US against the UN Human Rights Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deekod1967
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deekod1967

Guest
I quote from an Amnesty International urgent action…

*"The USA is attempting to prevent the establishment of the proposed
*UN Human Rights Council, which promises to be more effective at *
*protecting human rights than the existing Commission on Human *
*Rights. The President of the UN General Assembly has put forward a *
*draft resolution to establish the Council, but the US ambassador *
*the UN, John Bolton, has threatened to put the draft to a vote. *
Action on the draft is likely to take place by Friday 10 March. *

*Claiming that he wants to make “improvements” to the text for the
*new Council, Ambassador Bolton has announced that the USA wants to *
*renegotiate the draft resolution, failing which he will call for a *
*vote on the resolution as it stands and and vote against it. Any *
*further negotiations on the resolution would take us back many *
*months. This is likely to lead to further weakening of the text, *
*which has already been diluted during earlier negotiations. It is *
*also possible that negotiations may collapse altogether and there *
*will be no new Human Rights Council at all. This would mean that *
*victims of human rights violations around the world would be *
*denied the help of a truly effective UN body, and many people *
*would suffer serious harm. *

*Before Ambassador Bolton’s statement, the vast majority of UN *
*member states had expressed their support for the draft *
*resolution. Support remains strong and was reaffirmed most *
*recently by the European Union. The President of the General *
*Assembly has stressed that he would like to see the resolution **
*adopted before the Commission on Human Rights starts its final
*session, on 13 March. Pushing the text to a vote, as the US has *
*threatened to do, would offer a few countries that do not want any *
*improvement in the current human rights system a major opportunity *
*to further weaken the new Council. Postponing action on the draft *
*for a few months as the US has also suggested could delay *
*negotiations indefinitely. If that happens, there is a risk that *
the new Council will never come into being. *

*The new Human Rights Council would offer far-reaching, long-
*lasting and positive opportunities to further human rights *
protection by providing a UN political body with better members *
and better tools for the timely protection of human rights. "

Any thoughts ?
 
It all depends on what is in the draft. Do human rights include being prosecuted for opposing gay marriage? Or for standing against abortion? Or against the demand that every woman on the planet have to have access to contraception? There are a lot of issues Catholics could find objectionable hidden under the euphemism of “human rights.”
 
40.png
deekod1967:
Here are two interesting links I have found…

Department of State…
state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/60699.htm

…
Click to expand...
Conclusion

We hope to make the transition to the HRC as soon as possible. The draft calls for elections in May 2006 and an inaugural meeting the following month. The CHR is scheduled to meet in mid-March, but much remains unresolved. The CHR may have a full or truncated session, or it may not meet at all, depending on the status of the HRC negotiations.

The US certainly has not given up on this once-in-a-generation opportunity to genuinely reform the human rights body of the UN. Our task is to build consensus among countries that share the same vision and to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a functional, credible, and effective body.

==========

My reaction? Me thinks AI is over reacting… … again I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think the UN needs a lot of reform.
 
I would be very leery of any proposal that gives the UN an ability to “force” countries to comply to whatever they consider the standard for the world.

The UN should be an advisory council only. They should have no military or “power” to enforce their doctrines on anyone or any country.

There are many countries that are doing extremely objectionable things, and yes grave human rights abuses, however what right does the UN (even if it supposedly represents world opinion) have to impose their will on any sovereign country? If this is allowed, it won’t be long before they impose themselves on the Vatican, etc. and Catholic countries for following the Magisterium.

I’ve read that the United Nations “constitution” is fashioned after the old Soviet Union model and *not * the U.S. model.

If nations are engaging in human trafficing, child pornography and infanticide, they should be publicly embarrassed on a national scale and individual nations should decide to boycott their products until they get their act together. I don’t want the United Nations becoming a military power on behalf of “the world”, that would be an impending disaster for every sovereign nation.
 
Many of the very same countries that commit human rights abuses are members of the UN and because the leadership of these agencies rotate alphabetically, they become the head of the agency. This isn’t very workable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top