New United Nations Human Rights Council


Jersay
#1
UNITED NATIONS - The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to replace the U.N.'s discredited human rights body with a new Human Rights Council, ignoring U.S. objections that not enough was done to prevent abusive countries from becoming members.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ambassadors from most of the 191 U.N. member states burst into sustained applause when General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, announced the results of the vote: 170 in favor, four against, and three abstentions. But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton refused to join in the applause.

A year ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

The Human Rights Council, approved Wednesday, is a watered-down version of Annan's vision. But the secretary-general still called it "historic," and human rights groups welcomed its creation.

"This gives the United Nations the chance a much-needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world," Annan said in a statement.

While no country will be satisfied with everything in the resolution establishing the new council, he said it provides "a solid foundation on which all who are truly committed to the cause of human rights must now build."

The resolution was drafted by Eliasson after months of contentious negotiations.

Before the vote, he told the assembly it represents "a unique opportunity for a fresh start for human rights" and would strengthen the U.N.'s machinery and toughen criteria for membership by requiring members to uphold the highest human rights standards.

The new council will also meet more frequently and periodically review the rights records of all U.N. member states for the first time. The General Assembly can suspend a member for "gross" human rights violations by a two-thirds majority of those voting and a special session can be called if at least one-third of the council's 47 members approve, a provision aimed at responding quickly to human rights emergencies.

But the United States was far more skeptical of the council than were Annan, Eliasson and the vast majority of U.N. members.

Bolton said there were some improvements over the commission, "but on too many issues the current text is not sufficiently improved."

The United States supported Annan's original proposal for a small permanent council as "a strong tool" to deal with its pre-eminent concern "the credibility" of the commission's members, he said.

That tool would have required members of the new council to be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, a measure which would have helped keep off rights abusers. But the resolution adopted Wednesday calls for election by an absolute majority 96 members.

The United States also wanted countries subject to U.N. sanctions related to human rights abuses or acts of terrorism to be barred from membership, Bolton said, but this was not included in the resolution.

"Absent stronger mechanisms for maintaining credible membership ... we did not have sufficient confidence in this text to be able to say that the Human Rights Council would be better than its predecessor," he said. "That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the council as strong and effective as it can be."

"The real test will be the quality of membership that emerges on this council and whether it takes effective action to address serious human rights abuse cases like Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Burma," Bolton said.

U.S. officials said Washington opposes withholding money from the U.N. budget, which will fund the new council, but no decision has been made on whether the United States will seek a seat.

Joining the United States in opposing the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Venezuela, Belarus and Iran abstained.

One of the surprises was Cuba's "yes" vote, despite its claim that the council, like the commission, unjustly targeted developing countries and was controlled by "the powers of the North."

"The attacks of the current U.S. administration to the text being adopted today prove their arrogance," said Cuba's U.N. Ambassador Rodrigo Malmierca.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/...ZhBHNlYwM3MjE-
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#2
I am curious, Jersay ; as someone so informed on the procedure of the United Nations , do you think this is going to be a good idea? I do, in my opinion, because an improvement is an improvement, regardless of how much has been improved. I myself would have voted in favour, because while there remains progress to be made, the new Council sounds more promising than the last.
 
Jersay
#3
I think it has improved, but I have to agree with the American ambassador for once that human-rights abusers (including America) should be taken off and not permitted onto the council that would exclude America, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan. Egypt and others.

And have a smaller council. But it has made good improvements and the meeting of the cuncils and other human rights reviews is good.

In total good.
 
shortmanx5
#4
i agree any change is better than none

come on now do you really believe that america is a world leader in human-right abusers. can you please speak like you have any common sense
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#5
shortmanx5 , the United States of America should be thoroughly investigated for breaches of human rights at Guantanamo Bay. I am not making an opinion one way or the other with this post, but rather stating that where there is a suspicion or charge of a violation, a thorough investigation should be made. In the interim, the United States should not have the right to take a seat on a Council to defend human rights.
 
shortmanx5
#6
whatever you say
 
shortmanx5
#7
gitmo isnt illegal, read the genva convetino
 
shortmanx5
#8
they werent in uniforms, and werent an army as we know it
 
shortmanx5
#9
its a lou poll but hey whatver its finw ith me
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#10
My position would be the same for any nation, shortmanx5 , not just the U.S.; if Canada had a seat on that commission, and were being investigated in good-faith for a human rights violation (I hope we never commit a true violation, of course), I would expect Canada to waive its right to discuss and vote on matters of human rights until the investigation had concluded.
 
shortmanx5
#11
i guess i woulnt care, i find the un useless. but if cuba,iran,syria can get seats you think the usa shouldnt be able to get one. come on that a joke , the usa isnt a human rights violatior
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#12
shortmanx5 , like I said, I think that the policy should extend to all nations. However, there is a chance that the United States may have violated human rights; that avenue should be investigated and, if so, perhaps the U.S. should be suspended from human rights votes for a time. Not a long time, of course, the U.S. is high above other nations on this world on human rights records, but no nation should be above international law.
 
shortmanx5
#13
nope we shouldnt but we pretty much are above it, meaning that we dont feel in smart to listen to the un all the time
 
Johnny Utah
#14
Another fine example of how useless and irrelevant the United Nations is. Who will the UN choose as it's next Secratary General Usama Bin Laden?
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#15
To be honest, it's my opinion that any arm of the UN aside from the Security Council is much more decisive, just unable to act. Interesting, no?
 
Jersay
#16
No one that has committed human rights violations so that is why they need an absolute majority to get in.

So America has done human rights violations, Abu Gharab, Gitmo and Afghanistan. However places like Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Burma, Syria, Mexico, Central Asian republics (like Ukbekistan) the only one that is good is Kyrgyzstan. Then Cuba, and others should be banned.

The council should be only around 10 to 12 and have nations that are like Canada, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Germany, France and others unless they have human rights issues where they are kicked off and another member is voted on.

Its note perfect but it is workable.

At least I would like the U.N running the world more than America.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#17
First of all, most people who critisize Kofi Annan are not fit to polish his shoes. Certainly not Bolton.
The U.S. wants a UN that stands solemnly every morning and sings the "Star Spangled Banner", and bows towards Washington every evening.

[/url]
 
Colpy
Conservative
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

First of all, most people who critisize Kofi Annan are not fit to polish his shoes. Certainly not Bolton.
The U.S. wants a UN that stands solemnly every morning and sings the "Star Spangled Banner", and bows towards Washington every evening.

[/url]

Sorry Juan, but you should tell that bit about Kofi Annan to the thousands of Rwandans that turned out for his visit.....only to turn their backs on his motorcade as it came down the road.

Quite an insult in central Africa, I'm told.
 
Jay
#19
Bolton has an BA out of Yale and a Doctorate in Jurisprudence from Yale too.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#20
Sorry Colpy

But I don't think the Rwandan tragedy was Kofi Annan's fault. The Canadian general Dallaire just about drove himself crazy trying to get major member states to even look at what was going on.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/afr868.doc.htm
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#21
Bolton has compared the situation in Iran to the 9/11 incident, in an interview on ABC yesterday, this crap directed at the American masses is in keeping with the rhetoric designed to engender blind uninformed support among the idiot western hydrocarbon junkies, all for the coming destruction of Iran.
 
Jay
#22
Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.
 
Johnny Utah
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

First of all, most people who critisize Kofi Annan are not fit to polish his shoes. Certainly not Bolton.
The U.S. wants a UN that stands solemnly every morning and sings the "Star Spangled Banner", and bows towards Washington every evening.

[/url]

Sorry Juan, but you should tell that bit about Kofi Annan to the thousands of Rwandans that turned out for his visit.....only to turn their backs on his motorcade as it came down the road.

Quite an insult in central Africa, I'm told.

When Rwanda happen I don't believe Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan was the UN Secretary General, however the Sudan massacare happen under Kofi's watch. Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan is corrupt as they come.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.
 
Jay
#25
BS.
 
Johnny Utah
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.

Oil, Oil Oil it's always Oil isn't it?

Iran is the biggest sponsor of Terrorism, this is about stopping them from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, your Anti-Americanism blinds you to the truth. Thankgod there are leaders who see the real picture and will stop Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Incase you didn't know a Nuclear Weapon is a WMD.
 
Jay
#27
We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Ann Coulter
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#28
Johnny Utah wrote:
Quote:

When Rwanda happen I don't believe Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan was the UN Secretary General, however the Sudan massacare happen under Kofi's watch. Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan is corrupt as they come.

Are you talking about the food for oil smozzle? If you are, you don't know what you are talking about. The "food for oil" scam was run almost entirely by the U.S. navy. Kofi Annan warned the leaders of that particular camel "censored" about 71 different possible breeches where money could be misdirected but the Americans ignored every one. It wasn't the UN that was corrupt. You guess who was corrupt.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.

Oil, Oil Oil it's always Oil isn't it?

Iran is the biggest sponsor of Terrorism, this is about stopping them from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, your Anti-Americanism blinds you to the truth. Thankgod there are leaders who see the real picture and will stop Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Incase you didn't know a Nuclear Weapon is a WMD.

The biggest terrorist nation that the world has ever seen is the USA. Your pro-americanism blinds you to the truth. Who,s going to stop the USA from building more WMDs.
 
Johnny Utah
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is right as she always is. This is a War against Islamic Fundamentalism which started before 9/11 and only came to North America on 9/11. This War started when The United States Embassy was taken over in Iran or perhaps even before that.
 

Similar Threads

0
U.N. Human Rights Council
by Curiosity | Mar 26th, 2007
2
United Nations Human Rights COuncil
by Jersay | May 12th, 2006
4
Canada Elected to Human Rights Council
by FiveParadox | May 10th, 2006