From a few years back, when Bolton was US Rep at the UN.
Whats your opinion? My take is that although in theory its a good idea perhaps, its 1) practically unenforcable and 2) goes againt the idea of the UN which was to let all have a voice without regards to political opinion.
If by “rouge” you mean Pinko–yes. If by “rouge” you mean “rogue”–ask a mod to change your thread title. We pedants here get upset by stuff like that.
(Snarkiness aside: If John Bolton said we shouldn’t, I’d say we should.)
hang head in shame
Please mods; rectify!
If you use that Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the benchmark for entry, you have to be ready to exclude states such as China and the United States from the Commission also. I’m not sure if that’s the best way. Maybe the violators could learn something from the more compliant nations in the Commission.
ETA: Seems like the Commission has been replaced by the Human Rights Council. I’m guessing your article means that? I see that the US is not a member also.
Nice timing. The body mentioned in the article being replaced a couple months after the article was written :).
And it still has those issues see present members
Yes, they should be allowed.
First because the UN isn’t Amnesty International. It’s a forum for nations to settle disputes, come to agreements, etc… Hopefully, regarding human rights, it might result in some improvments, due to pressures, bargains, treaties (a signed but readily ignored convention might bear fruits in the future, for instance), etc… If you don’t accept the countries with poor records at the table, then there’s no much point in even discussing human rights. Even more so since there are some really big players with dubious human rights record that you just can’t ignore. China, for instance.
Second, because : who’s going to decide which country can be allowed in the “good guys” club? According to what kind of mechanism? On what basis? A “majority vote” might not bring the result you’d like. About any country would have better chances to get in than Israel, for instance. Anything involving negociations will result in countries with a somewhat acceptable record voting for countries with a very poor one (because the first country has somewhat similar practices and don’t want to be the next to be condemned, or because they have unrelated common interests and are supporting each other, or because they exchange a vote here for a vote for a seat in the security council, or because they were promised aid, etc…).
Anyway, you would have to assume that there’s an objective way of determining who “deserves” to have a seat. Personnally, I would have no issue barring entrance to the USA as long as Guantanamo is operating, for instance. And I’d rather give 20 votes to Iran than a single one to Saudi Arabia. Plenty of people and plenty of countries wouldn’t agree with me, I’m sure, in particular in these examples the United States and many of its citizens.
But my main objection still is the first one : discussing human right issues at the UN only makes sense if everybody is involved, and actually it’s probably more important to have the countries with the worst records than the countries with the best records at the negociation table.
Yes, unhumans have rights, too.
Exactly. Those who propose otherwise have a very limited view of the world where it is already a settled thing who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. WE are the good guys because we only torture when it is justified and they are the bad guys because it is never justified when they torture. This, of course, ignores the basic fact that the other guys see it exactly in reverse.
The entire point of the UN is to settle things by talking and not by use of force. If your attitude from the gitgo is that we are right and have nothing to listen to and they are wrong and should just change their ways, then there is not much point in talking.
By the way, clairobscur, your French is showing. In English it’s spelled “negotiation”. For instance, here is how lawyers negotiate a pre-coital agreement.
As bad as the United States’ actions have been, at least they don’t appear to be using the Human Rights Council itself to do its dirty work.
Thanks for the info. I’ll try to remember. I can’t watch the video, though, since due to problems with Firefox, I’m currently using IE without Java player (and without spell checking).
Of course we should let them in. Barring them would simply create the impression of unilateral mentality that would accomplish nothing. At least with “bad” countries in, when its someone else’s turn, they cannot voice legitimate gripe because they already had a shot
The big problem with Bolton and his ilk’s thinking is that barring them is somehow going to change the fundamentals of that country. It wont. It would only portray those countries actually upholding human rights as selfish and exclusive, and destroy any credibility that a seat at the UNHRC might have
I can understand the frustration of having Sudan on the commission, but they are not going to be there forever, and any rulings and agreements that the UNHRC agrees on will be stronger and easier to enforce with Sudan being a member than without. The real way to affect change is to work out differences instead of avoiding them, and creating petty resentment isnt going to accomplish that
What makes you think someone else is going to get a turn? They have the majority vote.
I don’t think nations should be barred from the UNHRC.
However, I also don’t think the commission in question should be granted any more respect than it deserves, which, considering its membership, is absolutely zero.
Its based on rotating membership
Precisely. It’s akin to having a “Does socialism suck ?” Great Debate, but not allowing Der Trihs to take part. What’s the point ?
Well, because the stated purpose of the Human Rights Commission is to promote human rights and condemn those countries that violate human rights. To use your analogy, it’s more like having a club dedicated to fighting socialism and putting avowed socialists on it.
The ‘avowed’ part might be where this simile breaks down… almost nobody is an avowed human rights violator.
So - does it make sense to have a club dedicated to fighting socialism and allowing people accused of secret socialist sympathies to join? Or do you allow the club members already present to veto newcomers by calling them socialists?
I understand your concern. How can people who we know (or strongly believe) are violators of the princples of the group be allowed in the group? Well the answer to that is a bit of faith, and a bit of pragmatism, I think. They’re not going to change by being lectured from the sidelines. However, if we give them some of the responsibility of enforcement, and like chrisk said nobody’s an avowed human rights violator, they may actually live up to it, at least when it comes to countries not their own.
This is why its irresponsible and dangerous for the US to cede the moral highground. These countries have no problems being angry about human rights violations in other countries such as the US. Give them the power to do something about it, and change may happen, if not in theirs, but at least in another country. And when those countries’ turn comes up, they can in turn do the same thing. With the inclusion of these bad countries, the UNHRC will have more credibility when it comes to belligerent countries than if they were excluded in the first place. The countries like Libya who stayed silent on their own violations may speak loudly against countries who they dont like and do violate human rights
Its easy to attack allowing them to serve, but if we agree that each country will be self serving, then their selfishness actually works against them within the larger framework