The U.N. Human Rights Commission

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/index.html

It makes me wonder how many nations out there are our true allies.

[This message has been edited by rblh (edited May 04, 2001).]

 

oh my freakin gosh!!!! you should read how much times the US has screwed other nations over the year. They have nothing but to hate us. We have imposed economic sanctions on Cuba, what threat is Cuba now!!!! We have violated Iraq's soveriegty (misspelled) by enforcing the no-fly zone (granted they accepted it, but we forced them to). We also impose economic sanctions against Iraq, killing, yes killing, innocent people because they cant get food or proper medical care. Know freakin wonder every terrorist in the world wants to cream the US!!

------------------

 

Also its a joke that US should be on the UN Human Rights Commision, considering the atrocities commited by the US government.

------------------

 

If I read it correctly, it's interesting that such countries as Sierra Leone, Sudan and Libya have seats on the commision. Does not seem to mean too much to have a place in this committee other than the fact that one can lobby for the votes...in which case the US is further at a disadvantage since an ambassador to the UN have not been appointed yet.

------------------

 

You're right. Who are we to compare our federal government's track record on human rights in the 20th century to that of Sudan and Libya?

Why would the UN want a Western-style constitutional republic on its Human Rights Commission? Our form of government runs counter to everything the UN stands for.

I hope the UN likes getting stiffed on back dues, because my understanding is that Congress is going to tell them to go piss up a rope regarding the $568 million we owe them.

 

We shouldn't even talk about Sudan or Libya, the ridiculous fact that they have spots on the commission has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the U.S. doesn't.

The only countries we should be comparing ourselves to is France, Sweeden, and Austria.

------------------
www.swirve.com
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

 

Yes, we SHOULD talk about those countries, because they have a place on the council and the United States doesn't.

If the council consisted only of the countries you mentioned, then we'd only discuss those countries. But since the council now includes a nation run by a terrorist (Libya), a nation where slavery still exists (Sudan), and a nation where citizens have the right to obedience and little else (Cuba), I think it's entirely reasonable to contrast the United States with what the UN considers representative sovereignties.

I am well aware that the council consists of member countries from different regions, and I don't care. If the best that Sudan's region could do was Sudan, then that region's seat should have been left vacant.

 

I understand this Kagy, my point is that we shouldn't be threatening the UN to withhold our dues because of it. I think we all agree that Sudan and Libya shouldn't be on there, but that's not why the US isn't on there. The three countries from our region are fine.

------------------
www.swirve.com
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

 

In all seriousness, why are we involved with the UN anyway at this point? It's silly. This is an organization dominated by third-world nations with governments that treat their citizens like crap! These folks do not respect the fact that we revere our liberties over their opinions of how we should run our country. They kick us off the human rights commission?? What a joke!!! Why don't we just ignore them the next time some jackass dictator starts putting the heat on them again??? Believe me, they will need us again. Let's see China or Sudan go in and remove the next Hitler/Milosevic.

Pay our dues??? How about this...let the world pay us for the use of our military for every UN peace-keeping mission to this point, and we'll set that off from our dues. I'm betting we've contributed just a tad more than the rest of the world combined. Why is my tax money going to fund an organization like this??? An organization where China sits on the Human Rights Commission is not one I'm real interested in my country being a part of. Thanks, but no thanks.

------------------


[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited May 09, 2001).]

 

These folks do not respect the fact that we revere our liberties over their opinions of how we should run our country.

And we don't respect the fact that other countries don't appreciate us telling them how to run their countries either. We do it anyway quite a bit, though.

Working with other countries -- just like working with other people -- involves compromise. If you prefer to be isolationist, so be it. Don't gripe then when our economy sucks because other countries put trade barriers up, or when other countries start launching nukes at each other and contaminating our air, or some dictator takes over Europe and then targets the US using a unified front (the possible consequence of WWII). Just remember, you didn't want to work with anyone to prevent these things.

Let's see China or Sudan go in and remove the next Hitler/Milosevic.

Yes, the isolationist philosophy in the US in WW II was excellent and effective. It led to Pearl Harbor.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

China for example needs us far more as a market for their goods than we need them.

Hmmm, actually, no. Without us, that leaves China 5.8 billion people around the world to trade with. Without China, that leaves us 3.8 billion people. American companies are dying to get into the Chinese market because of the potential growth over the next 20 years. China's economy is growing across the board, with only a small fraction being from exports to the US.

The UN isn't the only way to reach other countries diplomatically.

By giving smaller countries some power, they have a reason to be a committed member of the U.N. By doing so, you discourage them from committing all sorts of acts of violence and atrocity. If you're dealing with countries on a one-by-one basis, the likelihood of pulling off any type of embargos, sanctions, etc goes to zero. For example, the only reason the Iraqi oil sanctions have even survived past a year or two is the force of the U.N. -- without it, countries like France and Russia would still be buying oil from Iraq.

I just hope we do it to protect our allies or our own interests...not because the UN thinks it's a good idea.

In military actions, we never do anything because of the UN -- as a permanent security council member, we can veto anything we don't want to do involving military issues.

Because ultimately, the nations
that seem to have the most sway in the UN are those which most of us would only find ourselves living there in a nightmare.

Do you actually believe small African & Middle Eastern countries have more UN sway than the US or England or Russia?

I think it's certainly worth a try to protect those lives and the environment the rest of you seem so hell-bent on conserving.

Yes, I have a problem with a missile defense system. On another note, China and such are against it because (a) we signed a treaty to NOT create one and (b) because they don't trust that it will be defensive only. Would you trust China to put a "missile defense" system on Cuba?

I'm against a missile defense because the reality is that its virtually impossible to design. Two missiles, each about 30 feet long, going 500+ mph in opposite directions, are NOT going to collide, except by sheer luck. Lots of physicists agree on this point. All military experiments with this type of thing have failed miserably. The vaunted Patriot defense system that was designed to fight slow SCUD missiles at close range only hit like 20% of its targets. Bush's proposed missile defense is based on this excellent Patriot Missile technology.

I'd much prefer investing in a laser-based defense system. At least with that, you can keep firing the damn thing until it hits your target. Unfortunately, it's the missile technology companies that are pushing this, and like most things in Washington, money will determine what gets built.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

My concern is really how we hold ourselves in regard to other countries. There is obviously such a thing as pride in our country and that's great. I love it too.

However, we are awfully ready to blame and decry the moment there is criticism thrown in our direction. I'm not saying that the rest of the world is better just that we aren't perfect and have plenty of problems that are worth complaining about.

It seems to me that the rest of the world taking the position that we are wrong on something shouldn't necessarily be the signal for us to go into a defensive posture and immediately begin criticising everyone else.

IMO, that is a good time to asses the issue and try and understand why so many countries and people feel this way. We may be the strongest country in the world militarily and financially but, if there is anything history tells us it is that things change.

With that position in the world comes incredible responsibility. We can either listen and try to make an open-minded and fair decision about the concerns that present themselves or we can be stubborn and ignore them. Either way, we will be forced to face them at some point. Nothing just goes away.

------------------
So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...

 

Shanna --

Actually their markets aren't as open to our goods as our are to theirs. And if you think for one minute that you can just subtract our population and that gives you an adequate idea of what cost it would be for China to lose our market to dump their products, you're nuts. We are THE market for them. The rest of the world doesn't consume as we do...so simple subtraction won't get it done.

I have no problem being part of an organization where countries of smaller stature are given similar voting powers to ours. But I do have a problem when those countries are controlled by dictators or those whom we feel are dangerous.

Make no mistake...the UN absolutely puts pressure on us to commit our armed forces. We have committed tons of US military dollars to UN missions. We are ALWAYS called on to take a disproportionate role in those endeavors. So maybe if we're all going to have equal votes, we can all contribute equally??? Just a thought.

I believe third-world nations do seem to carry more weight in the UN than more developed nations do. The UN has more and more become an organization which seeks to make first-world, highly-developed nations pay for the fact that they are in a better position than the less-developed nations are. The Kyoto deal was just another attempt at that. Do you honestly believe that if we were to pull out of the UN that other countries would stop trading with us??? Come on!!!

As with missile defense...people said you couldn't build a domed stadium...today they're commonplace. Scientists said we couldn't put a man on the moon...but we did it anyway. The point is, it's worth trying if it saves the number of lives that this system would. I have no problem with them exploring the possiblity of it being a laser-based system. I could care less how they do it...just do it! As for the treaty we had...this is a treaty that was Cold War-based. It's antiquated and no longer serves anyone very well. It only serves the Chinese in keeping us from developing a missile shield. And hell no I don't care if the Chinese develop a defensive weapon!! Let them!! But just make sure ours is built, too. I can't imagine not wanting to develop a system like this...and I can't imagine saying, "ahhh...well...we probably can't do it, so let's not bother developing a system that might save thousands of lives one day."

Jeff -- I have no problem listening to the world's criticism. Hell, we hear it constantly. But I do have a problem with countries who have the records of dealing with their citizens the way China and Cuba do being on a commission on civil rights in any organization the United States is involved with. That's nothing short of a joke. And maybe I'd like to hear some appreciation for the country that bails these folks out of drastic situation after drastic situation with our military. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

------------------

 

I am with you on countries sitting on a panel when their violations are as bad or worse than our own.

As for "appreciation," how do you define that? What exactly do you want other countries to do? We are guilty of producing 50% of the world's CO2 emissions. Shouldn't we apologize for that and take dramatic steps to change? We have provided weapons to countries like Afghanistan who now use those weapons in terrorist acts. Where is our accountibility there?

Every situation, whether it be personal or global, requires give and take. Do we really require the appreciation of other countries in exchange for our good stewardship as a citizen of the planet?

You either do good by others or not. You don't do it so you can lord it over the receiver. If you do, you aren't giving a gift. You are simply negotiating a service.

I agree that the US does a lot for the world, but we also create alot of problems. If our good deeds are predicated on appreciation by other countries then the problems we create require our immediate and unqualified apology. Since I don't imagine that is forthcoming anytime soon, I can understand why other countries wouldn't jump at the chance to kiss our butt.

------------------
So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...

 

Just a thought...

But does anyone think that getting kicked off (not only the Human Rights council, but also the International Narcotics Control Board.) would have anything to do with Dubya's decisions on pursuing missile defense and backing off the the Kyoto treaty? As well as his administrations' decisions on other international treaties that the US refuse to ratify?

And now congress is acting like a spoiled brat and is saying, "fine, we'll just withhold the rest of the dues we owe".

It might help if we could agree on an ambassador for the UN that we haven't had in over a year.


------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[This message has been edited by mc mark (edited May 09, 2001).]

 

would have anything to do with Dubya's decisions on pursuing missile defense and backing off the the Kyoto treaty?

I'm not sure about missile defense, but the original CNN article about this did say that many Western allies were annoyed by the Kyoto and may have voted against the US for those reasons.

And now congress is acting like a spoiled brat and is saying, "fine, we'll just withhold the rest of the dues we owe".

Bingo. Maybe if we'd paid what we owe them, they might be more inclined to listen to us...


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

I had also heard the new missile defense momentum as being a factor as well...lack of trust, I guess.

------------------
Whitey will pay.

 

shanna -- i agree that we tell other countries that we don't agree with how to run their business. The difference is, we have leverage. Most of the nations in the UN need us far more than they need us. China for example needs us far more as a market for their goods than we need them.

As for being isolationist...I don't think what I said necessarily means I'm isolationist. The UN isn't the only way to reach other countries diplomatically. I assure you, if the US pulled out there would be other nations that would quickly follow, namely, Great Britain. And I'm not saying that our military can't be used to prevent a European dictator from rising to power. We don't need the UN's approval to take military action that would assist our allies or protect our own interests. Why do we assume that the UN is always right and has to give us the go-ahead for us to use the bathroom???? As for my point about letting the Sudan or China remove the next dictator, my point was simply to show that they won't. Ultimately the rest of the world will be begging for our military assistance to get them out of a jam. And once again, we'll do it only to find it going unappreciated once more. I just hope we do it to protect our allies or our own interests...not because the UN thinks it's a good idea. Because ultimately, the nations that seem to have the most sway in the UN are those which most of us would only find ourselves living there in a nightmare.

By the way...I'm not particularly interested in what the rest of the world thinks about the US building a missile defense system to protect the civilians of the US and its allies. I'm shocked that China and North Korea don't want us to build such a system. I wonder why they take that position?? You just remember where you stood on that issue when someone does launch a nuclear attack on the US, accidentally or with intent, and thousands are left dead. I think it's certainly worth a try to protect those lives and the environment the rest of you seem so hell-bent on conserving.

------------------

 

Jeff - I guess I just resent the way we're treated in the world community. We do much more than just "doing our part". Ask the Frenchmen if 1945 how much we did our part...or those who were persecuted by Milosevic. This far more than just "good stewardship." Make no mistake...it is not our DUTY to do these things. These are our soldiers' lives at stake...I don't think anyone else is bartering quite as much. Reducing greenhouse emissions is one thing...sending your kids to die in some police action overseas for those in a foreign land they've never seen before is quite another. I resent the notion that somehow it's our duty to do that. And by the way...I can't see this military action as a gift!!! No nation can afford to treat it as such, not even the U.S. Our government, under the Constitution, owes a duty to its citizens to protect it from foreign threat...we do not owe such duty to anyone else. We do it, nevertheless, to protect our allies, at best. I would expect those we protect to back us when we need it too. Yet France seems to turn against us everytime we do anything. When was the last time they endorsed anything we ever did. Not that I could care less, I just think it's comical. Even more comical that people say things like, "ya'll..the french are just laughing at us." The next time we want their opinion,we'll ask.

The UN is troubling to me. This is a group that is upset at us for not subjecting our citizens to the sovereignty of a world court where our guarantees of due process are not honored. It's an organization that time and time again has proven to be a breeding ground for espionage....and we have the most to lose in that situation. It's an organization that portrays itself juxtaposed to US interests consistently. I'm sorry, but I think our interests do not lie where the Sudan's do...or where China's do. And I am somewhat fearful that my children or grandchildren will live in a world one day where they do find themselves as subjects of some world court....where the liberties my grandfather fought and died for mean nothing.

The emissions thing is troubling to me too. Of course we produce 50% of the world's CO2...we have the largest population of the most developed nations. This is like the argument that Houston should have the cleanest air in the nation....you can't have it both ways...we either will continue to be the energy capital of the world, refining its oil, or we will have clean air. You can't have it both ways!!! And someone please tell me why our air is so much cleaner than the big cities around the world, if we're so evil. Been to Mexico City lately??? How's the air down there?? But I'm sure it's my fault for driving my car to work so close to the U.S.-Mexico border.

------------------