NationStates Jolt Archive


U.N. Human Rights: a step in the right direction?

Eutrusca
20-04-2006, 12:50
COMMENTARY: No more human rights abusers on the UN Human Rights Commission? One can only hope!


Divisive 'problems ahead' for U.N. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060420-120049-6099r.htm)


By David R. Sands and Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 20, 2006

The president of the U.N. General Assembly yesterday defended the world body's overhaul of its human rights panel, but warned that in the days ahead, the United Nations faces an even more difficult fight over critical management reforms.

"We have problems ahead of us. I will not hide the fact that the management issues are very difficult and we face a polarization of the membership," veteran Swedish diplomat Jan Eliasson said in an interview with reporters and editors at The Washington Times.

That polarization reared its head late Tuesday, when a bloc of developing nations introduced a resolution that could postpone indefinitely the progress on reforms sought by wealthier states. U.N. officials called it a "classic blocking tactic," and U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton told The Washington Times in New York yesterday that the ploy could sabotage reforms sought by the United States.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has placed reform of the body's bureaucracy at the heart of his blueprint to revive the United Nations. Citing the staffing, oversight and management problems exposed in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, critics in Congress have proposed tying U.S. contributions to the U.N. budget to significant reforms in New York.

But Mr. Eliasson also faces heavy counterpressure from the "Group of 77," a bloc of developing countries in the General Assembly that fears management changes will weaken its influence, eliminate jobs and threaten aid programs.

Mr. Eliasson, who wears an unusual double hat as Sweden's newly appointed foreign minister, was at the heart of the tense negotiations over the much-criticized human rights agency, a top Bush administration priority.
The United States, saying Mr. Eliasson's compromise did not go far enough to strengthen the agency, was one of just four countries to vote against adopting the Human Rights Council.

Mr. Eliasson said he respected the U.S. position and held out hope that Washington would expand its cooperation with the new body in the coming years.

"I have been involved with human rights for my entire career, and I can say I sleep well at night over what we accomplished," Mr. Eliasson said. "I think it is a very good basis to work for human rights, and the fact that the United States says it will work with the new council is a sign, I think, that we passed the quality test."

He said the new council will have a much higher membership hurdle to keep out notorious human rights abusers. Candidates will have to document their own human rights records and face expulsion if they violate their pledges while serving on the council.

He added that failure to secure a deal on the human rights body would have set back reform efforts across the board and turned the human rights debate into a "North-South issue," possibly pitting the United States and its Western allies against Islamic countries and developing nations.

Mr. Eliasson's drive for further management reforms faces a new snag with the resolution introduced Tuesday by South Africa in the General Assembly's budget committee, which would require the U.N. secretariat to submit detailed reports on scores of issues affected by Mr. Annan's program.

"This is an effort to dull [Mr. Annan's] input," an angry Mr. Bolton said in an interview. "We are concerned that if this goes to a vote it will result in [U.S. reform proposals] being rejected."

Mr. Eliasson said he was aware of the Group of 77 proposal, but expressed hope the management reforms can remain on track in the face of a looming June budgetary deadline.

He said the United States was not the only nation seeking greater control and oversight over how the United Nations spends its money, while developing countries fear that a streamlined U.N. secretariat will weaken the influence of the General Assembly, where they have a bigger voice.

"We're in for a rough ride on this," Mr. Eliasson said.
Harlesburg
20-04-2006, 13:08
Good morning Eutrusca.
Mind if i annoy you again?:D
Eutrusca
20-04-2006, 13:12
Good morning Eutrusca.
Mind if i annoy you again?:D
ROFLMAO!! Son, if I allowed twits like you to "annoy" me, I would have shot myself long, long ago! :D

( How's that? )
Rambhutan
20-04-2006, 13:17
Presumably the US wants Guantanamo Bay and kidnapping people and sending them to countries like Egypt to be tortured not to be counted as breaches of anyone's human rights.
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 13:22
Presumably the US wants Guantanamo Bay and kidnapping people and sending them to countries like Egypt to be tortured not to be counted as breaches of anyone's human rights.

Of course.

And with a potential UN crisis looming the only thing the US cares about is its agenda.
Psychotic Mongooses
20-04-2006, 13:22
... an angry Mr. Bolton said in an interview....

When is this guy not angry?
Dakini
20-04-2006, 13:25
Didn't the U.S. also refuse to sign agreements regarding the rights of women and children?
Harlesburg
20-04-2006, 13:28
ROFLMAO!! Son, if I allowed twits like you to "annoy" me, I would have shot myself long, long ago! :D

( How's that? )
True, i am sure you had to deal with plenty of tweeked up morons in the Army.
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 13:30
Didn't the U.S. also refuse to sign agreements regarding the rights of women and children?

http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_cedaw.html
Heavenly Sex
20-04-2006, 13:35
The United States was one of just four countries to vote against adopting the Human Rights Council.
Doesn't surprise me one bit :rolleyes:
They want to go on with stuff like Guantanamo Bay and other various stuff, and alsoe continue to help China to trample on Human Rights.
Kryozerkia
20-04-2006, 13:41
Didn't the U.S. also refuse to sign agreements regarding the rights of women and children?
They have too many treaties to break; they don't need another one! :p
CanuckHeaven
20-04-2006, 13:52
http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_cedaw.html
Toss in a little Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap), the highest rate of child poverty among industrialized nations, and sprinkle with the Patriot Act and the US human rights record doesn't appear to be so shiny after all?

Also, the US is only one of two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.nesri.org/human_rights_us/index.html)– the other being Somalia.
East Canuck
20-04-2006, 13:56
The United States was one of just four countries to vote against adopting the Human Rights Council. Doesn't surprise me one bit :rolleyes:
They want to go on with stuff like Guantanamo Bay and other various stuff, and alsoe continue to help China to trample on Human Rights.
So, am I the only one to find that Bolton being named to "help the UN" a load of rubbish?
Kryozerkia
20-04-2006, 13:56
Also, the US is only one of two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://http://www.nesri.org/human_rights_us/index.html)– the other being Somalia.
MIght want to fix this link; it goes to the Microsoft homepage...
CanuckHeaven
20-04-2006, 14:00
MIght want to fix this link; it goes to the Microsoft homepage...
Thank you....fixed!! :)
Hamilay
20-04-2006, 14:11
Toss in a little Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap), the highest rate of child poverty among industrialized nations, and sprinkle with the Patriot Act and the US human rights record doesn't appear to be so shiny after all?

Also, the US is only one of two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.nesri.org/human_rights_us/index.html)– the other being Somalia.

What does incarceration of lots of prisoners have to do with human rights? I found the last few countries in the list interesting- Zimbabwe incarcerates nobody at all? lol
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 14:16
What does incarceration of lots of prisoners have to do with human rights?

Think about this one. Really hard.
CanuckHeaven
20-04-2006, 14:16
What does incarceration of lots of prisoners have to do with human rights?
Incarcerated America (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/)

According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United States.1 The country that holds itself out as the "land of freedom" incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country. The human costs — wasted lives, wrecked families, troubled children — are incalculable, as are the adverse social, economic and political consequences of weakened communities, diminished opportunities for economic mobility, and extensive disenfranchisement.
Corneliu
20-04-2006, 14:19
Didn't the U.S. also refuse to sign agreements regarding the rights of women and children?

Need a treaty when its already garunteed by the US Constitution and the law?
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 14:24
Need a treaty when its already garunteed by the US Constitution and the law?

Um. If it is already part of the Constitution and the law, why not ratify the treaty? If for no other reason, to be part of those that have ratified a human rights accord.
Hamilay
20-04-2006, 14:26
The problem with a high level of incarceration is that it follows from a high crime rate, which is obviously a bad thing. However, I don't see incarcerating more criminals as a problem.
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 14:28
The problem with a high level of incarceration is that it follows from a high crime rate, which is obviously a bad thing. However, I don't see incarcerating more criminals as a problem.

1. That may be one explanation for a high incarceration rate, but nations can differ in their ratio of incarceration to crime.

2. Can you think of ways high crime would relate to human rights?
Hamilay
20-04-2006, 14:29
1. That may be one explanation for a high incarceration rate, but nations can differ in their ratio of incarceration to crime.

2. Can you think of ways high crime would relate to human rights?

Yes, high crime could easily relate to human rights. However, a high rate of incarceration is not in itself a problem. Incarcerating a criminal is not an abuse of human rights. I suppose I'm just being nitpicky here, though.
The Cat-Tribe
20-04-2006, 14:31
Yes, high crime could easily relate to human rights. However, a high rate of incarceration is not in itself a problem. Incarcerating a criminal is not an abuse of human rights. I suppose I'm just being nitpicky here, though.

No, just naive about why someone might be incarcerated.