United Nation's new Human Rights Council... a sad joke?

[Mr.Flint]

The results of the elections into the UN new Human Rights Council.

* African States: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.
* Asian States: Bahrain, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Sri Lanka.
* Eastern European States: Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine.
* Latin American & Caribbean States: Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.
* Western European & Other States: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

This is even worser than the old comission....
Who can guess its first action?

[Kanaric]

Since they do nothing about Sudan everything revolved around any country or organizations "human rights" is a joke. The US is worse of all being that it lets companies use slave labor and ignores mass genocide unless its happening to white people.

[Lasher]

Since they do nothing about Sudan everything revolved around any country or organizations "human rights" is a joke. The US is worse of all being that it lets companies use slave labor and ignores mass genocide unless its happening to white people.

It is happening to white people. Every race has seen a increase in its population except white.

[Denny Crane!]

It is happening to white people. Every race has seen a increase in its population except white.

Why is that? Declining birth rates or genocide. I know this is a doozy but its multiple choice so give it a go .

Peter

[Lasher]

Why is that? Declining birth rates or genocide. I know this is a doozy but its multiple choice so give it a go .

Peter

Both actually.

[Denny Crane!]

Both actually.

Figures of white genocide in the last ten years? Compared to birth and death rates? Are you basing your ideas on any relative knowledge of actual figures.

The few genocidal incidents on white people after ww2 have had relatively few effects on the population. The major one to consider is the death rate in soviet Russia, which did not in anyway impede growth in that time frame. In fact the population decline amongst white people has happened in the last decade or two during which time what genocides?

Peter

[Aristophanes]

Since they do nothing about Sudan everything revolved around any country or organizations "human rights" is a joke. The US is worse of all being that it lets companies use slave labor and ignores mass genocide unless its happening to white people.

The 'US is worst of all' why? Because it doesn't monitor human rights regimes in other countries?

US has been trying to do something about Sudan and is finding itself blocked by China and Russia...as per normal.

[John I Tzimisces]

They rejected Armenia but let AZERBAIJAN IN?!

And Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan?

What is this world coming to?

[gigagaia]

I find it Ironic that the US is putting up strong Moral objections to this council. Legitimate or no, coming from the US, these criticisms just hold little to no moral weight in them.

That said, I would think that the council is in sore need to be reformed. Only states that are full parties to the ICCPR should be allowed on, and states should also be full and fairly compliant members to ICESCR, ICERD, CEDAW, CRC, CAT, and the ICPMWF.
But this council is an improvement on the commission, and an improvement is better than nothing. The UN is, after all, a collection of states, and reform can only happen at the pace of politics. Most states are ones that aren't interested in human rights yet. The best way to get them complying is through quiet but firm pressure in the UN and whatnot. Don't expect over-night changes in the world and its politics. Be patient and encourage change. Results will come.

[Red Harvest]

Despite actions by a certain President, the U.S. has very good reason to morally object to this council. It has been the U.S. that has carried the torch in many areas over the years. We aren't perfect, but we tend to correct our own mistakes over time.

The UN is going to be a mess for a long time because 3rd world hell holes and autocracies have far more say than they really should.

[gigagaia]

Despite actions by a certain President, the U.S. has very good reason to morally object to this council. It has been the U.S. that has carried the torch in many areas over the years. We aren't perfect, but we tend to correct our own mistakes over time.

The UN is going to be a mess for a long time because 3rd world hell holes and autocracies have far more say than they really should.

Interestingly though, the US is not a fully party to msot of the aforementioned core human rights treaties, including one of only two states that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (because it wants to kill children and enlist under-age kids in the military), and has signed the ICCPR with several reservations.

It decidedly does not practice what it preaches.

[Tom Paine]

Interestingly though, the US is not a fully party to msot of the aforementioned core human rights treaties, including one of only two states that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (because it wants to kill children and enlist under-age kids in the military), and has signed the ICCPR with several reservations.

It decidedly does not practice what it preaches.

Wanted, gig, wanted. That's now illega since a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

The UN is going to be a mess for a long time because 3rd world hell holes and autocracies have far more say than they really should.

And the veto making it an ineffectual body of course has nothing to do with it and the US would never abuse the veto...

[gigagaia]

Wanted, gig, wanted. That's now illega since a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Ah, but they still want to leave that avenue open... Supreme court rulings can always change if you change the bench members... Do you expect that they will sign the treaty any time soon?

[Red Harvest]

including one of only two states that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (because it wants to kill children and enlist under-age kids in the military)

A lot of false hoods in your statements on this, but this one takes the cake. The U.S. is a signatory, but it has not been ratified.

As for enlistment, we have laws about enlistment ages, enlistment at 17 is possible with parental consent. That's not under age.

We also have not executed children despite your absurd assertion. But of course, the real issue is the European view of the death penalty. It's rather illogical to arbitrarily decide that the death penalty is bad, but life imprisonment is okay. I always wonder what color the sky is in someone's world when they claim some sort of high ground on dealing with capital punishment.

Reading through these sort of posts, it is not hard to understand why ratification has not occurred, nor the hesitance to have European views forced on us. It is particularly ironic that many of those who have ratified it are not really complying with it.

At any rate, this illustrates the sort of nonsense that leads to such a screwed up Council. Western nations bickering over small matters while China, Cuba, Pakistan, and the Saudi's are on there. Thanks for providing proof positive of how dysfunctional the system really is, and why it is so.

[Erik]

We also have not executed children despite your absurd assertion.

Because they are put on "Death row" for 4 years until they are at least 18 years old?

But of course, the real issue is the European view of the death penalty. It's rather illogical to arbitrarily decide that the death penalty is bad, but life imprisonment is okay. I always wonder what color the sky is in someone's world when they claim some sort of high ground on dealing with capital punishment.

This is an interesting point because I think this is the real conflict between the US and the UN:
Amercia wants to do what THEY beleive is right, even when most other countries disagree with them.
But then I wonder: didn't Saddam also do what HE beleived was right?

I think international agreement is the ONLY way to tell what is morally wrong and right.
And countries who let their actions to be judged by the international community, instead of their own self interests, deserve my respect.
Sadly there are very few such countries, not enough to fill a council I'm affraid.

[danzig]

My, my a thread about UN Human Rights Council turning into a US bashing thread when the US isnt part of the council nor mentioned in the original post what a suprise!

The council much like most of the UN is a complete joke.

[Erik]

When you try to infringe on the sovereignty of the U.S. (the ability to make its own determinations within its borders according to its own democratically elected govt.) then you are going to get a lot of pushback. That's what you are seeing here. Majority rule by nations will not protect the human rights of individual nations. That's why we have our own Bill of Rights and judicial system. That's why we require ratification of treaties.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the human rights council, and all other international law for that matter, is about: infringing on the sovereignity of countries to benefit the people?

If you don't agree to this principle I can understand, but then you should just leave the UN instead of complaining about it.

[gigagaia]

Sorry, You are right. Ratified.
Any better? The US has still not accepted the principles of the treaty, nor many others.
The US is one of two states that has not ratified the treaty, because of those two principles.
You think this post proves what is dysfunctional about the system.
Perhaps it is because the US tells states left-right and centre that it is the moral leadership of the world, and that they should all sign up to the treaties. But there is no moral legitimacy behind any of it. The state that promotes human rights and international law is one that cannot itself be bound the the very system that it insists other states be.

Your attempt to draw attention to the terrible human rights records of other states is a red herring though. That is meaningless to the argument. I agree that they have terrible human rights records and should not be admitted to the benches. But there is a certain degree of irony in a system where the leader imposes obligations on other states that it itself will not agree to abide by. It's really a symbolic move that i think the US needs to make to enhance its moral legitimacy. If your laws perfectly coincide with the CRC, why haven't you ratified it? Somalia is the only other state that hasn't, and it's a state which barely has its own government.
I'm not trying to protect bad states, but merely point out a flaw in the policy of a generally good state which could improve a lot. This isn't a small issue. If you want states to follow your lead, you have to set a better example. Do you ever wonder why a lot of states don't respect the US?

[Red Harvest]

Sorry, You are right. Ratified.
Any better? The US has still not accepted the principles of the treaty, nor many others.
The US is one of two states that has not ratified the treaty, because of those two principles.
You think this post proves what is dysfunctional about the system.
Perhaps it is because the US tells states left-right and centre that it is the moral leadership of the world, and that they should all sign up to the treaties. But there is no moral legitimacy behind any of it. The state that promotes human rights and international law is one that cannot itself be bound the the very system that it insists other states be.

Your attempt to draw attention to the terrible human rights records of other states is a red herring though. That is meaningless to the argument. I agree that they have terrible human rights records and should not be admitted to the benches. But there is a certain degree of irony in a system where the leader imposes obligations on other states that it itself will not agree to abide by. It's really a symbolic move that i think the US needs to make to enhance its moral legitimacy. If your laws perfectly coincide with the CRC, why haven't you ratified it? Somalia is the only other state that hasn't, and it's a state which barely has its own government.
I'm not trying to protect bad states, but merely point out a flaw in the policy of a generally good state which could improve a lot. This isn't a small issue. If you want states to follow your lead, you have to set a better example. Do you ever wonder why a lot of states don't respect the US?

To claim "there is no moral legitimacy behind any of it" is BS hyperbole. You pretty much kill your own argument before you get out of the gate. This aggressive stance by European nations vs. the U.S. has been and will continue to be counterproductive. We aren't going to agree with 100% of your views, so if you insist on forcing them onto us, all you do is lose us. The same would happen if we tried to force all of our protections onto your member states.

There are a number of treaties that I would like to support, but after seeing European interpretations of them, I think it best to steer clear of several of them. Perhaps instead of lecturing to us, you might rethink why we have a problem with you on these issues? Are you gaining anything from this? No. You simply are dividing Western opinions on relatively small matters, so that the serious human rights abuses are ignored. Ironically, you strengthen the hand of those like Dubya, whose methods I despise.

One thing that has become apparent over the decades is that pragmatism is largely absent from the European diplomatic scene. The U.S. has its faults, and makes mistakes, but it accomplishes far more than Europe in resolving international matters.

Do you ever wonder why a lot of states don't respect the US?

For some states it appears to be a combination of ingratitude and pomposity. Seems to be a favorite sport of cutting down the fellow who is doing the heavy lifting. I'm happy to debate things, but this concept of Europeans, with all their major league historical screw ups, DICTATING to us rubs me the wrong way. When you pull some drowning swimmer out of the water a few times, and he insists on telling you how to drive the boat each trip...you really wonder about his priorities.

And for the record (since I expect it to pop up), I support Kyoto. There are areas where we have not led and should, but it is also unreasonable to expect us to lead everyone else's ideals for them, especially when they conflict with our own. Perhaps if world bodies focused on hitting the big points, rather than micromanaging, we wouldn't run into these problems ratifying certain treaties.

Europe has a sad track record of horsing around and not confronting problems in a timely fashion. I submit that this is yet one more example of missing the forest for the trees. You certainly have with your child killing comments.

The human rights problems we presently have will be corrected in the coming election cycles. They represent more of a short term aberration.

Because they are put on "Death row" for 4 years until they are at least 18 years old?

Partially, but a Supreme Court ruling has also prohibitied it. More importantly the courts are required to make determinations as to whether someone under 18 can be put on trial as an adult. There are criteria, it is not arbitrary. If someone commits a terrible act that is punishable by death, and it is shown that they fit the criteria, then it seems entirely reasonable to render the appropriate punishment. The real problem is that Europe objects to the punishment.

This is an interesting point because I think this is the real conflict between the US and the UN:
Amercia wants to do what THEY beleive is right, even when most other countries disagree with them.
But then I wonder: didn't Saddam also do what HE beleived was right?

Now that just looks slightly inadequate. Surely you can do better than that. :laughing:

I think international agreement is the ONLY way to tell what is morally wrong and right.

I find that a dubious argument. Moral issues are not necessarily popular ones and by saying that should come from an international majority is a real stretch. Countries still need independence to determine their own moral course. When you try to infringe on the sovereignty of the U.S. (the ability to make its own determinations within its borders according to its own democratically elected govt.) then you are going to get a lot of pushback. That's what you are seeing here. Majority rule by nations will not protect the human rights of individual nations. That's why we have our own Bill of Rights and judicial system. That's why we require ratification of treaties.

Merged double post, please use the edit button whenever you want to add something to your post-Valus

[gigagaia]

To claim "there is no moral legitimacy behind any of it" is BS hyperbole. You pretty much kill your own argument before you get out of the gate. This aggressive stance by European nations vs. the U.S. has been and will continue to be counterproductive. We aren't going to agree with 100% of your views, so if you insist on forcing them onto us, all you do is lose us. The same would happen if we tried to force all of our protections onto your member states.

There are a number of treaties that I would like to support, but after seeing European interpretations of them, I think it best to steer clear of several of them. Perhaps instead of lecturing to us, you might rethink why we have a problem with you on these issues? Are you gaining anything from this? No. You simply are dividing Western opinions on relatively small matters, so that the serious human rights abuses are ignored. Ironically, you strengthen the hand of those like Dubya, whose methods I despise.

One thing that has become apparent over the decades is that pragmatism is largely absent from the European diplomatic scene. The U.S. has its faults, and makes mistakes, but it accomplishes far more than Europe in resolving international matters.

Ironically, it is Dubya who is pulling away from treaties and the international system.
Noone is forcing you to accept treaties. For example, you drafted the UN charter (which prohibited the war in Iraq), you drafted the ICCPR, you were the ones that tried to set up an international legal system (which you don't really believe in as law). This is about reminding you that if you want to crusade as the leader of human rights and international law and such, then you should at least try and partake in the system and not reject it when it doesn't go always your way. Many non-soviet states signed and ratified the ICESCR. If you want to campaign as the moral leader, you should campaign as one who does not essentially reject compulsory jurisidiction form the ICJ and totally reject the Rome Statutue. You should sign up to major human rights treaties and ratify them. You should follow treaties like CAT and not "interpret" treaties based on pure national interest. This is where moral legitimacy comes from, from upholding the system that you started us all on, and push other states into. Why should you be above the law?
You are not completely devoid of moral legitimacy. Most European states would not even say that. But what you should keep in mind is that people do care about what the "moral" leader of the world does. One key reason that people from the middle east have a poorer view towards the US, for example, is hypcrisy; not living up to the standards that it is itself enforcing on others.

For some states it appears to be a combination of ingratitude and pomposity. Seems to be a favorite sport of cutting down the fellow who is doing the heavy lifting. I'm happy to debate things, but this concept of Europeans, with all their major league historical screw ups, DICTATING to us rubs me the wrong way. When you pull some drowning swimmer out of the water a few times, and he insists on telling you how to drive the boat each trip...you really wonder about his priorities.

And for the record (since I expect it to pop up), I support Kyoto. There are areas where we have not led and should, but it is also unreasonable to expect us to lead everyone else's ideals for them, especially when they conflict with our own. Perhaps if world bodies focused on hitting the big points, rather than micromanaging, we wouldn't run into these problems ratifying certain treaties.

Europe has a sad track record of horsing around and not confronting problems in a timely fashion. I submit that this is yet one more example of missing the forest for the trees. You certainly have with your child killing comments.

The human rights problems we presently have will be corrected in the coming election cycles. They represent more of a short term aberration.

I think you are totally misinterpreting my stance. I'm not saying that the US is the worst perfomer on the human rights scene, but that just because some have poor records, it doesn't mean that you should be complacent in your own.
The problem about the US (this administration at least) is that it wants to be a world leader using things like human rights as justification, but fails to subscribe the treaties which uphold the values that is espouses.

This isn't a case of Europeans dictating however. I'm Canadian. I will support the US as our best freinds and closest allies, but I won't shy away from pointing to things that need improvement. Your performance in the international system is something that needs a bit of shoring up. How can others follow when you don't lead by example?