The Tragic Irony of...."The White Man's Burden"

Hantu Laut

Remember "The White Man's Burden" a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. The poem consists of seven stanzas, but I am only going to give the first stanza, the rest you can google if it is of interest to you.

The 1st stanza:

Take up the White Man's Burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild..
Your new-caught, sullen people, Half-devil and half-child.

Kipling wrote the poem soon after the Spanish-American War and the colonisation of the Philippines by the American. 

Kipling, at that time considered the natives of the colonies of the white men as uncouth, uncivilised and that "The White Man" had a duty to refine the barbaric and brutish parts of the world. He began by describing the colonised Filipinos as "new-caught sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child. Surprisingly, up till today many Filipinos still revered the white men 

Some imperialists interpret the poem as aspirations to dominate the world and the European powers had embarked and colonised many parts of the world through whatever method suitable to them and the world at their mercy.

The Western world imperialism existed till today to dominate the rest of the world and impose its will on those considered half-devil and half-child....... illumining these lesser beings had never been exhausting for them.

In the old days they used a multitude of tactics from intimidation to gunboat diplomacy and to all out war. The audacity  much rest on whether the natives are timid or hostile.

Today, things haven't changed much, they still want to rule the world, only the tactics has changed. 

"You are with us, or against us", George Bush's belligerent call to his Western allies to join him when the U.S decided to invade Iraq that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and invasion of the country  for almost a decade. 

The Iraq War, spurred by Saddam supposedly possession of WMD (weapons of mass destruction), which later was found to be a big lie fabricated by the U.S. A blatant lie to cover its real attention, retribution for 9/11 to avenge the Muslim terrorists attack on the Twin Tower in New York on 11 Sept 2001 that killed over 3000 people, mostly Americans. 

Hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were killed in this revenge killings and the country razed to the ground by incessant and indiscriminate bombings by the U.S and her allies. Britain, among the coalition partners was the biggest running dog for theU.S lied to the world about Saddam's WMD. 

The irony, almost two-thirds of the terrorists were Saudis, but the U.S think it was Saddam that should be punished when they knew very well most of the fundings of Islamic terrorism came from Saudi Arabia, their closest ally in the Middle East.

Is Iraq peaceful and safer now? I am sure many of you would know the answer to that. 

The country is completely devastated and torn apart in sectarian violence. A puppet government installed by the U.S is completely corrupt, incompetent and ineffective. ISIS, the Islamist militants has seized large swathe of territory in Iraq and neighbouring Syria filling the power vacuum.

Afghanistan, invaded much earlier than Iraq following the 9/11 attack was to dismantle the Al Qaeda and seek the extradition of Osama bin Laden.When the Taliban government refused to entertain their request, the U.S and Britain invaded the country and bombed it to smithereens, killing thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. They finally managed to track down Osama and killed him in May 2011, not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan the so called American ally harbouring its biggest enemy. So much for the best intelligence unit in the world, took over a decade to track him down!

They buried Osama at sea on the ground that burying him on land may turn his grave into a shrine and a martyr to the Muslims>

Did killing Osama stopped Islamic terrorism?

See, the American not all that smart, they killed one devil and thousands more sprung up with bigger thirst to inflict bigger atrocity and violence against the West.

Think of what Boko Haram did two days ago in a Nigerian village, razed to the ground and wiped out the entire village of 2000 or more inhabitants.

ALAS! THE WEST DIDN'T CRY! Not a squeak of empathy and sympathy.

Seventeen killed in Paris and the whole ground shook with cry of sympathy calling for unity and solidarity over the killing of freedom of expression.......and there was huge global response almost 2 million thronged the streets of Paris including the biggest mass murderer of our time coming out of the state of Israel.

What irony!

In May 2014 the U.S announced that its combat operations would end in 2014, leaving only residual force until the end of 2016.

I can safely assume that Afghanistan will return to the Talibans, or the like of it as soon as all foreign forces left the country.

The Western powers have not only destroyed these two countries, they have also destroyed almost all the Arab countries in the Middle East through proxy wars, except Saudi Arabia, the worst offender of personal liberty and human rights subjecting its citizens to extremely harsh Islamic laws, but the American and her Western allies love these medieval Wahhabis for their oil money and not give two hoots of her draconian laws and human right abuses of her own citizens.

This double-standard and hypocrisy are being played out wherever and whenever their interests at stake without due care and attention for human lives other than theirs.

As in Matthew 12.30 of the Gospel "Whoever is not with me is against me and whoever does not gather with me scatters" said Jesus. 

Does it not ring true of the Western powers' convention?

The recent deadly attacks in Paris that killed 17 people by wayward Muslims shows that all is not well between Islam and the West. Many Muslims viewed the West as arrogant, bigoted, domineering, unjust and want to subjugate and dominate the rest of the world.Out of those killed 12 worked for the bigoted magazine called Charlie Hebdo.

The root of the problem between Muslims and the West started over 60 years ago with the creation of the state of Israel as laid out in the Balfour Declaration for the creation of a Jewish state out of Palestinian land.

In 1945 when US President Roosevelt went to see King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia with the proposal for the creation of a new country for the Jews, King Abdul Aziz told Roosevelt since it was the Germans who committed atrocities against the Jews why not carve a bit of Germany and give it to the Jews. Roosevelt, however, told the King that the US would not intervene without consulting both Arabs and Jews in the region. Soon after, Roosevelt died and the presidency was taken over by Harry Truman.

In the final stage of the Second World War, the US under Truman dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki that brought the war to an end and the surrender of Japan. Truman, with the new found victory, arrogantly ignored to consul the Arabs and together with the other Western allies went ahead with the creation of Israel in 1948, which spurred the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Many Muslims, particularly, from the Middle East viewed the West as the biggest "munafik" and their own governments as corrupt, incompetent and easily cowed by the West. To correct the injustices, it has become expedient and rest on their shoulders to fight a private war against the West. 

Past wars between Arab states and Israel had been catastrophic for the Arab countries with the Arabs losing more territories to Israel. If right is might instead of might is right, there was no pressure from the Western powers for Israel to return the occupied territories. The West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights were Arab lands occupied by the Jews till today.

It's OK for them to mock your culture and religion and make fun of your prophet, which they called freedom of expression, but you can't call them White, that's racist!

It's OK if thousands of you Muslims killed by Jews, but you must not be anti-semitic, or say the Holocaust never happened, it's a punishable offence.

The White Man's Burden will continue to crack its whip for world's domination to terrify and purify the half-devil and half-child. 

It's A Joke: Obama Should Return His Nobel Peace Prize.

Hantu Laut

Will Barack Obama bomb the hell out of Syria?

Obama should return the Nobel Peach Prize as he is no more fighting a leftover war, but himself into war. 

He never did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize anyway. I have written here some time ago why he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize.

He says America is not the world's policeman, why than is he trying to get involve in an area of conflict that has nothing to do with the U.S?



The American never seem to learn their lessons, poking their noses in every area of conflicts whenever they think American interests are at stake.

Syria, for no viable reason, do not fit the picture of danger to American interests, but there is more to it than chemical weapon of mass destruction to justify U.S involvement.


The Syrian war if left unchecked can destabilise the region.

That's the only reason the U.S. wanted to exert its military power in Syria......... to shield Israel and protect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia from a spill over of the war, where a motley mix of dangerous rebels forces, including Al Qaeda are fighting to topple Bashar al-Assad. 



More than 100,000 people have been killed and 1.7 million forced to flee to neighbouring countries since the conflict started 30 months ago.

The U.S. have closed its eyes to what had happened in Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda where millions were slaughtered by murderous dictators and the American never bat an eyelid.

Why than is the U.S. keen to get involved in Syria? 

Why Syria, where Assad is fighting rebel groups as atrocious, cruel and murderous as Assad is ? 

The Middle East is the most important region for the U.S and for the security of Israel and the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. 

The U.S. doesn't give two hoots about human lives. If sincerely so, why wait until over 100,000 lives have been lost before it triggers the American conscience.

Obama says if they do proceed, it will be limited war, no ground troops.

Aren't aerial bombings the most destructive to human lives and properties and more often than not do not hit the intended targets, resulting in gross destruction to civilian lives and properties?

How many people have Assad killed using chemical weapons and how many more will Obama kill with his indiscriminate bombing of the country?

I am no fan of Assad, I think he is reincarnation of the devil itself and should be taken out, but not the way the American want to do it. 

The American with all the sophisticated weapons that they have are not known to be dead accurate hitting their targets and many civilians would become collateral damage if the U.S.military resorted to aerial bombings using drones or manned flights.

The rebels atrocities and cruelty are not less than what Assad is doing. Can Obama explain to the world his reasoning of supporting the same kind of evil that he is trying to stop, this war of baddies against baddies.

The video below was smuggled by a rebel disillusioned with the atrocities inflict on the enemies and civilians who do not support their cause.

Rebels have also reportedly killed 123 civilians in Assad's home province of Latakia and Assad's Alawite sect that controlled the military and have kept his family in power for over four decades. The massacre could have been retaliatory.

Among the rebels are opportunistic terror groups like Al Qeada and freedom fighters from other Muslim countries. 

America's next biggest headache is if the rebels succeeded in taking over Syria, there are no visible leaders align to the U.S. who can take over the running of the country.

Between the two evils, which one is Obama going to play ball with?

Obama is now looking for an escape tunnel where he can escape  from attacking Syria.

Using PAS Symbol: DAP Biggest "PLOY" To Delude Malay Voters

Hantu Laut









I'll be laconic about this. No point writing lengthy article that eventually will be lost in translation. 

Why use PAS and not PKR in West Malaysia, and PAS not PKR in Sabah and Sarawak?

It is not difficult to guess.....ain't it....... the ploy to mislead. 

The ROS has confirmed that DAP can still use its symbol as the party had not been deregistered. Why the need to use your coalition partners symbol when you can still legally use your own.

This is DAP biggest "wayang" to delude the kampong Malays into believing they are voting for PAS. 

DAP, well known for its theatric of sadness or outrage, depending whether it's the father or the son, played the usual victim. Lim Kit Siang was seen shedding crocodile tears as if the whole DAP world had fallen apart, when any level-headed person knew DAP is still a full-fuctioning political party and able to use its own symbol. The son was in furious outrage.

Simple kampong folks use the symbol to vote for the party they like and allowing DAP to use PAS symbol will create much confusion in rural/semi-rural areas.

I can foresee a near total rejection of PAS by majority Malay voters likely to happen when they see the DAP ploy and PAS leaders condescending ways. PAS leaders used to call UMNO members "infidels" for associating with Chinese.

Most educated Malays want to believe communal politics is over and done with while the smarter Chinese have formed a cohesive centre-right bloc that will cement Chinese unity and allow DAP to capture most predominantly and marginal Chinese constituencies. The Chinese have learnt the art of divide and rule and giving the Malays a taste of their own medicine, which they have been dispensing to the Chinese and other non-Malay communities for over half a century.

The real war is not in the urban areas but in the rural/semi-rural areas where majority of seats are located and DAP was smart enough to see this godsend opportunity.

Bigots Vs Bigots

Hantu Laut

In every religion there are bigots who violate other religion out of ignorance, sheer stupidity and for some, throwing insults, merely, for orgasmic whirl of thrills. 

People like obscured Florida Pastor Terry Jones and film maker Sam Becile who made the film "Innocence of Muslims" to insult Muslims and Prophet Muhammad are more dangerous that Al Qaeda terrorists as they can stir up mass violence with lethal consequence among the world's Muslim population. 

Jones, from a small never heard of nondenominational Christian church is an attention seeker who may be suffering from serious bouts of attention deficit syndrome. His ways of seeking fame is by burning the Korans. Just as well, bigoted Muslims around the world gave him the attention he wanted...... a celebrity of sorts.

The U.S, the bastion of freedom of expression, as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had said, will not stop anyone from expressing themselves no matter how distasteful they are. The carnage that stemmed out of this freedom of expression that enraged Muslims into violent reaction that killed the U.S Ambassador to Libya and a couple of other American. 



The U.S stance advocating protection of free speech even if it can cause mass violent hysteria on a global scale is beyond the pale. Its refusal to prosecute the tormentors giving free speech as the excuse is most deplorable and has given rise to more madness and copycats casting more insults at Muslims worldwide.

European official are worried that Europe may be the next battleground over the anti-Islam video. German officials mulled a ban of a planned screening of the film in Berlin and in French a weekly magazine published cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, some showing him naked. Muslim community leaders appealed for calm, but can they control the religious fervour of million of Muslims.

Can they control the madness of 6 million Muslims in French, 4 million in Germany, 20 million in Russia and million more in other part of Europe?

It is deplorable hypocrisy using freedom of expression as an excuse not to take action to stop desecration of other religions. 

You can't call an African American a "nigger" or the Whites  as "white thrashes" but it is fine to thrash and insult other people's religion and called it freedom of expression.Racism is outlawed in the West but insulting religions is perfectly alright.

As there are as many bigots in Christianity, there are just as many in Islam.

Hypocrisy is homage that vice pays to virtue.

It is about time the hypocritical West draw a line between freedom of expression and freedom to insult, may it be race, colour or creed.

Democracy,Kleptocracy Or Hypocrisy ? Take Your Pick.

Hantu Laut

Some people say you can't separate Sharizat from her husband and she paid  a heavy price for what he did. 

Can you separate Marina from her father?

There was no record of her attacking her father's policies when he was prime minister for 22 years under the same political umbrella. 

UMNO political ideology have not changed much until quite recently when current PM Najib tried to repair the damage done under Pak Lah's tenure by reforming some of the archaic and draconian laws.

Najib is fighting an uphill battle not only from the oppositions but from within his own party where old habit diehards see reforms stripping away their political fortunes.

Obviously, she is not a fan of PM Najib Tun Razak and the kleptocratic UMNO, her father's former political bastion.

Marina binti Mahathir is the daughter and eldest child of the 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Mahathir Mohammad. She is well known as a leader in many non-governmental organizations such as the Malaysian AIDS Foundation and is currently an active socio-political blogger. She also writes a bi-weekly column in The Star.

Marina has called for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Marina has 3 children and is married to an Indonesian professional photographer, Tara Sosrowardoyo.

She graduated from the University of Sussex.

Marina Mahathir, daughter of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has launched a stinging attack on UMNO leaders

May 8: Marina Mahathir, daughter of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has launched a stinging attack on UMNO leaders who accused participants of the Bersih 3.0 rally last month of wanting to topple the government through street protests.

“What is this obsession with us not being Egypt anyway? If we’re not, then why worry? Besides, who needs to worry about the Arab Spring unless they identify themselves with Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadaffi and Assad?” she wrote in a blog posting, referring to the Arab dictators.

UMNO leaders, including her father, had earlier said that Bersih protesters were imitating the people’s uprising in the Middle East, collectively known as the ‘Arab Spring’, and wanted to replace the current government through street protests and foreign interference.

Marina (pic), who also joined the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, defended the right to peaceful assembly and said there was nothing wrong when the Egyptian people assembled at Tahrir Square to press for democratic reforms.

“They want a greater say in the policies of the government. They want an end to corruption. They want proper elections with many candidates to choose from, not just those handpicked by the rulers. They want an end to military interference in politics,” she wrote.

“Aren’t these reasonable? But our government will not acknowledge that these demands are quite normal. Well maybe they’re not in an undemocratic country.”

Marina also took to task those who argued that Malaysians need not protest as their country was “not Egypt.

“If Malaysia is not Egypt and our leaders are not Mubarak, then why are Malaysians who went to Bersih treated like Egyptian protestors?” she asked.

“If anyone had gone down to Dataran on the Sunday after Bersih 3.0, apart from the barbed wire, everything was back to normal… Made our point, now let’s go eat. This is why we are not Egypt. In this we agree with our government. We are NOT Egypt. But then why respond in such Mubarak-like fashion?”

On the recent declaration by the National Fatwa Council that demonstrating against the government was forbidden in Islam, Marina reminded of a similar ruling made by Egypt’s Al-Azhar University Fatwa Committee in the days leading to Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, 2011.

“So getting the NFC ( hmmm…dubious initials…) to issue such a fatwa seems very Mubarak-like, doesn’t it?” she quipped. Harakahdaily.

‘Anwar’s RM445m plot against Dr M’

KUALA LUMPUR: Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin today levelled another serious allegation against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, accusing his one-time ally of siphoning off RM44

5 million when he was deputy prime minister.

The firebrand blogger claimed in his latest posting on Malaysia Today that the money was to finance his political ambition – ousting then premier and archrival Dr Mahathir Mohamad who later sacked him and had him jailed for sodomy and corruption charges.

Raja Petra claimed that the money, obtained through a syndicate of lenders in 1997, was “arranged” by tycoon Quek Leng Chan whom the blogger alleged was one of Anwar’s closest “cronies”.

Quek owns one of Malaysia’s biggest bank, Hong Leong Bank Bhd. Raja Petra charged that he had managed to buy the bank with the help of Anwar who was also the finance minister at the time.

He added that Anwar’s alleged hands in the bank acquisition gave him the needed financial backing to plot his coup against Mahathir, while Quek wanted the former as premier to further his own ambitions.

“As I have always said: behind every Malay Umno politician is a Chinese business tycoon. The Chinese need the Malays to get ahead. The Malays also need the Chinese to get ahead.”

Plot thickens

Raja Petra claimed that it took Anwar RM200 million to oust Ghafar Baba as the Umno deputy president in what was described as the “dirtiest” Umno polls in 1993, so the former deputy prime minister needed more to oust Mahathir.

Quek had allegedly arranged for Anwar to receive RM445 million. The loan was originally meant for the purchase of Inchcape Timuran shares as well as the purchase of a least known financial institution, Kewangan Bersatu Bhd (KBB).

Several of Anwar’s supposed cronies were allegedly involved in the arrangements, said Raja Petra. He named then Penang Umno treasurer Ishak Ismail and one of Anwar’s speech writers, Faiz Abdullah.

Ishak was the owner of KBB while Faiz was the person tasked with arranging the Inchcape Timuran deal with the help of Seow Lun Hoo, the former president and CEO of Hong Leong Credit Bhd.

“The plan was to use the RM420 million syndicated loan facility to acquire Inchcape Timuran and KBB. KBB, which had a finance licence, would then borrow from another financial institution to repay the original loan from Hong Leong.

“And the beautiful part about this whole thing is: KBB was already owned by Ishak… so it would be merely transferring money from one pocket to the other,” said the blogger.

Where’s the money?

Raja Petra said that the acquisition of KBB, however, did not take place and Hong Leong had filed a legal suit against eight nominees used to obtain the loan in what he claimed was an intentional move to implicate Anwar. Read more.

Hypocrisy : A Tribute That Vice Pays To Virtue

Hantu Laut

An honest, sincere person need not dissemble, only deceitful ones would.

Hypocrisy! As we all know is to pretend to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principle. etc when the person actually possessed none of them.It is also often called "tribute that vice pays to virtue"

If one have read Boris Pasternak's Dr Zhivago in one of the passages Yuri Zhivago flayed hypocrisy as "Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike... Our nervous system isn't just fiction, it's part of our physical body, and it can't be forever violated with impunity."

No matter how careful you are the day of reckoning will come when you would "slip and fall" in front of the very eyes of society you deceived or try to deceive.

Enter the true Anwar.......... hypocrite, magician and snake charmer, if you may.The charismatic man of contradictions, freedom come, freedom go up to his whims and fancies, freedom is for him alone, not others.

He cowardly refused a face-off with Raja Petra and now making stupid excuses that RPK was never supposed to be in the forum in the first place.Does it matter whether RPK was chosen earlier or later? His objection to RPK presence at the forum clearly shows he feared RPK's "no hold barred" attitude and that he may spill more beans at the forum.

With Salman Rushdie, his refusal to sit at the same table is a different ballgame altogether.Anwar would very much love to meet Rushdie but his "Satanic Verses" and the rage against him by the Muslims world is still out there and the Muslims in Malaysia would not be happy if he is seen rubbing shoulders with the "shaitan"

You see, sooner or later not only your hypocritical self but your past will catch up with you too.

His former good friend and confidante Nalllakaruppan says here "Anwar is a bisexual" and asked Anwar to sue him if he is man enough and threatened to reveal the names of people's wives and boys who slept with him.

Would Nallakaruppan stake his name if there is no truth to his claim?

Here's a funny one from Megan Fox, the actor whom every man would die for to take to bed and she said "I think people are born bisexual and they make subconscious choices based on the pressures of society. I have no question in my mind about being bisexual. But I'm also a hypocrite: I would never date a girl who is bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I'd never sleep with a girl who had slept with a man."

I am not about to debate on other people's sexual inclination, I think they should be left to themselves.

However, our culture are not matured enough to accept such anomaly in politics and to allow homosexuals and bisexuals to reach the top of the political ladder.What one might think is politically right in Australia, Britain and other Western countries is not necessary right here.

Anwar has been very successful in hiding his true self and the Malaysian public is convinced he is a victim of calumny by his political foes.

Bad days for Malaysia if this man become prime minister.

U.N. Takes Aim At United States Violation Of Human Rights

U.N. Human Rights Council Takes Aim at New Target: United States

By George Russell

Published November 05, 2010 | FoxNews.com

ADVERTISEMENT

The United Nations Human Rights Council, a conclave of 47 nations that includes such notorious human rights violators as China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia, met in Geneva on Friday, to question the United States about its human rights failings.

It heard, among other things, that the U.S. discriminates against Muslims, that its police are barbaric and that it has been holding political prisoners behind bars for years.

Russia urged the U.S. to abolish the death penalty. Cuba and Iran called on Washington to close Guantanamo prison and investigate alleged torture by its troops abroad. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, told the U.S. it must better promote religious tolerance. Mexico complained that racial profiling had become a common practice in some U.S. states.

Some of these allegations, and many more, come from Americans themselves — especially from a stridently critical network of U.S. organizations whose input dominates the U.N. digest of submissions from “civil society” that are part of the council’s background reading.

For the first time ever, the U.S. came under the Human Rights Council’s microscope as part of the its centerpiece activity, the “Universal Periodic Review,” a rotating examination of the human rights failings and strong points of every country in the world, from North Korea to Norway, by the council's members.

For two hours, council members got to say whatever they wish, good and ill, about the country that has done the most in the past 40 years to establish human rights as a global theme.

The anticipation was that that ill-wishers were planning to pack the line to the speaker’s podium, with complaints from some Western human rights organizations that Cuba, Venezuela and Iran were seeking to “hijack” the microphone and stack the speaker’s list with U.S. critics. And it appears to some extent they did.

But what really is under review is the gamble by the Obama administration to join the council in the first place, rather than shun it in disdain, as the Bush administration did, along with its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, because of its roster of despotic members and unbridled antagonism toward Israel.

The Universal Periodic Review, in which all countries great and small submit to human rights commentary by their peers, is supposed to help install the principle of observing human rights in the farthest reaches of the international community.

But it is also showing signs of becoming, in the U.S. case, a one-sided fiasco, along the lines of such previous toxic human rights extravaganzas as the U.N.’s 2001 “World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,” and its 2006 follow-up, which turned into orgies of anti-Israeli posturing and helped to lead to the previous U.N. Human Rights Commission crackup.

So who is supposed to benefit from the U.S. submission to the UPR process?

According to Jim Kelly, director of international affairs for the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and founder of a blog called Global Governance Watch, the main beneficiaries are likely to be the interest groups that take part in the exercise. “The fact is, they are demanding that the U.S. comply with rights that are already addressed by our own democratic system and laws,” he argues. “They are simply trying to get us to adopt U.N. standards instead of our own. It’s not as if by our participating in the human rights process Cuba is going to clean up its act.”

But according to the U.S. State Department, which led a delegation of high-level American diplomats and government officials to Geneva, the Periodic Review is a major opportunity for Washington to lead the rest of the world by example.

“Our taking the process seriously contributes to the universality” of the human rights process, one State Department official told Fox News. “It’s an important opportunity for us to showcase our willingness to expose ourselves in a transparent way” to human rights criticism.

“For us, upholding the process is very important.”

The same official, however, declared that the “most important” part of the process is “the dialogue with our own citizens.”

That was a reference to the important—and often harshly critical—role being played in the U.S. Universal Periodical Review by American human rights interest groups, or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), also known in U.N. parlance as “stakeholders.”

The Obama administration has gone to elaborate lengths to consult with such groups in advance of the Geneva meeting. The State Department, has led delegations from a variety of government departments (including Labor, Homeland Security, Education and Justice) to consult with such groups in Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Harlem, and Albuquerque, according to an official at State.

Those NGOs will also get a chance to “engage” with the U.S. delegation in Geneva at what the State Department calls a “first ever town hall meeting,” after the Human Rights Council, composed of national governments, makes its views known. “Many countries stack the room with NGOs that are government controlled,” the State Department official told Fox News, adding that the U.S. obviously doesn’t.

“We hope that the Periodic Review process will be one that sheds new light on issues,” the official added, including “what we learn from our own NGOs, which we take seriously.”

How seriously the NGOs should be taken is indeed, an important part of the question surrounding the human rights tableau in Geneva. For one thing, 103 submissions by those NGOS about U.S. human rights practices—very broadly defined—are already included in the official documentation of the Universal Periodic Review itself.

In that sense, their contents provide a kind of rough road map to the rhetoric that the U.S. may face in the days—and even years—ahead, because the Universal Periodic Review process will be repeated indefinitely into the future, and is supposed to analyze progress from session to session.

According to a dense summary of the submissions circulated by the U.N. in advance of Friday's meeting, the NGOs offering briefs for this Review run a familiar gamut from the American Bar Association and British-based Amnesty International to such specialized groups as the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission.

They also include an array of submissions from college legal faculties and their advocacy offshoots; environmental coalitions; and a smattering of other non-American organizations such as the Federation of Cuban Women, based in the Castro dictatorship. (The women’s group objects on human rights grounds to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.)

Even relatively conservative and centrist organizations are represented in submissions by the Heritage Foundation, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. Read more.