Ahh, what I love most about the SDMB. Little personal insults cleverly disguised as attempts at edifications. Thank you alien for your kind advice, insinuating others are stupid is of course the best way to accomplish such education.
I am aware of the long history of bloodshed in Sudan, which to my eye is mostly the responsibility of the government in the north, as well as recent peace initiatives, unfortunately Norwegian peace settlements have a regrettable tendency to fall apart – and it does seem like the Sudanese government is not now playing with open cards, or even half-hearted trying to live up to its end of a bargain, and is engaged in a shallow attempt to postpone critique (even if outright intervention is out of the question) by the world community.
It is my opinions that the UN (or rather UN member states) should have intervened with military power in Rwanda (instead of, as it were, withdrawing), and it is my opinion that UN should intervene with military power should any such situation again arise – as it now seems likely according to the UN secretary general (which I by the way, have the greatest respect for).
It is of course correct that it’s very valuable to have a place where different countries can meet and talk, and no one, even the once with the most abysmal human rights accord, are excluded. However if that is what the UN or the UN Human Rights Commission is supposed to be, then this is all it’s going to be – and in the very least it should not be expected to make decisions on anything. On the other hand if one is of the opinion that the UN ought to be more than a mere discussion club, and that decisions by the UN should carry weight and blatant disregard should be met with consequences, then this would never fly under such conditions, and will never be the case if it rests on some foundation of absolute moral relativity. Why should I respect the opinion of countries, such as Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia or Sudan etc., when they endeavour to lecture on human rights and the correct conduct of the state? The mere suggestion is almost absurd, as would most sane people agree, and no less so for pointing out various deficiencies in e.g. the US of what undoubtedly by some are seen as grave by themselves but remain in comparison minor almost negligible imperfections. Of course nobody is perfect, but not recognising that some are more perfect than others is, in my book, where all creditability is lost. Before being invited to partake in the decisions of an UN Human Rights Commission, it is hardly unreasonable that countries themselves are being expected to live up to the most basic of human rights.
I don’t think Veto is the snake in the garden (re. the multitude of condemnations of Israel by countries with much worse crimes on their hands) Basically I suppose I’m just a little frustrated of the UN ever living up to its promise and what it, according to me, ought to be, or, I freely admit, simply be more like me and less like you.