United States Quits Human Rights Council

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


So its better to quit than try and work to fix things?

Sounds like a cop out to me.

reply to post by maria_stardust

Originally posted by maria_stardust
If the U.S. is truly a sincere advocate of human rights, then why quit? It makes no sense. If you believe in the cause, don't give up the good fight.

It makes perfect sense to leave. If we stay, we are giving our tacit approval to the genocide in Darfur.

As was stated by ThePiemaker:

It does seem rather pointless to even have the council if a country can block the council from investigating them.

The only nations that benefit from this council are the dictatorships like Sudan. Joining a council such as this gives them a sort of "legitimacy" that they have not earned. They point to their membership in organizations such as this as "proof" that they are innocent of charges.

Leaving this council will have no effect on what the US is capable of doing on it's own to stop genocide.

reply to post by grover

Originally posted by grover
Actually the United States is the biggest dead beat when it comes to paying its United Nation's dues.

It doesn't hurt the UN one bit. They merely commit fraud and graft like the Oil For Food larceny to line their pockets, and rape children in Africa to satisfy their carnal desires.

And, property in NYC ain't cheap, btw.

reply to post by infinite


Shouldn't they be focusing on making the Human rights Council a viable option though instead of abandoning it completely? I'm American and I am in no way defending this country in that our Government did the right thing about pulling out of the Council itself, but if the organization was a sham to begin with as our Government pulls out of the sham, isn't that like admitting that they will now go on to full scale human rights atrocities thereby dumping the shroud of making people believe they cared to begin with and are now only moving towards actual major human rights violations with the Plausible Deniability Shroud?

I understand Tibet, I sincerely do, but Tibet is under the influence of Communist China, which in some form or fashion is still under the influence of its Mother Russia. I'm not saying financially or through economic stimulation nor supplies but by the ideals and systems of beliefs that were put in place long ago. People do not unlearn ideals or ideas when the proverbial "carpet" is yanked out from under them, like when Russia fell, but since there is now no system above a country like Communist China to hold it in check, it now has the ability to be like a sadistic and twisted child who was abused by "Mommy" or "Mother Russia" while at the same time being "loved and nurtured" through monetary and military supplies having its "Mommy" ripped away from it, the "child country" being Communist China may very well now have no other choice than to become more of a tyrant than its "parent" country in a sense, which is now being shown when Tibet's human rights violation are inflicted by the ignorant Generals in power there.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, nor am I saying the U.S. Government is right or wrong in pulling out the the Human Rights Council, but when they stop being a part of the sham and do not replace it with something more powerful and protective of the people worldwide, are they not possibly moving towards comitting worse atrocities than only tasking organizations like the C.I.A. through the Extra-Ordinary Rendition Program to kidnap "terrorists" and let the host country torture that prisoner, so "America" can legitimately state that "we do not torture Americans?"

And I in no way stating that Communist China had any better track-record before they had money, weapons, and military supplies from Russia before its collapse either.

Food for thought, from an American who sees both sides of the coin.


[edit on 8-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

So after the US attacks and destroy the evil Iranians whats next?:

The evil Venezuelas, Bolivians, Ecuatorians, Cubans, etc..
The evil Chinese, Russians, Noth Korea, etc..
Not forget the evil Paquistanies or and the hole middel east and also the african muslims countrys... and the rest of this evil planet...

Not even Blackwater has enought troops to defend America after the rest of the world gets tired of this madness....

reply to post by Grover



Grover, how do you propose to change such an organization from within? They, from within, are seeking to weaken it.

As the UN Human Rights Council’s inaugural year comes to a close, the Council is meeting this week in Geneva to determine some of the fundamental procedures that will be used by the body in years to come. A number of member countries have proposed that country-specific “special procedures”—the special experts, representatives and rapporteurs who investigate human rights abuses in particular countries—be abolished, particularly those assigned to Cuba, Belarus, Burma and North Korea. The system of special procedures had been one of the few effective mechanisms of the UN Commission on Human Rights in responding to urgent human rights issues both thematically and regionally and prescribing avenues for improvement.

www.freedomhouse.org...

It's a bloody (literally) joke.

Again I ask, how do you reform such a broken organization. To have countries that are major violators of their own citizen's human rights have seats on this council is ludicrous to me. Sometime the best form of protest is to just up and leave.

Actually when you stop and look at it a lot of conservative responses to issues cultural, social, political, environmental and international and little more than cop outs and abrogations of responsiblity...

All while calling for everyone else to be responsible.

can someone tell me what the UN human rights council actually did/does?
i dont mean, they look after your human rights
but, what have they actually done?
thats a genuine queston by the way, not making acusations
also, isnt it the security council that sorts out 'bad guys' if they dont tow the line?
which the US is still a part of right?
and, from what i have seen, the human rightsd council was a totally stacked deck anyway, there were very few countries (the US included), that did actually at least TRY, and not just blatantly lie and ignore the problems
not saying the are lilly white, no country is, but when facing a stacked deck, which you at least attempt to comply, (more or less ), leaving it aint making a world of difference imo
wish the UK would pull out to

The Terrorists have not won because we are not really fighting them! I look to the cause of the withdrawl because the Bush Admin. has been found to have falsely given statements to the U.S. Congress to take this country to WAR. If proven in a court, Bush and Cheney could be prosecuted. I don't even know what the punishment would be for such an act to a sitting Pres. and V.P.!!

We the people must come together and do what is the right thing and immediatly impeach these two now while they are in office. In doing so, while underimpeachment they could be tried and convicted.

To do this, We must form a group and get the people on board and impeach these B-------!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will stay in touch!

reply to post by pavil


Engage... engage... engage and keep engaging.

Then again considering bush minor's human rights record maybe we should just sit down and shut up until we get our house back in order.

reply to post by grover

Originally posted by grover
Actually when you stop and look at it a lot of conservative responses to issues cultural, social, political, environmental and international and little more than cop outs and abrogations of responsiblity...

All while calling for everyone else to be responsible.

Conservatives have always been on the leading edge of reform in the US, from the Civil War to end slavery to the Civil Rights Movement.

reply to post by grover


We have tried for years to get Reform at the UNHRC and the UN, where has it got us?

How would you engage a country like Sudan who denies any human rights problems in Darfur for example?

Please let me hear your thoughts on this particular subject before drifting off the topic.

reply to post by jsobecky


The Republicans in the mid- 19th century were the radicals of their day and the Democrats were the conservatives... Party politics and alignments periodically switch... the conservatives of the day supported slavery and claimed that states rights trumped the Federal government...

So no Josbecky you are totally wrong.

Besides that how can any group opposed to social and economic change be called the cutting edge?

THAT is a joke.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jsobecky

 

The Republicans in the mid- 19th century were the radicals of their day and the Democrats were the conservatives... Party politics and alignments periodically switch... the conservatives of the day supported slavery and claimed that states rights trumped the Federal government...

So no Josbecky you are totally wrong.

Besides that how can any group opposed to social and economic change be called the cutting edge?

THAT is a joke.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by grover]

Did I say Republicans or Democrats, grover? No, I said conservative. I'm right, you're wrong.

Anyway, stop diverting. Answer Pavil's question.

reply to post by pavil


No matter how fustrating it can be if you throw in the towel and walk away you've lost any influence no matter how small so you engage, engage and continue engaging until they are sick of you.

reply to post by grover


Again, what exactly is engaging? Isn't leaving the UNHRC getting the US far more influence than staying there and accepting the Status Quo? What real impetus would the UHHRC to reform if it largest critic (U.S.) were to stay there?

Again, how would you deal with Sudan?


[edit on 8-6-2008 by pavil can't spell]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by pavil]

The body from which we are withdrawing is sick. I propose that no amount of engagement will rectify the situation. The illness is at the root. The UN is clearly a supranational entity that some foster, and others don't.

However, The United States has done something I never thought I would see. It has withdrawn and NOT made a motion to create a new international body to carryout the functions that the UN is clearly incapable of doing. I thought this is where we should take a leadership role. Not in simply mucking about in tried and failed strategies, but breaking ground and forming effective alliances.

The problem is that no one wants to let go of this behemoth UN. Why is that? What is so vital about the UN model? If it doesn't work and it can't be fixed, why use it? Start over, we're NOT MARRIED to the UN - or are we? Such should be the fate of EVERY UN initiative that suffers from this malady of impotence. If enough failures are corrected this way the UN becomes what is was meant to be, a servant, not a ruler - at least I was led to believe it was not in existence to 'rule' over the planet.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The body from which we are withdrawing is sick. I propose that no amount of engagement will rectify the situation. The illness is at the root. The UN is clearly a supranational entity that some foster, and others don't.

However, The United States has done something I never thought I would see. It has withdrawn and NOT made a motion to create a new international body to carryout the functions that the UN is clearly incapable of doing. I thought this is where we should take a leadership role. Not in simply mucking about in tried and failed strategies, but breaking ground and forming effective alliances.

The problem is that no one wants to let go of this behemoth UN. Why is that? What is so vital about the UN model? If it doesn't work and it can't be fixed, why use it? Start over, we're NOT MARRIED to the UN - or are we? Such should be the fate of EVERY UN initiative that suffers from this malady of impotence. If enough failures are corrected this way the UN becomes what is was meant to be, a servant, not a ruler - at least I was led to believe it was not in existence to 'rule' over the planet.

Thank you for that in this is what I was curious about. No, I am not, nor will I ever be supportive of the United States of America as acting in the role of World Police Force, but I was curious as to why our Government pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council.

Is that a sign of impending war looming on the horizon?

Is that a sign that our nations Government thinks differently, and if so in what aspect, of the UN's Human Rights Council?

It seems that the more things come to light about the U.S. Government and Bush's violations, like stating there were WMD's in Iraq, in order to push for war with Saddam Hussien, the more potential nasty stuff comes up as well.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Good! Maybe this is this first step to withdraw completely from the UN.

...

The UN is completely worthless to the United States and the less involvement we have with them the better.

Amen.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


The argument is fair. UNHRC has a right to investigate China over Tibet and not spend every minute highlighting so called "Western violations". Did you watch the video? The UNHRC denied their was a genocide or even a problem in Darfur.

Many UN members have tried to bring credibility to the council, but everything has been blocked. UK is meant to chair the council in 2010 but Zimbabwe has recommend Britain should be blocked because it will introduce "colonial policy" on Africa. The UNHRC agreed to review to see if the UK is suitable. Zimbabwe is ruled by a dictator and a military junta (the army is now in control), elections are not fair and citizens are tortured to death. Do ATS members think Zimbabwe should have influence, let alone membership, over the UNHRC? Hell no! Using Zanu-PF election platforms should be banned from the UN.

I've criticised America many times on this board for foreign policy to human rights, but if I can put my own bias aside so can other members. I recommend certain members put conspiracies aside and research the UNHRC. Amnesty International is among its critics, that should be a big clue to how pathetic the UNHRC is.

Btw, the UNHRC refused to investigate gay and womens rights in the Middle East. One member defend the execution of homosexuals.

So, ATS members...still think America is a naughty boy for leaving an organisation that justified executions of homosexuals and denies women rights

If I, a proud liberal, can support America on this than so can everyone.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by Maxmars


There will be no successor entity to the UN. Even if it were to happen, it would be populated by the Techocrats that currently run the UN. The UN on occassion, can serve a useful role. Sadly enough, more often than not, it is too little too late. They get mad at the US for calling Genocide in Darfur.

The UNHRC is not one of those situations. It is not run with the intent of the initial mandate from the UN. As Infinite pointed out, having Mugabe's Zimbabwe lecture The U.K. on human rights is laughable.