U.S. Says It Won't Be Candidate for U.N. Rights Council

[Skink000 0]

U.S. Says It Won't Be Candidate for U.N. Rights Council

By WARREN HOGE

Published: April 6, 2006

UNITED NATIONS, April 6 — The United States said today that it will not be a candidate for the new Human Rights Council, which was approved overwhelmingly last month by the United Nations General Assembly with Washington in almost lone opposition.

The United States would sit out the first election in May but support other countries it deemed worthy, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said and "likely" would run a year from now.

The council, which will hold its first meeting in Geneva in June, replaces the human rights commission which had been widely discredited for allowing notorious rights abusers like Sudan and Zimbabwe on the panel.

The election of the 47 new members is scheduled for May 9, and as of today, 34 countries, including Cuba and Iran, had formally said they would run.

The new panel includes added restrictions on membership that its advocates say would keep major violators from membership. The United States has argued that they were not sufficient to do the job.

Principal among the new rules are individual, rather than regional, elections for each country; the need for 96 votes to get elected; mandatory formal reviews of members' rights records, and means for suspending countries found guilty of abuses.

The council was approved on March 15 by a 170 to 4 vote, with Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau joining the United States in opposition. Belarus, Iran and Venezuela abstained.

"This is a major retrenchment in America's long struggle to advance the cause of human rights around the world," said Rep. Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, "and it is a profound signal of U.S. isolation at a time when we need to work cooperatively with our Security Council partners."

The leading Democrat on the House International Relations Committee and founding co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Mr. Lantos

said that the failure to push for the 96 votes needed for acceptance "projects a picture of profound weakness in U.S. diplomacy."

Since American officials had last month approved the budgeting of the council and pledged to support it, today's negative announcement was unexpected. Numbers of congressmen, including some of the United Nations' harshest Republican critics, had joined rights groups in lobbying the Bush administration to make the United States a candidate despite the council's flaws.

The director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, Felice Gaer, said it was a mistake for the United States to wait for future elections to run.

"All key decisions about serious reform issues from the curtailment of inappropriate bodies to whether and how countries are scrutinized will be made in the first year," Ms. Gaer said. `

Among the Republican critics who had counseled joining the panel despite its acknowledged flaws were Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the foreign relations committee chairman, and Representatives Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

When the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, proposed a resolution calling for an American boycott of the new council on March 31, Representative Smith put out a statement calling for the measure's defeat.

Human rights groups speculated that the United States was worried that revelations of abuses of detainees in Iraq and of clandestine prisons abroad had raised fears in the Bush administration that it could not get the needed 96 votes for membership.

"It's childish for the U.S. government not to cooperate with the new Human Rights Council when it cooperated for decades with the vastly inferior Human Rights Commission," said the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth.

"It's unfortunate that the Bush administration's disturbing human rights record means that the United States is today hardly a shoe-in for election to the council," he added.

A Democratic member of the House committee, Robert Wexler of Florida, faulted the United States ambassador, John R. Bolton, for isolating the United States and thwarting the United Nations human rights effort.

` "This decision reflects the colossal diplomatic failures of Ambassador Bolton," Mr. Wexler said in an interview.

"It's a national disgrace for America that we will not be a present in guiding and leading that council in a productive direction," he added, "and that under Mr. Bolton's leadership at the U.N. the world's single superpower cannot muster up the necessary votes to win an election." 

This article is the property of The New York Times

[Constantina 5]

I'm sure the US has already discredited people's rights. In some states, people's basic needs are still being ignored, and there are still slums in major cities. Human Rights? I'm sure Britain, Norway and Switzerland is a great candidate for the council. Did I just notice that Switzerland is not even the member of the UN although one of the UN agencies are based there?

signature

Constantina

at Athens and Midlands, NSWiki, SC4EVER.com and Simtropolis

London 2012

[JustinHayward 10]

This is another thread that is likely to descend into a flaming war  between US and European members ............ and isnt there a rule about NO POLITICS on this site ?????

Quote from MC6ASH on the rules thread ....

"please keep all posts in this forum unbiased to the precised dot. Most current events are welcome, but please keep it clean and friendly.

highly controversial topics are frowned upon, but currently not against the rules.

Please note, these rules are subject to change."

So - basically - the rules are dependant upon wether the admins agree with what is being posted ............ ????

I give up ..............

[andymcnab666 4]

Okay, so how can we discuss current events without politics... Its impossible.

On this topic however, I support the USAs posistion, and I personally beleive that such a council should not, and cannot exist. And another personal opinion, I am absolutly disgusted that the likes of Iran, Cuba, Belarus, and probably Russia on there. Such blantent disguarders of human rights should not even be in the UN.

[vidioman 21]

[JustinHayward 10]

I take back all I ever said about you Vidioman - you are one hilarious guy !!!!! Ever heard of political correctness buddy ?????

[Energy Monkey 0]

Lol, I have to agree with that vidioman, Bush hasn't participated at all in the UN when he came to office (from what I've seen). Even though I'm an American, America Rocks!................................Sometimes

[Skink000 0]

Originally posted by: JustinHayward This is another thread that is likely to descend into a flaming war  between US and European members ............ and isnt there a rule about NO POLITICS on this site ?????

Quote from MC6ASH on the rules thread ....

"please keep all posts in this forum unbiased to the precised dot. Most current events are welcome, but please keep it clean and friendly.

highly controversial topics are frowned upon, but currently not against the rules.

Please note, these rules are subject to change."

So - basically - the rules are dependant upon wether the admins agree with what is being posted ............ ????

I give up ..............quote>

 

@JustinHayward: Not looking for a war Justin, just comments. As I see it my post is unbiased and to the precise dot. If I had added my comments when I first read it there could have been a flaming war. I tried to adhere to the rules and posted just the current event as it was written in the news. If any "power that be" wishes to kill any topic or post of mine I am sure they will have a good reason for it, I hope I can adhere to the rules and not have that happen.

I don't even see this topic as highly controversial but a very news worthy article in the The New York Times.

I can see your point, but did not post it with that intent ².

I respect your opinions and like to hear them.

Have a flaming good day all.

[vidioman 21]

Originally posted by: JustinHayward I take back all I ever said about you Vidioman - you are one hilarious guy !!!!! Ever heard of political correctness buddy ????? quote>

***** no.

But it does have it's consequences, right, Ski?

If you don't conform, the iron fist of the great overlord will kill you. It's a thin line we walk. A thin line indeed.

-~deleted~

[JustinHayward 10]

Skink

In a perfect world, a topic like this could be discussed intelligently, without bias or prejudice - but the very nature of the news article propogates both !!! - and we all know how heated these topics can get. 

It is perfectly natural for each of us to have national pride, and to feel that our respective nations are perhaps a little better than some - but over zealous national pride, or religious beliefs, does indeed lead to wars, and they are, in my opinion, best kept out of forums.

[brancra 1,168]

Well, I'm actually hoping Britain and France aren't on the council. They already sit with the U.S, China and Japan on some other committee. (At least, I am pretty sure this is true). I would like to see more variety in the UN committees.

Yes, I know, sounds silly, doesn't it?

[Skink000 0]

Hi Justin, 

A point very well made. I have yet to decide if the article is biased or prejudiced as I do not yet know enough about the topic, hence the post here where the discussion is moderated and held to a level of intellect/ and/or conduct.

I believe in national pride yet do not expect any government or body such as the U.N. to act in the best interest of the people it serves all the time. I think it is our responsibility  to analyze and intelligently critique the actions of our governments and I think the population here can act accordingly.

Merriam-Webster dictionary, forum, definition 3.a. states "a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion." The rules here dictate the "code of conduct" or the "rules of engagement" as it may be. As long as the rules are followed, all should go well, if not, something (such as a topic) or someone will get  the ax.

Thanks for your in put, I can understand your point but do not think we have the time to wait for a perfect world. I think we can use that perfect world for a target to strive for (that is what idealisms are best suited for) and that the open forum is a great tool to help us along the way.

I am also of the opinion that the forum is an integral part of free speech and Democracy and if fettered by the trepidation of war then this ship is sunk. 

Thanks for this place.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: Constantina I'm sure the US has already discredited people's rights. In some states, people's basic needs are still being ignored, and there are still slums in major cities. Human Rights? I'm sure Britain, Norway and Switzerland is a great candidate for the council. Did I just notice that Switzerland is not even the member of the UN although one of the UN agencies are based there?

quote>

 

Every country has people that have basic needs that cannot be met. And America gives human rights to everyone... America is one of the weirdest countries because we are actually concerned about human rights in the middle of a war!!

Please tell one area where we (America) did not give rights in the 21st century.

[JustinHayward 10]

Ooooo Micah - thats likely to attract some more anti-american comments !!

You are right of course - every nation in the so called civilised world has its successes, but also has its failures.

I am European, but I am well aware of what history says about many of the nations of Europe - The British enslaved the country of India - The French enslaved half of West Africa - The Dutch desecrated and pilaged South Africa - the Spanish and Portuguese did the same to South America - and half the world invaded North America over the last 4 centuries !!

So - all in all - the 6 so called most civilised nations on earth are nothing but thiefs, and invaders ......................... Civilised nations ???? History doesnt say so !!

[Micah 16]

I see what you are saying Justin. But the 21st century is a different era. Now all the civilized countries are concerned about human rights. It seems like most of the countries that aren't concerned about human rights are those that are communist or ruled by dictators.

[Skink000 0]

@JustinHayward & Micah:  What history might show is that the U.S. for over 200 years has been consistent in not always lending aid to the peoples of countries that are under attack in one form or another. In the 1700's we watched England institute the Opium Wars with a very isolationistic China. In the same way we watched China during the Cultural Revolution over through Tibet, kill many of its monks, destroy its shrines, destroy countless pieces of irreplaceable art work and drive its spiritual leader into exile. We continue to watch as Hell on Earth prevails  in a number of African Nations for the only reason being, that I can see, is that they do not harbor any support for our capitalistic system. Oh boy, I'm looking for my asbestos suit now.

This is just a historical perspective not a political one.  We currently have our focus (and have historically I think) where we can better our situation by involvement. Not always a bad idea but not always to the humanitarian ideal either. I hate to use the word ideal or idealism, they are impractical and should only serve as targets to strive for. I am not slamming the U.S., I love the place, that is just how a small part of our history reads.  America has done as much good as any one I think and I do not try to sell our history short.

On the other hand the U.S. has probably the greatest resources and some of the greatest minds and the most influence to make such a program work. I wonder if being on the outside looking in is the best place to be for America's global image or for the country as a whole.

These are just my thoughts at the moment. If I am wrong I am sure you will let me know. If I am right it is pure luck.

Sure beats me, but I enjoy hearing everyones input.

[Micah 16]

In the 1700s?? America didn't become a world power until 1901 when Theodore Roosevelt took power.

In the 1800s, America was only concerned about itself because we were struggling to be a country because of issues like slavery, women's rights, prohibition, & other issues such as those.

In the 1900s, that was the century of freeing a lot people in the world. From WW2 (which freed people from Axis) to Korea (which kept South Korea free) to Vietnam (which was unsuccessful) to Desert Storm (which kept Kuwait free from Iraq), that was the century that we showed our human compassion for others.

But now to the discussion of human rights... human rights isn't freeing & helping everybody in the world, it is when we give people rights such as international criminals having their rights to see a court or women having their right to vote.

And yes, there are events such as starvation in Africa & poverty in other countries, but it is impossible for America to deal with everybody's problems & needs. America has its own problems such as Katrina. But we have helped the world. Americans alone, have given billions of dollars to the Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 220,000 people.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying skink.

[Praetorian Cohort 0]

Originally posted by: JustinHaywardSo - all in all - the 6 so called most civilised nations on earth are nothing but thiefs, and invaders ......................... Civilised nations ???? History doesnt say so !!quote>

History would then say very few, if any, nations/states were civilised.

[JustinHayward 10]

Thats the whole point praetorian - this world is NOT civilised - never has been and never will be. The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer - you have rights in this world only if you have the money to pay for them.

[Duke87 1,070]

Oh come, on. Of course we don't want to be on a human rights council. We want to continue depriving people who have been arbitrarily labeled as terrorists of their rights, after all!

Patriot Act, anyone?

I'm not surprised one bit.

[Skink000 0]

@Micah: Thanks for helping out my corrupt history. I am no history buff and was more thinking out loud then trying to state a factual scenario. We could debate whether or not the Civil War justified places such as Andersonville prison camp or if slavery was on the way out and womens rights were on the way in regardless of that war due to our idealistic passion for Democracy. I have no idea why prohibition was enacted and have the impression that many Americans at the time were not so sure either and have a hard time validating any of the wars you mention except WW2 (when my Bible says that it is against the law to kill I have a real problem with war).

I also think that human rights should go beyond international criminals having their rights to see a court or women having their right to vote.  I agree that is part of it. I do not condone militia troops in Africa walking into a house and dragging out all females over the age of ten and gang raping them. I do not condone the people of Nepal being sandwiched between corrupt revolutionary forces and an equally corrupt Monarchy with no were to go. And i do not as stated condone the actions of China, who I think has our most favored trade status, obliterating Tibet.

When it comes to Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami I think it is the American people that dug down deep and have help as much as the U.S. government.

@JustinHayward: i agree with you but I guess I am a dreamer and pray that "never will be" proves false. 

"The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer - you have rights in this world only if you have the money to pay for them." I also agree with but I think that the rich are going to have to realize that they need someones shoulders to stand on or we are all going down with the ship. With out a healthy middle class I think we are doomed and if it goes to far could lead as far as another revolution (worst case scenario). 

I think one of our great down falls is in respect to our mass media and how the news and current events are fed to us. We are blasted with the negative four or five times a day on TV and it is often the only thing on the front page of our papers. I don't know, that will have to be another topic.

Back to the article:

"The United States said today that it will not be a candidate for the new Human Rights Council, "

My first thought is a cynical "Why not? Wouldn't it be fitting for one of the Greatest nations ever to partake?

The article goes on to state, "The United States would sit out the first election in May but support other countries it deemed worthy, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said and "likely" would run a year from now."

Now I wonder if this might be a good thing as the first year for anything in the U.N. may only amount to administrative juggling and posturing with the meat of the issue coming to the table at LEAST a year down the road after the dust has a chance to settle.

"The new panel includes added restrictions on membership that its advocates say would keep major violators from membership. The United States has argued that they were not sufficient to do the job." I wish the reporter had go further on this thread but he does not seam to. I would have liked to hear why the U.S. argues this point.

The bulk of the rest of the article appears to be political bantering between what Republican says this and what Democrat says that like a bunch of . . . . sorry can't say it here, getting political.    

My final thought is that this may just be another poorly written news article with a controversial topic.

I've been typing here way to long and would love to here some thoughts on it.

[justanothersim86 83]

[Q]From WW2 (which freed people from Axis) to Korea (which kept South Korea free) to Vietnam (which was unsuccessful) to Desert Storm (which kept Kuwait free from Iraq), that was the century that we showed our human compassion for others.[/Q]

I can see some faults in that statement. But politics are annoying. So I won't get into it.

There's no surprise here. The U.S has sat out on many U.N iniatives lately. Its a good or bad thing depending on who you are.

[JustinHayward 10]

With reference to rich and poor

There is no getting away from the fact that something like 95% of the worlds wealth is owned by 5% of the population. How on earth can this be representative of a civilised world ??

Next time you go to McDonalds for your huge burger and fries, enjoy your meal - but if you throw just ONE frie in the garbage - you are disregarding the starving MILLIONS in the world !!!

Enjoy playing SC4 on your $2000 PC - but just be grateful for what you have - many dont even have electricity or clean water !!

Human rights ??? How about sharing them around a bit !!!

[Micah 16]

Yeah, you are probably talking about Vietnam or Desert Storm (which I completely understand what you mean), justanothersim. And skink, I read what you said in your orginal post about you not knowing that much about history... like I said, I understand. Also, I agree with your views.

[Skink000 0]

@JustinHayward: I agree 100% with the numbers and your point. The only problem I have is the part about ". . . .but if you throw just ONE frie in the garbage - you are disregarding the starving MILLIONS in the world !!!" sounds just a little extreme, and it sounds just like my mom. Hahahahahaha

Have a great day All.

[JustinHayward 10]

Skink

I travel extensively around the world, and have seen with my own eyes young children sifting through garbage to find just one frie to eat - so NO I dont think my comment was extreme at all. 

The so called civilised western world just throw food away without a second thought - fat people who dont need the damn food anyways - whilst CHILDREN in the 3rd world die of starvation and disease .................. sorry guys - enjoy your burgers ..............

[Skink000 0]

Hi Justin

You say  "Next time you go to McDonalds for your huge burger and fries, enjoy your meal - but if you throw just ONE frie in the garbage - you are disregarding the starving MILLIONS in the world !!!" 

I know what you are saying and agree with the intent but . . . what would you like me to do the next time I drop a fry on the floor.

a) mail it to you

b) mail it to my congressman

c) look for a charity collection box that states "Feed the World Place Dirty Fries Here"

d) return it to the manager so they can recycle it

e) eat it off the floor

f) I give up, you tell me

As for your statement regarding fat people, who are not all fat from over eating by the way,

is insensitive and down right cruel and uncalled for.

I do not intend to take food away from anyone but practicality has to start some where.

Yup, I still think it extreme. 

[JustinHayward 10]

Skink

It was not my intention to insult you or anyone else, and I apologise if I came over that way.

I am simply trying to make the point that the western world often eats excessively, and wastes food, while the third world starves.

My reference to throwing a fry in the garbage was somewhat metaphoric

[Skink000 0]

@JustinHayward: Hi Justin, no insult taken, I just thought you were a bit strong in making your point. I am not fat but regret the way fat people are treated. I do not use the word obese because I think that implies a greater degree of overweightness(?). This is a massive (no pun intended) subset of our population that is putting them selves at risk for diabetes. Not just the "white" segment of the population but our Black and Indian members, that have a much greater incidence of the disease. The epidemic will kill millions and undermines our health care system needlessly.

As for feeding the world I too wish for a solution and think it might be a great topic for the forum.

As always I respect and enjoy hearing your thoughts on any topic and know you are not just some air head flipping off. I know your intent and agree 100% as usual.

Have a great day.   

[JustinHayward 10]

Skink

Thankyou so much for your reply, I guess its a subject I feel very strongly about, and was perhaps a little severe in my condemnation.

The issue of human rights is supposedly always on the agenda of our so called civilised nations - nations are constantly trying to do everything possible to assist the third world, and developing countries ...... or are they ???

How can a superpower like USA, supported by UK, declare war on Iraq and then say its concerned about human rights ? I venture to suggest that the only thing both USA and UK are interested in, is protecting thier own rear ends at ANY cost.

Both nations are spending MILLIONS on weapons of mass destruction, and the third world continues to DIE of starvation and disease - where exactly do the priorities lie ??? Prolonging and supporting human life - or destroying it ?