visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 5761
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.
With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.
Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?
Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.
Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.
The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation?
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
snapcap
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So if one country isn't overseen correctly, then that gives all countries the right to do whatever they want behind closed doors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jono
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 11, 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 3000
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snapcap wrote: | | So if one country isn't overseen correctly, then that gives all countries the right to do whatever they want behind closed doors? |
No, but what the current situation does do is cause the UN Human Rights Council to lose credibility on every single decision it makes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26302
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.
With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.
Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?
Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.
Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.
The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation? |
Well said that man. 
I tip my imaginary hat to you, sir. 
(Don't worry, I won't make a habit of saying that.)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3350
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my, Israel worried that more people might find out how terrible they really? Just blow the damn country up already.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snapcap
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"If they can do it, so can we"
That's what I'm hearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4730
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't blame Israel for getting out of the UNHRC or anything else U.N.
Their location in the world, the middle east if you haven't noticed, isn't real big on human rights in the first place. If they have to take the gloves off to deal with the people that would exterminate them all at the first opportunity then so be it.
You do what you have to do, plain and simple.
If I had it my way the U.S. would be out of the U.N. and the U.N. would be out of the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3350
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The UN needs a massive overhaul to say the least, but as it stands now it does have a measure of power.
If the US left the UN, it would *help* the UN< seeing how America has a veto.... something that no country should have. Ever.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4730
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| abacacus wrote: | The UN needs a massive overhaul to say the least, but as it stands now it does have a measure of power.
If the US left the UN, it would *help* the UN< seeing how America has a veto.... something that no country should have. Ever. |
The U.N. wouldn't have nearly as much money, either.....
I can see your concern about power in the UN since the U.S. contributes 22% of the money and Canada only 3.2%. Who should have the most power, Sri Lanka?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 5185
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| abacacus wrote: | | If the US left the UN, it would *help* the UN< seeing how America has a veto.... something that no country should have. Ever. |
No country should have veto power in the UN, it defies the point of having the UN. Otherwise it's hardly going to be fair, particularly when voting on questionable subjects.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
Last edited by Kjas on Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
John_Browning
ON A LIST SOMEWHERE
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.
With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.
Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?
Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.
Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.
The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation? |
I was going to comment, but you have this pretty well bottled up!
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3350
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: |
The U.N. wouldn't have nearly as much money, either.....
I can see your concern about power in the UN since the U.S. contributes 22% of the money and Canada only 3.2%. Who should have the most power, Sri Lanka?
|
If you support the US having a veto then lets try a little thought experiment shall we? Lets say a Democrat in the U.S. Congress had the power to veto whatever he wanted (hypothetical mind you, don't just dismiss this as impossible and not even think about it). Wouldn't you be screaming and kicking that he shouldn't have that power every time he shot down a bill?
No democratic organization should *ever* have vetoes involved. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how much money you put in.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 5185
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| abacacus wrote: | | Raptor wrote: |
The U.N. wouldn't have nearly as much money, either.....
I can see your concern about power in the UN since the U.S. contributes 22% of the money and Canada only 3.2%. Who should have the most power, Sri Lanka?
|
If you support the US having a veto then lets try a little thought experiment shall we? Lets say a Democrat in the U.S. Congress had the power to veto whatever he wanted (hypothetical mind you, don't just dismiss this as impossible and not even think about it). Wouldn't you be screaming and kicking that he shouldn't have that power every time he shot down a bill?
No democratic organization should *ever* have vetoes involved. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how much money you put in. |
Agreed.
What troubles me is that some people believe that because they have donated money, that automatically entitles them to more control. Donations should be made because you believe in the organisation and the work it does, not so you can have more control over the organisation so you can use it for your own purposes.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jono
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 11, 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 3000
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| abacacus wrote: | | Raptor wrote: |
The U.N. wouldn't have nearly as much money, either.....
I can see your concern about power in the UN since the U.S. contributes 22% of the money and Canada only 3.2%. Who should have the most power, Sri Lanka?
|
If you support the US having a veto then lets try a little thought experiment shall we? Lets say a Democrat in the U.S. Congress had the power to veto whatever he wanted (hypothetical mind you, don't just dismiss this as impossible and not even think about it). Wouldn't you be screaming and kicking that he shouldn't have that power every time he shot down a bill?
No democratic organization should *ever* have vetoes involved. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how much money you put in. |
Under ideal circumstances there should be no veto power but frankly, the US veto is currently the only thing keeping it fair. Riddle me this, how can the UNHRC perform it's intended function if nearly half of it's members are human rights abusers themselves and have no interest in human rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14869
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jono wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | Well Israel has been above human rights anyways, I mean they get a free pass to kill Palestinians whenever they want what do they need to be part of the human rights council so this isn't surprising. I still think both sides need to get over themselves and hold hands or something, but I am sure both sides would try to kill me if I threw this thought at them. |
And according to almost every UN resolution that tried to pass, Hamas has a free pass to fire rockets into Israeli civilian areas without consequence, despite being confirmed in fact finding missions too. |
Then how do you explain all the raids on the palestinians? I figured that was their punishment...the thing that bothers me about that is all the people that aren't part of Hamas who have to suffer or be killed because Israels complete disregard for civilians.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
