Don’t know how much debate there is here but…
From CNN:
and
…has to be worthy of some discussion.
AFAIK, the US has had a less than steller image with groups like Amnesty INternational on the subject of human rights, specifically, due mostly to our death penalty stance. Specifically that we do not prohibit the exeuction of minors, persons with developmental disabilities etc.
I’d heard that too. I also know that Human Rights Watch is routinely critical of our Justice System and Race Relations. So I went over there, and found this intersting piece, regarding members who’ve been granted seats.
On the US they said:
[quote]
“In recent years, the United States often failed to support important human rights initiatives at the commission, or found itself voting alone, on the wrong side of important issues,” said Weschler. “It’s not surprising that the U.S. was voted off. But to punish the United States and reward Sudan is clearly absurd.”
The rest of the story can be found here.
I think Amnesty International has a bigger beef with Saudi Arabia then they do with the United States. I bring Saudi Arabia up because they were admitted into this UN Human Rights Convention. As a matter of law they repress any religion not their own, they forbid women to drive, they use torture to get confessions from criminals, and amputation is still a viable punishment for theft and robbery.
Personally I find the whole UN Human Rights Convention to be a rather funny joke. How can anyone take them seriously when countries like Saudi Arabia, Uganda, or Libya join their ranks.
Marc
Understand that AI has bigger issues with folks like Saudi etc. Also, no argument that Libya has an ‘interesting’ history as well.
However, and the Human Rights Commission should take notes here, it’s a better to have your own background clean when you’re accusing some one else on human rights violations.
Well, I suppose I should move to Sierra Leone where my human rights will be respected.
The problem isn’t America’s human rights record, it is America’s pattern of isolating itself from the rest of the world, whether it be on capital punishment or mid-east policy. We seem to the rest of the world to be beligerenet and selfish. This issue has nothing to do with our human rights record, the UN members are just getting back at us.
Regent Bush has already shown the American people his style of governing (all thumbs and with two feet in his mouth) and I am certain he will deal with this “crisis” by insulting, stepping on, or vomiting on someone important.
I have to partially agree with Mambo, here. The sudden, solipsistic, policy changes of the United States invited such a thing.
Furthermore, high-profile (internationally, not here in the U.S.) cases such as that of Leonard Peltier’s further underscore gaping holes in the American justice system.
Any of which would be way too good for a commission which claims to be dedicated to human rights and counts fucking Sudan as a member.
Turns out I was wrong and Helms was right all along. We seriously ought to get out of the UN and stop giving them money.
Sudan?
Cough.
Aren’t we deep in debt with the UN to the tune of a billion dollars or more? Does “stop giving them money” mean “stop repaying our debt”? And tangentially, why is the wealthiest nation in the solar system in debt to anybody in the first place? Is it good politics to rack up huge interest charges or something?
Mambo wrote:
Ho ho, That’s My Bush!
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/latest?n=20&ao=1
These people are practically cheering about it, while saying that the UN is trying to take us over anyways.
Interesting…
Also, considering how imperialistic the US has been in the past century…
Maybe they’d let us back in if we stopped the “rogue nation” act and held free, fair and democratic elections ?
We’ve used the Human rights commission as a bully pulpit for years; and quite successfully too. It’s too bad we finally po’d enough countries to lose our position, but having a sour grape attitude about it isn’t going to help matters.
Attrayant: I agree entirely that we ought to pay our past assessments. They got hung up in Congress, and that’s inexcusable. Class countries do not do that.
Well, maybe pay our dues less the parking tickets. We can send that portion to Guiliani.
However, I have, for now, changed my mind on whether we should pay any future dues.
Sudan?
Well, certainly it’s hard to have any illusions about the UN as a great force for world peace and justice anymore. As far as the U.S. withdrawing from the UN entirely, I suppose there are still pragmatic arguments against it. The U.S. has, after all, used the UN to give itself political cover for waging two wars (Korea and the Persian Gulf); as long as we find it, on balance, in our interests to remain in the UN, we’ll stay in.
It’s kind of funny, how the lunatic fringe in this country sees the UN as some sort of wicked, oppressive Evil Empire which threatens American sovereignty; meanwhile, most of the rest of the world sees the UN as an instrument of American power. The rest of the world is much more correct than the American militia types–the anti-Americanism of the UN is mainly rhetorical, whereas when the U.S. decides to use the UN for its purposes, it results in armies being deployed and countries bombed; most of the time, the UN is simply irrelevant.
Some UN agencies do outstanding work, e.g World Health Organizaton. Other are useless or even counterproductive, like UNESCO and the anti-Semitic Human Rights Commission. The HRC is mostly used to attack the only democracy in the middle east. Given their membership, it’s obvious that they won’t fight slavery or government repression or tyranny. Even today’s NYT editorial failed to cite anything they ever had done that had actually made the world a better place.
No doubt the US could get back on this disgusting committee by some kind of internal politicking. This strikes me as repulsive – sucking up to countries with tyrrany or slavery in order to get a seat on a useless committee.
A working UN is vital. The US needs to find ways to fix the UN. The ugly practice of withholding our dues could conceivably be a valuable stick or carrot to promomte improvement, if the US finds ways to make this happen. I’m not optimistic, but I hope reform can be forced on them.
>> the US has had a less than steller image with groups like Amnesty International…
Very true, unlike countries like China etc, where AI is just plain outlawed. This is really silly and I acannot see the least connection between the human rights record of the US and it being voted out of the commission. I think it is 100% pure politics. To have those other countries deciding human rights issues is a cruel joke.
Of course it’s always better for the US to improve its human rights record. (With W in the White House, I think real progress is now possible.)
Although the US human rights record isn’t perfect, it’s already one of the best in the world, so I don’t see this point as determinative of our committee membership.
If you look at the member nations, the western nations tend to have the best HR records, but the West is restricted to a small number of seats. Make of that what you will…
And the biggest insult of all is the U.N.'s location in downtown Manhattan.
Specificaly in relation to Amnesty International’s objection to the US execution of minors etc - we’re in a group of what is it, 4?5? nations in the world - Iran, Iraq, can’t remember the other ones, in this regard. Don’t see any reason to believe that Mr. Bush has any intention of changing that.
I understand and agree that other nations have horrid records on human rights, and that in many ways, our country makes real attempts etc, and proud to be American etc.
Isn’t UNICEF a part of the UN? I would think that would be a huge plus.