The United Nations as an organization is pathetically inefficient at protecting human rights. While the US can go to the Security Council and start a war over false intelligence and secure a coalition, women are raped and children are slaughtered in Sudan while the powers that be squabble.
People go to see Hotel Rwanda and say, “How could the world have let this happen?” and many have no idea that it is happening as they speak in Sudan.
I was a bit heartened to read this morning that Kofi Annan has called for changes to the UN Human Rights body. It seems that he wants to give human rights issues greater import by changing the structure of the human rights organization and elevating it to the stature of the Security Council.
As a standing organ of the United Nations, the body would meet when necessary, addressing human rights violations as they arise. At present, the commission can only address issues during its annual six-week session.
Council members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority and fulfill specific human rights criteria, according to the proposed reforms.
I had no idea their window to act was so limited. Of course nothing substantial will get done in six weeks, and that fact calls the entire idea that the UN is committed to improving human rights into question, for me. They may be committed to finger-wagging and hand-wringing, but that’s about all.
The issue with the human rights body that I was aware of was the election of the most egregious human rights violators to the council, but Annan has called for changes to this system as well.
“The new human rights council must be a society of the committed. It must be more accountable and more representative,” Annan said. “Ultimately it would produce more effective assistance and protections, and that is the yardstick by which we should be measured.
The United States used to be the world leader in enumerating and defending civil and human rights. We still claim that title, but Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the Defense of Marriage Act, Ryan Shepard, Teri Schiavo, denials of birth control, and the Patriot Act (to list but a few) all prove us wrong. I am afraid that one day human rights will be an idea that Americans mouth support for to assuage their guilty consciences while the world sneers, and I am afraid that day is already here.
I still believe in human rights, even though I see damn little evidence lately, and I believe in the UN, flawed as it is. But few organizations (NARAL, maybe) are more hated by the current administration and the freepers. Maybe the US will oppose out of hand any changes. As will the human rights violators named above. The rhetoric of human rights is far more expedient to politicians than any action. Paying lip service is far more easy than paying cash, sending troops, reforming your government, handing power back to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.
The new humans rights body, and the UN in general, is only ever going to be as effective as it’s members are committed. I think this is an awesome vision. It remains to be seen if anything will come of it.
I would guess one of the first tests of this will be to see how successful the UN is in bringing charges in the Sudan. More power to them.
Great diary, KB.
is that changes like this are just in Annan’s head right now.
I’m sure they will have to be endlessly discussed, opposed by the Bush Admin and every cruel and oppressive regime currently on the Human Rights council, watered down, and then (maybe) finally passed.
Then we’ll have to argue about who will be elected to the new council and what specifically their mandate will be.
If any action will come on Sudan, it will have to be from the current UN or some country or countries who are willing to do more about the situation than just cluck-cluck.
Have you not learned the lessonof Iraq? When imperialist countries wish to invade a country they pick humanitarian pretexts. Why do you want to invade Sudan? Do you think adding total war and America’s bombings and DU poisons to the mix will help anyone? Do you think rapes increase or decrease during a war? Do you think people care about life more or less during a war? Do you think there’s more to eat or less to eat during a war?
Can anyone who thinks invading Sudan is a good idea please tell me when the last successful so-called humanitarian invasion occured? I can give you a lot of examples of where a war makes things far far worse but can anyone tell me of a war that made things better?
Rwanda? Don’t you know Rwanda’s genocide happened BECAUSE of international attention not because of the lack of it? Don’t you know that the genocide broke out as a result of the assassination of the president there and the invasion of Rwanda by US backed rebells from Uganda? (France backed the existing government – the two sides even spoke different languages)
Hotel Rwanda? Bullshit. No one “let” the genocide happen. It took a lot of effort to make it happen. The US wanted to boot France out of Rwanda so they could support armed attacks against the Congo better. And oh by the way – over 3 million dead in the several invasions of Congo from Rwanda that have been staged since the invasion of Rwanda. 1000 dying every day there still – that’s a lot more than in Sudan.
War = evil
War is not a salvation.
Countries never go to war to help anyone but themselves anyway. Surely that is clear enough? War isn’t exactly cheap. If you want a cheap way to prevent people dying in the third world may I suggest PEACE.
Do you think rapes increase or decrease during a war? Do you think people care about life more or less during a war? Do you think there’s more to eat or less to eat during a war?
War is hell. There’s one going on right now in Sudan and and that’s why the people of Sudan deserve some sort of intervention.
When imperialist countries wish to invade a country they pick humanitarian pretexts.
I didn’t call for invading Sudan to bomb the crap out of it and steal it’s reasources. A police-type force in Darfur could help a great deal in reducing the misery that is currently going on there. If the US or UN did take action, it would prefer to see it be for an ACTUAL humanitarian reason rather than a humanitarian pretext. I DO draw a distinction between wars of occupation and peacekeeping.
Countries never go to war to help anyone but themselves anyway. Surely that is clear enough? War isn’t exactly cheap. If you want a cheap way to prevent people dying in the third world may I suggest PEACE.
I’m aware that countries never go to war but for their own self interest, and that most of the reason Africa is such a mess is Western countries getting involved, colonizing, raping the land and the people and drawing national boundaries with no respect to the situation on the ground. Which is why I found the news about the UN and the human rights body so interesting, because I would like to envision a world where governments put rights and needs of people ahead of oil, cash, egos and domination.
So yeah, peace sounds good to me. But I’m a pacifist first, not a pacifist exclusively. I’d rather discuss a problem or avoid it, but if you hit me I WILL hit you back, and I will do my best to protect those around me who can’t protect themselves. It takes but one foe to breed a war, not two.
Let’s go to Darfur and tell the Janjaweed to put down their weapons and put away their dicks and play nice, because PEACE is better. That should work.
You’re asking for another Iraq.
<blockquote.I didn’t call for invading Sudan to bomb the crap out of it and steal it’s reasources</blockquote>
Right. You’re asking for a war where the US is greeted as liberators and met with flowers and rose petals. You’re asking for another Iraq.
Oh you want to send in the NYPD? I figured they’d send in the marines and the airforce to blow the shit out of everything that moves. Gosh I don’t know why I thought they wouldn’t send in actual police. Maybe because the Sudanese government has refused that “help”?
And when you are president I’m sure that will make a difference.
I repeat: when has this “solution” ever worked before?
This is an utterly useless comparison; in one instance an unprovoked unilateral aggressive invasion ‘justified’ by ‘poor intelligence’ (read; outright lies). In the other instance a multi-lateral intervention sanctioned by the Security Council and agreed with the Sudanese Government as well as the SPLF.
Your silly and flippant comment on sending the NYPD is not constructive either.
Bringing some notion of stability – hopefully developing into peace for the Sudanese is a tall order and will take a long time (the so-called interim periode of the peace agreement is 6 years). Your approach, however, is not helpful.
There’s no UN SC sanction for a war in Sudan.
I see you comment elsewhere on other posters’ lack of maturity. I’ll try not to characterize you; You are right, there is no “SC sanction for war”.
You seem to have missed that a peace agreement was signed between the Government and SPLM/A in January, followed by a SC mandate to establish a peacekeeping operation.
UNMIS Look for the link to SCR 1590.
I assume KB is not happy with the current UN arrangements you refer to and wants to “do something” over and beyond them. ie war. That was my assumption in my first reply. Did you kinda jump into the middle of this chat without checking the context?
I did not.
KB’s diary discusses Kofi Annan’s proposal for changes in the human rights body and concludes:
Your very first post on this thread starts out with:
Contrary to your assertion, there is no attempt by you to discuss the substance of the diary. I have no clue how you interpreted the diary to be a call for war – I see no such suggestion in it.
Obviously KB and I didn’t know what we were discussing until you turned up. So lucky you passed by to correct us.
Are you so weak that you have to invoke the diarist to establish your ‘defense’? I liked the diary and its intent. My issue is with your approach to the debate.
Let’s make a deal:
I’ll religiously ignore your future posts unless you (at least attempt to) address the premise of the diarist(s). All I ask in return is that you stop hijacking threads like this one and Booman’s I/P-diary and post your own diary, explaining your approach when you feel you have a contribution to make.
Are you saying “if” the Sudanese government agreed?
But they don’t. If they did you wouldn’t need the UN.
There is no “if”.
There is an agreement. The parties also agree that the UN should deploy peacekeepers (see my other post above).
Obviously, there are no guarantees. The process may fail, but right now the Sudanese have an agreement for the path hopefully leading to a better future.
I must take issues with several of your statements here.
Assuming you are referring to the 1990 Tutsi invasion, it is unreasonable to cast this as the cause of the genocide. In fact, it is just what the Interahamwe would say. As to the April 6 downing of the aircraft carrying (Hutu) President Habyarimana and the President of Burundi, it was merely the pretext for a genocide that been several months in planning. It is even a widespread belief that the Interahamwe itself shot down the plane to blame the Tutsis, although this remains unclear. And again, you are spouting the Interahamwe line.
France did indeed back – and arm – the Hutu government, but the claim about languages is wrong if you are talking about the Rwandans. Hutus and Tutsis speak the same language.
With all due respect, here you’re delving so deep into tinfoil hat territory it’s astounding. Even assuming you are not saying that the US planned for the genocide to occur, the motive you impute to the US is one I have never heard mention of before, and which makes little sense. Certainly the liason between the US and Mobutu had died with the Cold War, but there would be no strong reason for the Clinton administration to topple him, let alone by the rather tortuous route you suggest.
And are you claiming that this is a primary cause of the genocide? Be sure to let the critters over at Free Republic know. They will love your story.
When you apologise you might get a reply.
I thought I made it clear that no apology is forthcoming.
If mild profanity offends your tender sensibilities, I will take care to avoid it when addressing you, but that the only concession I will make.
Given that you have just accused Booman of ‘whining’ on the I/P thread, I find your persistent sulking amusing.
if they would spend more time and dedication to issues that should, and could be dealt with, instead of their own personal gain, then it would have credibility. Sadly, this is not the case. IMHO
Are you saying that the UN apparatus is chiefly motivated by a goal of personal enrichment?
Tell that to ask and the thousands of other UN employees who are dedicating their working lives to stitching this tortured, mismanaged world together as it is continuously torn asunder by the callous greed of dictators, warlords, predatory multinational corporations, and the orgiastic excesses of a billion indifferent, clueless consumers in the West.
I am surpressing a rush of real anger right now.
Chiefly motivated would be the wrong choice of words, but there certainly is corruption in the UN. (Like in any large organization). Oil for food is an example. Then there’s the element of some countries being created more equal, which in effect can tie the hands of the UN. As for the WHO, I remember when they sat on the Cholera vaccines until they expired and didn’t hand them out to countries that needed them (Rwanda).
that’s exactly what I was relating to, not the individuals that actually care, and struggle to do their jobs. It’s the muckity-mucks, that steal from those in need, for their own personal gain.
Not unlike our own fearless leader and his bunch of croanies…see what I mean.
So don’t take offense sirroco, it was not meant to the hard working people of this world that care.
And how about that oil for food, and too many others that are swept under the carpet over the years. It’s sad.
I just walked in and turned on the puter, checked for replies, and bammmm, whoooaaa, walked into a hornets nest…LOL..maybe I should have stayed in the woods.. ; )
Oil for food is just part of the big picture in the crimes the world community perpetrated against the Iraqis all those years. The fact that the UN was involved, though, makes it doubly bad. Growing up in Europe, one ends up respecting the institution of the UN above ones own government, so I do feel betrayal. When Bush does something bad, even if it’s ten times worse, it’s expected.
I would suggest that the discussion is based on an entirely Republican pretext that the UN is “them” rather than “us”. The United States (and Britain) were founder members of the UN.
What needs to be done is first for the “liberals”/”left” to take ownership of their countries’ membership responsibilities and promote this. The argument then is not “what is the UN going to do?” but “what should we be persuading our fellow members to do?”