before Olivier De Schutter began his 11-day investigation of the great Canadian food emergency, I asked his Geneva spokesperson, Ms. Yoonie Kim, what her boss planned to say about the genuine  hunger situation facing 500,000 people in Syria.

She replied that De Schutter had no plans to say anything at all about Syria. This, she explained, was because (a) he had no first-hand knowledge of the situation and (b) other UN officials were already dealing with it. Funny, neither supposed obstacle has ever prevented him from opining sharply on all kinds of other situations around the globe.

De Schutter’s defenders — including Peggy Hicks, the global advocacy director of Human Rights Watch and a former official at the UN human rights office– seek to defend his sense of judgment and priorities by pointing to his visit to Syria back in 2010. In fact it proves the exact opposite.

Consider:

1. De Schutter went to Syria at the invitation of the Assad regime. Likewise, the Communist regime of China also ran after De Schutter, just as Cuba’s regime rolled out the red carpet for De Schutter’s predecessor, the founder of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize, Jean Ziegler. Funny, because these regimes never seek out independent investigations. Why the exception for De Schutter & Co.? Read on.

2. During his visit, De Schutter held out Syria’s Assad regime  as a model:  “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. De Schutter has never disputed the contents of this or any other Syrian report on his visit.

3. What is more, De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel.

4. De Schutter praised the Assad regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.”

In light of what everyone in the world finally knows about Syria’s  regime, it is time for De Schutter to renounce his preposterous comments — and to apologize.

When I called De Schutter a fraud, linking to my recent National Post oped, Ms. Hicks tweeted this to me:

I replied in several tweets:

Hillel Neuer ‏@HillelNeuer

@hickspeggy What’s “personal” about exposing UNHRC food expert’s praise of #Syrian regime & his being a stooge of Cuba & anti-Western bloc?

My point is simple:

1: The holder of a #Cuba-created post, who curiously gets invites from Assad & China, has zero credibility.

2: Even assuming his #Canada facts are true, I query his policy prescriptions. Indeed, top UN experts reject his policies.

3: Even if his facts & remedy are true, it is foolish & criminal for a doctor to attend to broken legs (in this case, more like bruised knees) instead of heart attacks.

Your own NGO, Human Rights Watch, aims “to bring the world’s worst abusers to account.” Shouldn’t the UN’s food expert do the same? Why Canada?

________________

May 17 Update

Yesterday I invited Ms. Hicks to post a full reply here, instead of just exchanging twitter soundbites, but we haven’t received anything yet. A full debate would be a good thing. Clearly she believes De Schutter is helping the cause of hungry people, whereas I think he’s a charlatan and a fraud. Like the World Food Program  and the UN High Level Task Force, I think his approach actually harms the cause of hungry people.

Some key facts that De Schutter and his supporters didn’t want Canadians to know this week:

1. Contrary to what  the Toronto Star’s David Olive reported, De Schutter does not speak for the UN. As an independent expert of the UN Human Rights Council, holding a mandate initiated by Cuba and other tyrannies, he reports to the council but speaks only for himself. As High Commissioner Pillay confirmed to me in a letter, “special procedures mandate-holders are neither representatives nor employees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”; instead they  serve  “in their independent capacities.”

2. Major UN voices — those who actually do serious work — reject the Cuban-created, politicized “right to food” mandate of the Human Rights Council, first held by Jean Ziegler, and now De Schutter.

3. Though it never said so in public, Wikileaks revealed that the World Food Program privately informed Kofi Annan that  De Schutter’s predecessor engaged in “profoundly immoral” politics which harms millions of starving people.

4. Likewise, leading international authorities reject De Schutter’s ideologically extreme  policy prescriptions, especially those against trade. As noted by WTO chief Pascal Lamy, experts fundamentally disagree with De Schutter’s assertion that countries need to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security objectives.

5. On the contrary, most UN-led experts agree that international trade is part of the package of solutions to achieve food security. The UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis in their 2010 Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action noted that “more liberalized international markets would contribute to global food and nutrition security through increased trade volumes and access to diverse sources of food imports.” (“Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action”, United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, September 2010, paragraph 76.)

6. In addition, the G-20’s inter-agency report rejected De Schutter’s simplistic anti-trade approach by affirming that “trade is an essential component of any food security strategy.” They also found that De Schutter-like policies “that distort production and trade in agricultural commodities potentially impede the achievement of long run food security.”.(“Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses”, Policy Report including contributions by FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF, 2 June 2011, page 23.)

The post UN hunger expert hails Syrian “openness” & “excellent” cooperation appeared first on UN Watch.

The National Post (Canada)
May 5, 2012, p. A20
EDITORIALS

By Hillel Neuer

Olivier De Schutter is the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” a post initiated by Cuba. Tomorrow he begins an 11-day investigation of Canada. De Schutter’s senior adviser, Priscilla Claeys, previously worked with Oxfam Canada, part of the group that is unofficially coordinating his visit, and with Rights and Democracy—a Canadian agency soon to be shut down—where she collaborated with the UN office of Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the “Muammar Qaddafi Human RIghts Prize” and De Schutter’s predecessor.

“There is no food and no clean water, nothing,” Mahmoud, a 12-year-old boy from Homs, Syria, told Reuters Thursday. “There is no shop open and we only have one meal a day. How can we live like that and survive?”

According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.

This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.

Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.

That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.

A key co-ordinator and promoter of De Schutter’s mission is Food Secure Canada, a lobby group whose website accuses the Harper government of “failing Canadians…and [failing to] fulfill the right to food for all.” The group calls instead for a “People’s Food Policy.”

I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.

“Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”

In other words, the hunger expert is not even that interested in hunger, but the opposite. Sure, we should all eat less fries, but do Canadians need a costly UN inquiry to tell us that?

Before Canadians can take De Schutter seriously, they ought to ask him some serious questions about whether his mission is about human rights or a political agenda.

First, consider the origins of the UN’s “right to food” mandate. In voluminous background information provided by De Schutter and his local promoters, there’s no mention that their sponsor was Cuba, a country where some women resort to prostitution for food. De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.

These and other repressive regimes are seeking a political weapon to attack the West. That is why the first person they chose to fill the post, when it started in 2000, was Jean Ziegler. The former Swiss Socialist politician was a man they could trust: In 1989, he announced to the world the creation of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize.

The award spread propaganda for its namesake, and elevated his ideological allies. Recipients include Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In 2002, the prize went to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy — and to Jean Ziegler himself.

From 2000 to 2008, Ziegler’s UN reports and probes turned a blind eye to the world’s hungry. Instead he attacked America, the West, capitalism and Israel. The human rights council applauded him, and repeatedly renewed his mandate. Only because of term limits did they replace him in 2008 with De Schutter, who praises and emulates his predecessor.

De Schutter’s consistent argument is that if there is hunger, Western countries are to blame. His attacks on international trade are so ideologically extreme that even Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization and a member of the French Socialist party, criticized De Schutter’s approach for threatening to drive food prices higher and “exacerbating the negative impacts on poor consumers.”

In 2010 visit, UN expert held out Syria as a model: “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. Above: De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel. The Syrian regime rarely if ever welcomes international investigators, but De Schutter said that it was Damascus which reached out to invite him. He praised the regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” In light of what the world now knows, and Syria’s complete non-cooperation with the Geneva body, UN Watch today called on De Schutter to renounce his preposterous comments.

Second, even when they visit the right countries, Ziegler and De Schutter reach the wrong conclusions. Ziegler went to Cuba, but it was a staged visit that hailed Castro’s policies as almost divine. De Schutter went to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis — and mentioned several problems, but his report took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime.

Like Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal — contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

Hunger is a human rights issue. Tragically, what most interests De Schutter and his council is scapegoating the West. For the next two weeks, that means Canada.

Hillel Neuer, originally of Montreal, is executive director of UN Watch in Geneva.

The post As much of the world starves, UN sends hunger probe to… Canada appeared first on UN Watch.

As much of the world starves, a UN hunger expert investigates Canada

The National Post (Canada)
May 5, 2012, p. A20
EDITORIALS

By Hillel Neuer

Olivier De Schutter is the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” a post initiated by Cuba. Tomorrow he begins an 11-day investigation of Canada. De Schutter’s senior adviser, Priscilla Claeys, previously worked with Oxfam Canada, part of the group that is unofficially coordinating his visit, and with Rights and Democracy—a Canadian agency soon to be shut down—where she collaborated with the UN office of Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the “Muammar Qaddafi Human RIghts Prize” and De Schutter’s predecessor.

“There is no food and no clean water, nothing,” Mahmoud, a 12-year-old boy from Homs, Syria, told Reuters Thursday. “There is no shop open and we only have one meal a day. How can we live like that and survive?”

According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.

This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.

Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.

That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.

A key co-ordinator and promoter of De Schutter’s mission is Food Secure Canada, a lobby group whose website accuses the Harper government of “failing Canadians…and [failing to] fulfill the right to food for all.” The group calls instead for a “People’s Food Policy.”

I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.

“Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”

In other words, the hunger expert is not even that interested in hunger, but the opposite. Sure, we should all eat less fries, but do Canadians need a costly UN inquiry to tell us that?

Before Canadians can take De Schutter seriously, they ought to ask him some serious questions about whether his mission is about human rights or a political agenda.

First, consider the origins of the UN’s “right to food” mandate. In voluminous background information provided by De Schutter and his local promoters, there’s no mention that their sponsor was Cuba, a country where some women resort to prostitution for food. De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.

These and other repressive regimes are seeking a political weapon to attack the West. That is why the first person they chose to fill the post, when it started in 2000, was Jean Ziegler. The former Swiss Socialist politician was a man they could trust: In 1989, he announced to the world the creation of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize.

The award spread propaganda for its namesake, and elevated his ideological allies. Recipients include Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In 2002, the prize went to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy — and to Jean Ziegler himself.

From 2000 to 2008, Ziegler’s UN reports and probes turned a blind eye to the world’s hungry. Instead he attacked America, the West, capitalism and Israel. The human rights council applauded him, and repeatedly renewed his mandate. Only because of term limits did they replace him in 2008 with De Schutter, who praises and emulates his predecessor.

De Schutter’s consistent argument is that if there is hunger, Western countries are to blame. His attacks on international trade are so ideologically extreme that even Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization and a member of the French Socialist party, criticized De Schutter’s approach for threatening to drive food prices higher and “exacerbating the negative impacts on poor consumers.”

In 2010 visit, UN expert held out Syria as a model: “UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Oliver De Schutter hailed Syria’s efforts and national plans to achieve food security,” reported Syria’s SANA news agency, during his Sept. 2010 visit. Above: De Schutter, left, with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad. De Schutter “pointed out that other countries could benefit from Syria’s experience.” While the UN official heaped praise on the Assad regime, he voiced scathing criticism of the West and Israel. The Syrian regime rarely if ever welcomes international investigators, but De Schutter said that it was Damascus which reached out to invite him. He praised the regime for its “very high, excellent” level of cooperation and “openness.” He said it was “extremely encouraging, the sign Syria is giving by being so open and transparent in its co-operation with the human-rights council.” In light of what the world now knows, and Syria’s complete non-cooperation with the Geneva body, UN Watch today called on De Schutter to renounce his preposterous comments.

Second, even when they visit the right countries, Ziegler and De Schutter reach the wrong conclusions. Ziegler went to Cuba, but it was a staged visit that hailed Castro’s policies as almost divine. De Schutter went to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis — and mentioned several problems, but his report took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime.

Like Ziegler, De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal — contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before.

Hunger is a human rights issue. Tragically, what most interests De Schutter and his council is scapegoating the West. For the next two weeks, that means Canada.

Hillel Neuer, originally of Montreal, is executive director of UN Watch in Geneva.

National Post website

The post Issue 362: As much of the world starves, a UN hunger expert investigates Canada appeared first on UN Watch.