The UN and its continued stupidity

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
The UN and its continued stupidity
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 10:37pm
It appears as though the UN is trying their hardest to look as stupid as possible.

Today, Cuba was re-elected to the Human Rights commission. Enough said on that.

They join Nigeria, Libya and Saudi Arabia on the UN's Human Rights commission who are supposed to be the international watchdog for human rights around the world.

That is pretty funny in and of itself.

Like Ari Fleisher said today, "this is like putting Al Capone in charge of the banking system"

If the UN is trying to re-establish its credibility around the world, this is not exactly the way they should be going about it.

Avatar for cl_mssugaree
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-22-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 8:09am
Hijacking this thread a bit to bring over a discussion from the War with Iraq board, which is on this topic:

Showing yet again, the diplocrats are a disgraceful bunch:

from: cl-mssugaree

The following link will take you to a compendium of the News of the Day and the focus of the UN, the UN Commission on Human Rights and Kofi Annan's pronouncements:

Is there some disconnect here?


from: djie

to: cl-mssugaree

<<"Is there some disconnect here?">>.....well that's putting it mildly isn't it?

Remarkable that there has been no response to your post/the article by all who were so concerned and anti whatéver the coalition has accomplished so far.

Must I assume they agree then?


from: cl-mssugaree

to: djie

I would choose speechless (and hopefully aghast) as opposed to agreement on the disgrace and sham the UN Human Rights Commission is today.

An interesting take on this was offered by Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School and professor of political science at York University, Toronto, is a member of the governing board of UN Watch:

"The commission is the primary U.N. organ responsible for human rights protection. The current chair is Libya. Yes, Libya. In addition to Libya, three of the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism are current members--Cuba, Sudan and Syria. On April 15, the commission adopted a resolution sanctioning the use of "all available means including armed struggle"--which includes suicide bombing--as a legitimate tactic against Israelis. Only five countries, including the U.S., voted against. The U.K. and France abstained, and Russia approved."


from: cerryl

to: cl-mssugaree

You know what they say, all's fair in love and war.

If you're so against suicide bombers, why not speak out about the United States use of The Security Council veto against resolutions aimed at making Israel comply. Or, do you just believe the problem in Israel lies soley with Palestinians?


from: cl-mssugaree

to: cerryl

Explain to me the difference between accepting as legitimate homicide bombing while condemning all legitimate military action and how the UN Human Rights Commission, or yourself, can jive those.

BTW- What does the HAMAS charter say vis-a-vis the existence of Israel and what did the PLO Charter say until fairly recently concerning the existence of Israel?

PS-If you would like, this might be best discussed in further detail and participation on the Politics Board-so feel free to bring the discussion there as well.


from: cerryl

to: cl-mssugaree

Simple, if Israel complies, the bombings might stop. We don't know that for sure, because the United States has gone out of their way to make sure Israel doesn't have to comply, not going to comment on that are you? But we do know, that they've stopped in the past.

What is it that you think caused the latest uprising that began two years ago? Why is it that it can stop in the wake of a peace plan, but starts up again when it's obvious that Israel has no intention of complying.

I don't condone or condem the practice of suicide bombings against Israel, it's war and in war this kind of thing happens.

That's the problem when you sit on one side of the fence like you're doing, you're incapable of discussing this issue objectively.


from: suemox

to: cl-mssugaree

Yep. I'm speechless. It's a lot to bite off and chew on and try to address at the same time. Do I condone the actions listed in the article you posted? No way. Am I surprised by some of them. You bet but not all. It stands to reason that in such a huge bureaucracy the left hand rarely knows what the right hand is doing. Does that mean I think the UN is irrelevant? No way. I was kind of waiting for some other people to post on this before I threw my 2 cents in....but oh well, time to get the ball rolling.

While I have often defended the role of the UN I have also stated on numerous occasions that it needs to be seriously revamped and streamlined so this just supports that side of the argument. It needs to be fixed, not eliminated. That's like throwing the baby out with the bath.

I also like that word "diplocrats"



from: snowbella

to: cl-mssugaree

Are there problems with the UN? Sure there are. Should the UN be abandoned? No. Hopefully the recent events (in Iraq and other places) will prompt some kind of revamping of the UN.

Is the US/Coalition forces completely the "white knight" saviour of Iraq and totally immune from charges of war crimes? Well I just don't know enough to answer that. I do know that it was very easy to predict that there would be charges of war crimes leveled against the US and the Coalition forces. Is the US and the Coalition forces being held to a higher standard than others? Probably. Is that bad? I don't think so. With the military capability of the US alone I think the rest of the world is very right in holding us to a higher standard in international relations. If they don't could we conceivably just continue to topple regime after regime as it suits our purposes and without regard for the rest of the world? From an ability stand point sure we could. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying that's the case with Iraq.) With such power behind us I think it is more than prudent for the rest of the world to hold us to a higher standard.

Now, as for the short fallings of the UN Human Rights Commission (and other agencies). Yes there are problems in the structure and system that absolutely need to be fixed. However, I don't believe a world without the UN would be better off than a world with the UN.


from: octagonal

to: cl-mssugaree

You won't get many people to disagree that the UN is faulty, often inconsistent, slow and unwieldy. Have you ever worked in a large bureaucracy with many branches and many diagreeing departments and factions ??? If you had, you would not be so surprised. I have done some work in a scientific branch of the UN in Geneva and it is an extremely difficult and challenging environment to work in.

However, while it certainly could use some improvement, it is what we have and what we make it - and the alternative is a *WHOLE* lot more frightening.


from: cl-mssugaree

to: cerryl

Key word: MIGHT, which also means might not-and yet you are willing to take the risk with someone else's life, despite what you know, or can easily find out, about what is in the HAMAS charter or Islamic Jihad, not to mention the words of Arafat himself and the state-controlled media, the glorification of homicide bombers, etc.

Now, you would like the non-binding sanctions on Israel abided by while they are the only nation ineligible to sit on the UN Human Rights Commission, a commission, which essentially was born out of the deaths of their families, and which seats Cuba, the Sudan, Syria, Libya, the PRC, and yet cannot find it within its abilities to pass a resolution condemning the murderous actions of Robert Mugabe or those homicide bombings you do not condone, but they did?

Of course this whole 'Israel' line is often a deflection to avoid facing the real problem, and at least some have tried to answer with looking at the bureacracy and believing gloom and doom if these organizations do not exist and I thank those who did for their insight.

What I say is that if it is not working as it should and in fact works counter to its purposes, you ARE seeing the world as if they did not exist!

As for suggestions of reformation, and I would strongly urge this conversation to continue on a different venue (Politics Today) because it is larger than Iraq and the debate on it is critical. As such, I will try later today, to pull the threads over there as well-so come join in!


Politics Board, feel free to jump in!