LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:21 pm**

The Obama administration has reversed another policy from the Bush era by seeking a seat for the US on the UN's Human Rights Council.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, jointly announced that the US would stand for election to the body.

The 47-member council is due to hold its next round of elections on 15 May.

The Bush administration criticised the council because it admitted states with poor human rights records.

The council's repeated criticism of Israel and failure to comment on rights abuses elsewhere, such as Sudan, further antagonised the Obama administration's predecessor.

Based in Geneva, the council was created in 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights, which had widely been seen as ineffective.

Current members of the council include China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the Obama administration's move as "an important step", a spokesman said.

"Full US engagement on human rights issues is an important step toward realising the goal of an inclusive and vibrant intergovernmental process to protect human rights around the globe," the spokesman added.

'Working from within'

The US state department said the decision to stand for election was in keeping with the Obama administration's "'new era of engagement' with other nations to advance American security interests and meet the global challenges of the 21st Century".

"With others, we will engage in the work of improving the UN human rights system to advance the vision of the UN Declaration on Human Rights," Mrs Clinton said in the statement.

Ambassador Rice said: "Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the council to be balanced and credible."

She added: "Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights."

Members elected in May will serve a three-year term.

I oppose this. I don't think becoming part of the punchline will make this council any less of a joke. This council is very much like letting the mob run the police force.

Also let's be blunt here, the US is still a touchy subject among human rights fans. There's the Death Penalty, Iraq, Afghanistan, Drone Strikes in Pakistan, links with repressive regimes, etc, etc, etc.

While I would argue we are head and shoulders above China, Sudan and Saudi Arabia easily, I also ask is that really enough?

I'm not sure who should be on the human rights council, but I'm pretty sure our joining it won't help.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:53 am**

I don't however see how it can hurt. The organization as it stands is a complete joke. Our participation might be able to drag them in the direction of at least trying to enforce SOME human rights.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:04 am**

Or just give some stain of legitimacy to their rambling.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:29 am**

How will we give legitimacy to them when we will vote against all their ludicrous measures?

If the US wants to discredit the joke-UN, it should withdraw most of its funding from it. With a quarter of its budget gone, crap bodies like the Human Rights Council will probably be reduced to irrelevance.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 am**

The reason we don't do that is because the UN, like it or not, is the main trans-national organization out there. We created the damned thing in the first place, it's better to try and make it work than it is to throw our hands up in despair and walk away, no matter how infuriating the UN is. I'm not saying the UN's of any particular use right now, but if we want it to become so, we need to be involved in it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 am**

Reduced to irrelevance? The only thing the Council does is produce non binding resolutions that tell us democracy in large chunks of the world means stoning the people they don't like. If we're paying attention we'll notice that large chunks of the world don't think like us and take that into account in our relations/invasions/glorious liberations of their countries.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:35 pm**

The only thing the council does is studiously avoid mentioning the word 'Genocide' in any context except when giving Sudan, China, and Iran a platform to criticize the US of evil human rights abuses. The UN Human Rights council is worse than irrelevant, it is downright pernicious. My point is that it is not going to magically become less pernicious unless the US take a role in forcing it to do the job it was intended to do, specifically the prevention of human rights abuses (including our own), rather than a stick to beat the West with by whichever tinpot genocidal dictator wants to make himself look good.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:22 pm**

cat wrote:The only thing the Council does is produce non binding resolutions that tell us democracy in large chunks of the world means stoning the people they don't like. If we're paying attention we'll notice that large chunks of the world don't think like us and take that into account in our relations/invasions/glorious liberations of their countries.

We don't bloody need a UN council to tell us that Cat, we just need a population and a government that pays attention to the fucking news and it's own state department reports.

f'galkin wrote:If the US wants to discredit the joke-UN, it should withdraw most of its funding from it. With a quarter of its budget gone, crap bodies like the Human Rights Council will probably be reduced to irrelevance.

1: Don't tempt me.

2: Aren't we already insanely behind in our dues payment to the UN. I've been under the assumption that we already owe them quiet a bit of money. For the record if we do, I think we should pay it. It is wrong to dodge a debt, even if you don't like the guy you owe money to.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:45 am**

Cynical Cat wrote:Reduced to irrelevance? The only thing the Council does is produce non binding resolutions that tell us democracy in large chunks of the world means stoning the people they don't like. If we're paying attention we'll notice that large chunks of the world don't think like us and take that into account in our relations/invasions/glorious liberations of their countries.

Yes, but they still get staff, UN officers, aides, secretaries, parking spaces in the UN garage, paper to write those resolutions on, etc.

With the US funding gone, the countries making up the council would have to cough up the cash for all this themselves.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

LibriumArcana.Games

US reverses rights council stance

#1 US reverses rights council stance

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9