New UN Human Rights Commission

[Tom Paine]

Well, I haven't seen anything on this so....

Culminating months of intensive negotiations, the United Nations General Assembly today voted overwhelmingly on a resolution setting up a new Human Rights Council to replace the much-criticized Human Rights Commission – prompting Secretary-General Kofi Annan to hail this as an “historic” development which will help improve the lives of millions of people worldwide.

Welcoming the vote, which was greeted by prolonged applause, Mr. Annan, who first suggested the creation of the new Council in a report to the General Assembly one year ago, said it gave the UN “a much needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world.”

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 170 in favour with 4 against – the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau – with Venezuela, Iran and Belarus abstaining.

In opening remarks to the Assembly before the vote, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who led the often contentious negotiations on the issue, called today’s session a “decisive moment” not only for human rights but for the standing of the UN as a whole.

Highlighting several elements that would make the Council a “significant improvement” over the much-maligned Commission, he noted the Council’s higher status as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, its increased number of meetings throughout the year, equitable geographical representation and also the voting rights associated with membership.

“Members of the Council would be elected by the majority of the members of the General Assembly, in other words by an absolute majority. Each candidate would be voted on individually and directly and would have to obtain at least ninety-six votes of support in a secret ballot,” Mr. Eliasson said.

“The General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, could suspend the rights of membership of a Council member who commits gross and systematic violations of human rights,” he added.

The new Council will have 47 members. The first elections are planned for 9 May and the first session will take place on 19 June, according to the resolution.

In a statement, Mr. Annan, who is travelling in Africa, thanked the Assembly President for his efforts in bringing this “sensitive matter to a conclusion,” but acknowledged that this was “only the first step in a process of change,” adding that “now the real work begins.”

“The true test of the Council’s credibility will be the use that Member States make of it. If, in the weeks and months ahead, they act on the commitments they have given in this resolution, I am confident that the Council will breathe new life into all our work for human rights, and thereby help to improve the lives of millions of people throughout the world,” Mr. Annan noted.

He went on to say that while the resolution “gives us a solid foundation, on which all who are truly committed to the cause of human rights must now build,” no country would be wholly satisfied with every paragraph, although such was “the nature of international negotiations.”

Something I think we can all hail as a positive developement. However I would like to draw attention to this:

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 170 in favour with 4 against – the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau – with Venezuela, Iran and Belarus abstaining.

Why did the US and Israel feel the need to vote against it? What do they have against a Human Rights Commission? Especially the US with all its rhetoric about human rights abuses in Middle Eastern nations it seems to be about to invade....

[Lusted]

Well that certainly is good news.

But i am also worried that the US and Israel were among only 4 to vote against, whilst 170 voted for.

[Erik]

Well that certainly is good news.

I agree, great news.
The UN should focus more on human rights and less on fighting.

But i am also worried that the US and Israel were among only 4 to vote against, whilst 170 voted for.

And two of then (Marshall Islands and Palau) only voted against to please the US.
So it's basically US+Israel vs. the World again.

The US and Israel are systematically violating human rights, they clearly voted against because they don't want a strong human rights agency telling themn to stop.

[Søren]

And two of then (Marshall Islands and Palau) only voted against to please the US.
So it's basically US+Israel vs. the World again.

The US and Israel are systematically violating human rights, they clearly voted against because they don't want a strong human rights agency telling themn to stop.

Not necessarly.

It's quite likely that Israel voted to please the US too.

[Carach]

I agree, great news.
The UN should focus more on human rights and less on fighting.

the UN doesnt fight, wtf u on about...its a weak organisation in that respect, just like the LoN was..both have excelled more in humanitarian missions. You seen what happened to LoN..it doesnt exist anymore, ww2 destroyed it and incidents before hand also badly damaged its reputation...same can happen to the UN any time a major nation feels like going 'out of the box'

you also need to remember sometimes the stick is needed in some cases more than the carrot :wink:

[Last Roman]

Why did the US and Israel feel the need to vote against it? What do they have against a Human Rights Commission? Especially the US with all its rhetoric about human rights abuses in Middle Eastern nations it seems to be about to invade....

that's what happens when you send a person who hates the UN as our ambassador

[Mr.Flint]

No wonder US and Israel voted against, the new system is even worser that the old one........ now we are going to have Cuba talking about human rights... or some other un democratic country... honestly i dont see any improvement over the current situation.... Real human rights violators (like Sudan for example) still wont get the attention they should...
geographical representation? what a joke.....

[imb39]

Why did the US and Israel feel the need to vote against it? What do they have against a Human Rights Commission? Especially the US with all its rhetoric about human rights abuses in Middle Eastern nations it seems to be about to invade....

Because it's rhetoric.

[Kanaric]

Oh so we have another UN comission that wont act on anything it says unless the US tells them to!

[Erik]

It's usually the US who veto's against anything the UN want to do.

But I don't think the US has veto power in this comission (correct me if I'm wrong).

[lordyu]

The new comission will be just as flawed as the former comission. the us was right to vote against it.!!

[Kanaric]

Yes but they wont really act on anything still unless we will back them. Rwanda and Sudan anyone?

[Erik]

Yes but they wont really act on anything still unless we will back them. Rwanda and Sudan anyone?

You mean the UN should just ignore the US and act against Israel?
I agree.

[Kanaric]

You mean the UN should just ignore the US and act against Israel?
I agree.

I guess, they shouldn't require us to tell them what to do on everything.

I find it ironic that the only time they act on ANYTHING is when we open our mouths, then US politicians and the UN members act as if they are actually separate. In the US politicians, like the republicans, rip on the UN for being anti-us and immoral.... then the UN does the same with the US. Ironic.

I cant think on ONE occasion where they acted in a way against a country without US telling them to do so. Somolia - as soon as we leave they leave, Kosovo - required us to be their, Korea - obviously, i'm sure others can name more occasions.

[Admiral Nelson]

I guess, they shouldn't require us to tell them what to do on everything.

I find it ironic that the only time they act on ANYTHING is when we open our mouths, then US politicians and the UN members act as if they are actually separate. In the US politicians, like the republicans, rip on the UN for being anti-us and immoral.... then the UN does the same with the US. Ironic.

I cant think on ONE occasion where they acted in a way against a country without US telling them to do so. Somolia - as soon as we leave they leave, Kosovo - required us to be their, Korea - obviously, i'm sure others can name more occasions.

I'm sorry, but as the sole world superpower with the largest military expenditure on earth, and being the richest country in the world, you are obligated to do some of the "dirty" work and help in the more troubled areas of the planet. Sorry, I know it sucks, but its the responsiblilty of the US to do so.

[Kanaric]

I'm sorry, but as the sole world superpower with the largest military expenditure on earth, and being the richest country in the world, you are obligated to do some of the "dirty" work and help in the more troubled areas of the planet. Sorry, I know it sucks, but its the responsiblilty of the US to do so.

Didn't say we dont have to do anything. I'm just saying that the UN doesn't do anything unless we say we will assist them. Were not the only "superpower" or nation capable of work. All the other nations are sitting back and bashing american, what do they do? Nothing, they rot in their little :wub:s and ***** while doing abosolutely nothing.

Many other nations could get involved and actually do some work themselves instead of being lazy igrates waiting for us to say we will do something. We have problems besides that and have troops in many other nations due to UN deals and peacekeeping.

Their are more nations on earth besides just he US, and more nations with armies as well.

I'll leave the rest to another poster who no doubt can prove your ignorance to you.

[crustyrustyaphid]

If they do something about the real issues then I for one will not complain. However when an authoritative body sets out to do something only to make it fail in it's original purpose one is right to lose trust in that power.

[Hub'ite]

If they do something about the real issues then I for one will not complain. However when an authoritative body sets out to do something only to make it fail in it's original purpose one is right to lose trust in that power.

You just described the UN.

[Aristophanes]

Well, I haven't seen anything on this so....

Something I think we can all hail as a positive developement. However I would like to draw attention to this:

Why did the US and Israel feel the need to vote against it? What do they have against a Human Rights Commission? Especially the US with all its rhetoric about human rights abuses in Middle Eastern nations it seems to be about to invade....

Oh please, don't be so damn naive. Aren't you a little more concerned by the composition of nations voting FOR it? Use some sense. If this is actually a serious 'human rights' initiative, why in God's name did Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, and Sudan, and Cuba, and China, and Russia, and Egypt, and Pakistan, and Vietnam, and Ethiopia, and Morrocco, and Algeria, and Libya, and Congo, and Somalia, and the UAE, and Nepal, and...[ is the point not getting across yet?] why did these notorious 'human rights' offenders vote for this so-called 'initiative' if THEY THINK it's going to be successful in promoting 'human rights'? Please answer me that? Why are they so KEEN, all of a sudden, to vote against their own interests?

Isn't it obvious this will just be one more soapbox for all the worst, sleeziest, most awful dictators and despots in the world to rant against Israel and the United States?

If I were Israel and the United States, I'd vote to abolish this black marketeering-bureaucratic-child-sex-ring -conglomeration of the planet's worst governments, and their even worse agents.

[Tom Paine]

Aristophanes, I'm more concerned about the truculent nature of the current US ambassdor to the UN. You complain about it never doing anything and then send a man who hates it and would rather see it destroyed than have any success. Interesting conundrum when you then blame others for UN ineffectiveness isn't it...