[quote]UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Five nations seen by rights groups as among the world’s worst abusers were elected along with 39 other countries to the
United Nations’ new Human Rights Council in a first round of voting on Tuesday.
Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, identified by New York-based Human Rights Watch as unworthy of membership on the new U.N. body, were among those winning seats.[/quote]
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Oh yeah…thats gonna make things a lot better.
What are you complaining about, Iran’s failed to make the cut… 
Now the UN’s got them by the short & curlies. Surely Tehran will fall into line, now that the awesome power & wholesome historical reputation of the UN has been brought to bear…
I’m probably going to get in trouble for pointing this out, but here goes:
"The United States will not seek a seat on the new U.N. Human Rights Council this year . . .
The Bush administration’s decision marks the first time that the U.S. has not sought a seat on the U.N.'s premier human rights body since the world organization was formed after World War II. It was apparently made in part because of fear that Washington, under scrutiny by human rights investigators for its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, Iraq, might not have won a seat in a vote of the General Assembly. . . .
“It’s unfortunate that the Bush administration’s disturbing human rights record means that the United States is today hardly a shoo-in for election to the council,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch."
[quote=“spook”]I’m probably going to get in trouble for pointing this out, but here goes:
"The United States will not seek a seat on the new U.N. Human Rights Council this year . . .
The Bush administration’s decision marks the first time that the U.S. has not sought a seat on the U.N.'s premier human rights body since the world organization was formed after World War II. It was apparently made in part because of fear that Washington, under scrutiny by human rights investigators for its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, Iraq, might not have won a seat in a vote of the General Assembly. . . .
“It’s unfortunate that the Bush administration’s disturbing human rights record means that the United States is today hardly a shoo-in for election to the council,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch."[/quote]
How odd, I have a spin that says otherwise:
[quote]
The United States, an outspoken critic of the old human rights commission, had decided against seeking a seat this year after voting against its creation, arguing barriers were too low to keep rights abusers from winning a seat.[/quote]
Yes, those incredible human rights abuses that we keep reading about. Yet, the US scored a 1 again as always top score while Cuba got another 7 and yet Cuba is on the commission and the US is “afraid because of its poor record” that it will be voted off? Please … Can anyone else smell the warm, fragrant odor of what is being shoveled around here. This is why the UN is such a worthless organization and certainly not one to subject major foreign policy goals to for arbitration and approval in terms of international law. For all those who crowed about the need to go through the UN security council prior to the Gulf War II (hello? Rascal?) what do you have to say now about this incredibly flawed organization? This is the result of the reforms that it “passed.” Give me a break. Pull the plug on this useless Third World dinosaur now.
Probably has nothing to do with events like this going on at the same time votes for membership on the Human Rights Council are being cast:
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE
3 May 2006
US: Government creating “climate of torture”
Amnesty International today made public a report detailing its concerns about torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees both in the US and in US detention sites around the world.
The report has already been sent to members of the UN Committee Against Torture, who will be examining the US compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 5 and 8 May in Geneva. The Convention against Torture prohibits the use of torture in all circumstances and requires states to take effective legal and other measures to prevent torture and to provide appropriate punishment for those who commit torture.
The US is reportedly sending a 30-strong delegation to Geneva to defend its record. In its written report to the Committee, the US government asserted its unequivocal opposition to the use or practice of torture under any circumstances – including war or public emergency.
“Although the US government continues to assert its condemnation of torture and ill-treatment, these statements contradict what is happening in practice,” said Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director Of Amnesty International USA. “The US government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish – including by trying to narrow the definition of torture.”
The Amnesty International report describes how measures taken by the US government in response to widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in US military custody in the context of the “war on terror” have been far from adequate. This is despite evidence that much of the ill-treatment stemmed directly from official policy and practice."
– Amnesty International
and yet the US scores a “1” and Cuba scores a “7” so the point regarding any fears in the UN General Assembly about the US being unsure of itself regarding human rights and Cuba being… are ludicrous. This merely shows that despite the reforms, the UN is still the UN and that is why I would once again stress that to subject one’s foreign policy to such an institution is not sound.
Have these people no shame?:
'We are delighted to have been elected to the new Human Rights Council. The UK worked actively throughout negotiations on the new Council, engaging with partners worldwide to secure the early establishment of a strong and effective body. The Council provides a real opportunity to better promote and protect human rights for all, everywhere. We now have to make sure that the Council works. Its members will carry an important responsibility to ensure that the Council meets its full potential. The UK will strive to meet these high expectations.
'The UK will promote the Council as forum for dialogue and will work to enhance cooperation in tackling human rights challenges and broadening understanding among civilisations, cultures and religions.
‘The UK remains committed to striving for the highest standards of human rights both at home and around the world. We are committed to fulfilling the detailed pledges we made as part of our election campaign to promote and protect human rights in the UK and globally. We will play the fullest part in making the new Human Rights Council a success.’"
– British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett,
The Coalitiion of Conscience which voted against or abstained from voting for the reforms to the Human Rights Council: United States, “Country X”, Marshall Islands, Palau, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus
It probably also had nothing to do with this:
"The United States government suffered a humiliating defeat on May 4 (2001) when it was voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the first time since the commission’s inception.
It’s not as if Washington didn’t do its lobbying. Competing for one of three positions allocated to the First World, US diplomats had written vote guarantees from 43 of the 53 countries eligible to vote. But in the secret ballot, only 29 of these votes came through. France, Austria and Sweden were elected, France received 42 votes, Austria 41 and Sweden 32."
It’s just plain idiotic to have countries which do not respect human rights to be on UN Human Rights Council. If any country does not meet certain standards of upholding human rights then they should not be allowed to stand for election to the Council. Any moral standing that the council has will immediately be lost if these countries are allowed on.
This includes any and all countries with human rights violations. Does anyone actually agree that China, Saudia Arabia etc. should be on this Council? This is not to say that the U.S. is fit to be on the Council either. With their actions in Gitmo etc. they should not be there but neither should China etc.
That’s true. China, among other nations, is a serial and profound abuser of basic human rights and has no place on any human rights council.
That’s true. China, among other nations, is a serial and profound abuser of basic human rights and has no place on any human rights council.[/quote]
What’s the price of a seat?
so why has no one actually taken this matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague… haha I know the answer but I want to see if anyone else does. I mean here you have open and flagrant “abuses” by the U.S. and nary a peep out of our international justice friends? What in the world can be up with that? AND where have our enterprising journalists been with regard to the matter? So strange… so strange…
I hereby demand that the US be tried in the International Court of Justice regarding the matters of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and all the other “alleged abuses.”
The scope of the International Court of Justice is to settle disputes between countries, not prosecute crimes against humanity.
The Bush administration, of course, presciently opted out of being subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Lord Goldsmith said the UK was “unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards.”
Right answer Spook!
The US has not signed onto the ICC.
The prisoners who are being held in various US camps are either considered “non-nationals” or their respective governments do not want them back so they are essentially stateless or they would face even worse treatment by being sent back. Why don’t we look into, oh, I don’t know, how the Europeans and Australians etc. treat “stateless” individuals. Where are they kept? Under what conditions? How then, is it that such stateless individuals are not granted say the same rights as citizens in the UK, France, Germany, et al? My question then becomes why should they be given protections under US law? Also, if the conditions are the same, and the Amnesty International has documented extensive abuse at the hands of German immigration and police and ditto for those in France, why is this such a major issue only with regard to the US? Why isn’t France or Germany being held up for the same kind of attention given that the problem with stateless individuals really is about the same? Can you help me on this Spookie? I am so perplexed… Perhaps you could offer me a Guide for the Perplexed… but that would be perhaps a bit inappropriate given the specific morals and ethics of certain individual groups, er, ahem… cough cough…
[quote=“fred smith”]Right answer Spook!
The US has not signed onto the ICC.
The prisoners who are being held in various US camps are either considered “non-nationals” or their respective governments do not want them back so they are essentially stateless or they would face even worse treatment by being sent back. Why don’t we look into, oh, I don’t know, how the Europeans and Australians etc. treat “stateless” individuals. Where are they kept? Under what conditions? How then, is it that such stateless individuals are not granted say the same rights as citizens in the UK, France, Germany, et al? My question then becomes why should they be given protections under US law? Also, if the conditions are the same, and the Amnesty International has documented extensive abuse at the hands of German immigration and police and ditto for those in France, why is this such a major issue only with regard to the US? Why isn’t France or Germany being held up for the same kind of attention given that the problem with stateless individuals really is about the same? Can you help me on this Spookie? I am so perplexed… Perhaps you could offer me a Guide for the Perplexed… but that would be perhaps a bit inappropriate given the specific morals and ethics of certain individual groups, er, ahem… cough cough…[/quote]
I don’t doubt that France and Germany have a multitude of failings but I live my life according to the (increasingly quaint) get my own house in order before fixing someone else’s faults paradigm and I’ve got my hands full at the moment.
How special for you Spook, but again, I simply must point out that for all these posters’ “concerns” regarding one party, there are often norms and difficulties faced by all “civilized” nations including the US. Now, even these human rights ratings agencies realize that which is why the US still has a score of 1 and the Cubas, Chinas, Pakistans etc of the world still get 7s. This puts the US among the best of company and China and Cuba and Pakistan among the worst so let’s summarize. The US did not get into the HR Commission because of UN politics as usual and failed reforms not because of any actions on the part of the US government that would somehow make it ineligible. My final say on the matter. Good luck with that house and getting it in order… I am sure you know what I mean…