[Liberator]

I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?

The UN is broken.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?

Then why has the US blocked attempts to create a more sensible membership system?

For example, he requested the deletion of the following;    
"We emphasize the responsibilities of all states, in conformity with the charter to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinctions of any kind, such as to race, colour, sex, language, or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."*

(and also deletion of segments regarding corporate responsibility and for drugs companies to work towards providing cheap anti-viral drugs to third world nations.   Not to mention removing an repsonsibility for the security council to respond to genocide, and indeed removing text which acted to condemn incitement of genocide.  Oh, and deleting a reference to the killing of civillians being unaceptable for any cause.

 Although he wants to strengthen property rights - bless 'im)

[vyper]

Originally posted by aldo_14


So it's really the people launching into the EU in the 'we fought a war 50 years ago against this' type bandwagon who are to blame for kow-towing to the Americans?

Oh, and indeed

No I'm saying he can't oppose Europe and win the popular "British" vote that way because it feels like a 50/50 split in the UK and he can't risk the EU response, so he has to oppose the UN because it's win/win.

On the note: it was touch and go though - they have to tighten up if they expect to get any further.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper


No I'm saying he can't oppose Europe and win the popular "British" vote that way because it feels like a 50/50 split in the UK and he can't risk the EU response, so he has to oppose the UN because it's win/win.

I'm still not sure how the trials and tribulations of the UN would have any effect upon the EU; to me a strong UN is good if you want to reduce the influence of the EU, as without it you'd be risking degenerating into an alliance system (not militarily but in terms of politics and economics) and becoming reliant upon the group power of the EU in that respect.  After all, one of the main good things about the EU - at least in concept - is that it provides a counterweight for the likes of Britain against larger nations like the USA.  

Blair has been ****ed over politically (they dropped what, 20-odd seats to the Tories alone last election?) as a result of his military support to the US, and I'm not sure why he'd wish to reduce the little influence he can bring to bear (mainly the UK vote in the security council).  I can only imagine it's simply down to not having the backbone to publicly contradict the US because of historical alliance; even if the days of needing US backup for defence (i.e. against the USSR) are long gone.

Originally posted by vyper
On the note: it was touch and go though - they have to tighten up if they expect to get any further.

Rodriguez needs a good kicking for that second goal.  Bring back Marvin 'Danger' Andrews any day, I say.  Bernard is pish, too; they should have kept Murray at left back and held Rae in midfield IMO.    I hope they get Burkey fit soon, as well, cos I'm not sure Namouchi is up to that level. Jeffers did ok, though.  Bit more sharpness and he'll be firing away.  And Prso is just superb, even if I was a wee bit worried when he malkied that guy.

[vyper]

[q]And Prso is just superb, even if I was a wee bit worried when he malkied that guy.[/q]

That looked painful, even if somewhat comical. He played his heart out though, and he set up a lot of good chances only to find no one in the box to cross to. I thought Jeffers was getting too pushy - could be a liability if he does something stupid at the edge of an 18-yard box (like give away a free kick).

[aldo_14]

Well, Jeffers worked his arse off IMO.  And after the last 2 games, that's a good sign - players actually giving a ****.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Tsk, you two get a room.

And a telly for the highlights.
[/color]

[Flipside]

Well, whilst I'm not surprised, amazingly enough AntiEuropeanism isn't nearly as widely documented and shouted about as anti-Americanism, but it certainly exists, and yet is, oddly enough, never ever taken to be as 'bad' :/

The reason this man threw this meeting into disarray was to attack Europe and the EU.

Anyone remember the Shadows last act of Spite in B5, 'If we can't have it, we'll screw it up for everyone else'?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?

The UN is broken.

This, I conceed, is the only point where Bolton might have something.

BUT

Human rights are ever so slightly subjective. So while North Korea can be said to be trampling over all rights, presumably the US would seek to bar a country like Venezuela from the Human Rights Commision, or a similar nation, in which the claims of human rights abuse are completely politicized and often provided without backing.

The counter arguement is that such a commision, like all UN commisions, should be completely random and rotating, to avoid political influence which is a very real and great menace to fair conduct. I don't see how you can be against Sudan sitting on the Human Rights commision but support Bush in appointing oil industry lobbyists to the EPA, military tech lobbyists to the military appropriations commitee, hunters to the wildlife conservation department (I don't know if that exists as such, probably part of the EPA) or in fact Bolton himself, a man who said that the UN does not or should not exist, as UN ambassador. Sounds like an extereme case of double standards, especially considering who is making the arguement in front on the UN.

However, I don't see what that has to do with nuclear disarmament, the environment, poverty, an international court system or any of the other proposals. And even in the case of the Human Rights Commision, I very much doubt that the position taken by Bolton is because of altrusitic reason.

[aldo_14]

I linked a while back to an article suggesting a criteria for being in the UN HRC would be approval of over 2 thirds of the UN membership; I think that would make sense.  The Us suggested a criteria of having signed the relevant human rights treaties; except that would have disqualified them, so it was withdrawn.

[karajorma]

They should have accepted and then promptly kicked the US off of the commission.

To save face the US would have had no choice but to sign or look like fools

[TrashMan]

Indeed!

US should be kicked out of UN. Who needs them anyway...

[Grey Wolf]

Quite honestly, the UN. The US is the worlds sole remaining military superpower, and is by far the most powerful country economically, even though some people are trying their best to dismantle the base of the economy.

[vyper]

[q]and is by far teh most powerful country economically[/q]

It is until the Asian/Far-East banks call time on the debt.

[Grey Wolf]

Much of that debt will most likely not be called in for a while. For example, IIRC, the entire national reserve of South Korea is in the dollar.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by mikhael
He has the authorization "of his own people". His nomination went through. Its a republic. The people's representatives approved him.

Sure the guy's a dick, but at least get your facts straight.

his nomination DID NOT go through - he was appointed on a temporary basis via the reccess appointment cheat

[Rictor]

How long does that last anyway? Can Bush keep appointming him indefinitely or will he have to face the music at some point?

[Grey Wolf]

I believe he has until next summer, when the session of Congress ends.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan


his nomination DID NOT go through - he was appointed on a temporary basis via the reccess appointment cheat

It's not a cheat, Kaz.  It's one of the powers of the office and you know it.  Had some Red Diaper Doper Baby used it we would not be having this discussion.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?

The UN is broken.

You're right about that, but you are forgetting something: The US government trying to destroy the UN by blocking reform efforts for one simple reason: It can't control it.