Meridae'n

Not alot of things get under my skin, capital punishment is one, men taking away a woman's right to choose is another, but one thing that will constantly make me wonder what the fuck is going on is the UN.

The latest rotten egg to be dropped by the UN is the decision to appoint Sudan the head of the UN Human Rights Commission.

Now I'm not sure how many of you are in the loop concerning Sudan's human rights record, I'd say Sultan is, but I'll post a little SUD101 for you...

Sudan is led by an Arab military dictator, whose extremist Islamic regime, when not holding international confrences on terrorism, is busying itself with a horrific war against black african tribes in the country's western Darfur province, along with the war it's already waging in the christian south.

Over the past 12 months over a million people in Darfur have fled the government-backed rape gangs, the bombings of villages and the massacres of civilians, with over 100,000 of them pissing off to Chad in what can only be described as an ethnic cleansing.

So how does the UN respond to this evil in Sudan? Why, it last week elects Sudan to it's Human Rights Commission, it's main human rights 'watchdog'. Yep, you guessed it, the very same Human Rights Commission that was chaired last year by Libya

Was there an uproar last week when the Sudannese got the good news they'd been elected as one of the world's moral policemen to sit in judgement over countries like Australia, which commission regularily accuses us of cruelty to aboriginies and fake refugees (don't get me started on THAT )? Shit no. In defence of the US, their delegate did apparently walk out declaring the Americans wouldn't participate in the absurdity, but then again, he did the same thing last year when Cuba was voted on, and that did fuck-all. Unfortunatel for most aid groups there's no profit in attacking the UN, or backing the US for that matter.

At this point I'd like to say that Australia is also on the panel, and by no means is our past pristine, but surely we have more right to be there than alot of the present representatives. Lets have a look... Guinea, Pakistan, Togo, Malaysia... not too many flash records there, but it gets better... Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Congo, getting shakey... China? Zimbabwe? For fuck's sake, the syphilitic Mugabe loves nothing better than sitting around, figuring out more humane ways to beat pro-democracy activists and white farmers to death.

Although these days nothing the UN does really surprises me. Reports came out a few weeks ago re: how UN officials close to the French, Russian, and Chinese governments were up to their numerous chins in a $12 billion oil-for-food scam to get cheap oil from Saddam in exchange for massive kickbacks and (I suspect) promises to save his genocidal regime.

Not only that, we already know of the UN's failure to even try to stop the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, or the genocide of 2 million Cambodians, or even 3000 Bosnian civilians in a UN 'safe' zone in Srebrenica.

Meanwhile, the killings in the Sudan continues and famine draws near, and here in Australia, as well as plenty over there in the US i'm sure, declare that in times of crisis we must honour and obey the UN. They're just the good guys you see... just ask that nice UN man from Sudan over there when he's finished shooting those african farmers.

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Shades

No no, see, if the UN does it, it must be good. We should just do what they say because the UN is a place free of national agendas where everyone just wants what's best, and has the same definition of that "best" is.

hiredgun

Shades, your sarcasm is unnecessary and doesn't really address the issue.

Meridae'n, I am also concerned about the selection of Sudan as head of UNHRC, but two things:

First, though it is symbolically repugnant, this decision will have little effect on the state of human rights internationally. Myriad countries, including the Sudan and some others that you mentioned, are already getting away with human rights abuses, and this is unlikely to change that or even worsen it. Additionally, the installment of some other country is hardly likely to yield great changes and strides in human rights in our current atmosphere.

Which brings me to my second point; in a unipolar world, US involvement is absolutely crucial for the UN to function in an enforcement role. Currently, human rights abuses are not among the US's top priorities in the UN, as evidenced by our disregard for conditions in both some of our friends (Saudi Arabia, Israel) and some of our would-be rivals (China). Thus we are faced with a serious lack of policy commitment on the part of member nations to keep one another in line.

Here is where isolationists might claim that we should shed the UN entirely, but although cooperation with the UN involves some measure of compromise, we make up for it tenfold in terms of legitimacy. The unpopularity of this current Iraq war is due in large part to the perception that this is a unilateral, imperialistic action by the United States.

Remember that a huge factor in the failure of the League of Nations was the US's utter non-participation. America has more relative power in today's world than it did between the two World Wars, and it has the ability to effect great positive change in the world by working with international institutions rather than dismissing them. Cooperation yields not only the benefit of some differing perspectives from our own, but the blessing of our actions with some international legitimacy.

Shades

Well, the subject was kind of smart alecky, so it's not like I brought some masterful debate down to a new level.

On a more argumentative level, I support the US walking out of this panel (not the UN, just this part). We don't have unlimited resources, a fact that nobody ever seems to remember. The fact that this Human Rights Commission is, by far, the most deplorable sham in the UN means that it should get the least attention from us. After we've, I don't know, got the Middle East wrapped up, done a little something with North Korea, fixed our economy, and re-established good ties with the other members of the Security Council (the only part that really matters), then by all means, we should do our damnedest to shape up the world's human rights condition from the UN on down. And I actually don't mean that as a joke.

Sun Tzu

Here is the text of what it is supposed to be-

The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.
Under the Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
• to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction;
• to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
• to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
• to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
• to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
• to take military action against an aggressor;
• to recommend the admission of new Members;
• to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
• to recommend to the GeneralAssembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.


The biggest element that continues to make the UN nothing more than a dog and pony is hypocracy. Until it ends the UN will never be what it could. That's throwing in an assumption civilization is still present.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

OFKU0

Civilization,..hmmmm. Had a great conversation the other day with a very good friend who is a very smart man, about this very topic and of the (de)evolution of the human race,.....

Criticism may be made of the U.N and in some cases, rightly so, but at the end of the day the U.N is only as good as it's members, and when the members do as they please in the manner they choose, responsibility, at least in the partaking of,... is rare if non-existent from those so inclined.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Sun Tzu

Thats what I was trying to say; I just didn't present it well. Politics and humanity are following the same patterns Plato, Socrates, and others observed-- only the technology is better. Good news? Bad News? no; just the news.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking