TS

Outrage at UN: Democracies Enable Iran, China, Cuba to Oversee Human Rights Bodies GENEVA, April 10, 2026 — UN Watch, the independent Geneva-based non-governmental organization that monitors the United Nations, today called on Canada, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, and other democracies to explain why they joined in the election of serial abusers of human rights to key UN bodies that oversee human rights. [Links here: unwatch.org/outrage-at-un-…] On Wednesday, the UN’s 54-nation Economic and Social Council nominated the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN’s Committee for Program and Coordination, which meets next month to shape policy on women's rights, human rights, disarmament, and terrorism prevention. ECOSOC’s nomination is effectively decisive, as the UN General Assembly customarily rubber-stamps such nominations without a vote. In addition, ECOSOC by acclamation elected China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan to the influential Committee on NGOs, which oversees the work, accreditation and UN access of thousands of human rights and civil society groups that enjoy consulative status at the world body. The United States was the only ECOSOC member to object, saying that Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua were “unfit.” UN Watch today called on all democratic ECOSOC member states — Canada, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland — to explain why they joined in the election of serial abusers of human rights to key UN bodies that oversee human rights. “Appointing China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia to oversee the work of human rights activists is like putting Al Capone in charge of fighting organized crime,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “It’s truly indefensible, and puts lives at risk.” “As an organization accredited with special NGO consultative status at the United Nations, and which regularly gives a platform to dissidents from China, Cuba, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua, we are gravely concerned that brutal dictatorships were elected to oversee our work and credentials — and it is scandalous that Western democracies put them there.” “This means dictatorships will have a majority on the committee in order to deny United Nations accreditation to independent organizations that call out their human rights violations, and to accredit more fake front groups created by the regimes,” Neuer said. “It harms the ability of pro-democracy dissidents to protect the most vulnerable victims and to advocate for human rights inside the United Nations.” “By their cynical actions at the UN, major Western states have betrayed their own human rights principles, severely undermining the ruled-based international order that they claim to support.” “We note that Western states did take action in recent years to stop Russia from getting elected to similar ECOSOC bodies, and we deeply regret that they failed to do the same now to stop the election of serial violators such as Iran, China, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan,” said Neuer. Activists Issued Warning Before ECOSOC Election Ahead of the election, 70 civil society and human rights groups warned that countries with poor records were at risk of being elected. The group International Service for Human Rights gave a failing grade to China, Cuba, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua and others. Yet their warning was ignored. Key Documents and Sources • Video showing ECOSOC’s nomination without objection of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN’s Committee for Program and Coordination: webtv.un.org/en/asset/k12/k… • UN document listing election by acclamation of China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan to the Committee on NGOs: press.un.org/en/2026/ecosoc… • UN website showing that ECOSOC members currently include Canada, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland: ecosoc.un.org/en/about-us/me… • U.S. statement dissociating itself from ECOSOC decisions, the only one of 54 ECOSOC members to do so: usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of… About UN Watch United Nations Watch is a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mission is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter. UN Watch holds the UN accountable to its founding principles by exposing hypocrisy, bias, and abuses. For more information, visit unwatch.org.

@TSLA_inside_ @UNECE i have always said that the EU is trying to delay FSD as much as possible, because they pray and hope that europeans auto makers will catch up.

🔴 Ukrainian forces used British drones to destroy a Russian-held bridge over the River Dnipro in a breakthrough operation that will shape the future of warfare. This is how warfare will change 👇 telegraph.co.uk/world-news/202…

Some skeptical commentary on the @SpaceX IPO from @hackernews user "johnbarron": This comment reads like an S-1 pitch deck and almost every claim is false or misleading. The $16B is not profit its revenue, and I strongly suggest to learn the difference before investing. The $8B figure is EBITDA, also known as, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, AND amortization. For a company running around 9500 LEO satellites with a less than 5 year lifespan, depreciation is the business. Their FCC filings show that about 500 satellites deorbited just in the first of half of 2025 alone, and they were all under 5 years old. The estimates for constellation sustenance are currently at $5-8B per year in satellite manufacturing (about $500K each) and launch costs are about $3M each. That is the real capex that EBITDA hides. Net income has never been disclosed and probably for good reason... And lets not even mention the $19 billion EchoStar acquisition who is almost certainly! not included in the $8 billion EBITDA figures reported... The most critical is that xAI is excluded from the number. XAI had a $1.46B net loss in Q3 2025 on just $107M in revenue, accelerating from $1B the prior quarter. They were burning $1B a month at the time of filing. This pig was then merged into SpaceX in Feb 2026 along with X/Twitter. So start with $8B EBITDA, subtract $5-8B satellite replacement, subtract $4-6B per year in xAI losses, subtract interest and taxes specially amortization and you are very very deep in the red. Once audited financials go public, every analyst with a calculator and a working brain will see this. Also the revenue is largely circular... Over 70% of Falcon 9 launches in 2025 were internal Starlink missions so SpaceX is its own biggest customer. Starlink is 70% of total revenue. The so called "launch business" and "internet business" are the same capital cycle booked as two revenue lines ;-) Replace legacy ISPs? Really? Starlink has 0.2% residential market share after 5 years, with declining ARPU ($85 avg vs $120 US) and congestion already emerging at 10M subs. It is a niche rural/maritime ISP, not an AT&T killer. And on the valuation? NVIDIA for example, who has an almost actual monopoly on AI chips, with $216B revenue, and $120B net income, at 56% margins, trades at 20x revenue. Tesla…. already considered absurdly overvalued at P/E 355, trades at 15x. Amazon at 3x. Meta at 10x. SpaceX wants 110x !! times revenue, with no audited financials, unknown net income, and a freshly absorbed money losing AI company. Even on bullish 2026 projected revenue of $24B, it's 73x so nearly 4x NVIDIA multiple, and NVIDIA actually prints profit... Starship on another side is very very far from routine... 11 flights, 5 failures. But notice on thing...In 2025 alone on Flight 7 the upper stage exploded from harmonic vibrations. Then Flight 8 exploded from propellant mixing. Flight 9 was destroyed on reentry...Ship 36 exploded on test stand ...the first V3 booster exploded during pressure testing and was scrapped. See a pattern here? Each failure from a different root cause. So multiple unsolved failure modes, not iteration. It has never reached orbit, never caught a ship, never demonstrated orbital refueling. This offering is the most scandalous ever and the structure tells you everything. The filing is confidential, REAL financials only need to go public 15 days before the roadshow. Nasdaq is literally changing its index rules effective May 1 to allow a fast track Nasdaq-100 entry in 15 trading days. This is a rule that never existed before, and is made for this IPO, forcing billions in passive index buying on day one. Public float is just 3% to 4%. This is one of the tightest floats for any major US IPO in modern history, and I have been following the markets for 20 years. They do 30% retail allocation what is three times the norm and tells you exactly who the target buyer is. continues: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=476132…