Some points: It was Africa's turn to lead the UNCHR. African leaders chose the Libyan leader. How can you say no to their elected choice without undermining the whole effort?
Are other countries, like the US, really that much better than Libya? I would say that right now the US is better (at least in its treatment of its own citizens), but over the course of the next year or more, we seem to be going down a path that may make us worse.
Perhaps chairing this commission will put the spotlight on Libya and bring it more into line with world standards.
The UN is not the be-all and end-all of global stability. If this decision encourages more people to get involved with worthy global players in the Human Rights field (AAAS, HRW, Amnesty, Witness), then that will further human rights more than choosing some other symbolic leader.
At least they didn't choose Mugabe.
And I love this comment: "The US however, must bear a lot of responsibility for creating this situation by playing gross double standards with regard to human rights - simultaneously condemning abusers like Iran and Iraq, while turning a blind eye or even supporting countries like China and Israel despite their actions. The US has in this way undermined its own authority to speak on the issue of human rights by this hypocrisy."
It was Africa's turn to lead the UNCHR. African leaders chose the Libyan leader. How can you say no to their elected choice without undermining the whole effort?
If a decision process leads to Libya being elected to UNCHR, or Iraq to being head of a commission on disarmament, do you agree that there's something seriously wrong with the decision process?
No, I dont necessarily think there is anything wrong with the decision process, that warrants changing it ex post facto. It's an evolving decision-making process which is OK to change for the next iteration. When a UN guideline is created, the sovereign nations that voted it in should follow it even if there are some unintended consequences (aren't there always good/bad but unintended consequences for every rule?!?).
I would rather have Libya serve as the UNHRC chair than to have a minority group of nations claim to somehow know better than the ones who voted for Libya. Yes, it's ironic, and yes, you can probably change the process later to more suit actual desires, but you can't change it ex post facto, as long as the process was conducted legally.
I don't ever want to see the US or any other minority group of nations saying what can and can't be done outside of the existing and already-agreed upon UN guidelines.
[ sorry for the delayed response - was in the middle of a move :-/ ]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-30 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-31 09:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-31 12:16 am (UTC)Ash
no subject
Date: 2003-01-31 09:02 am (UTC)More to it
Date: 2003-01-31 11:16 am (UTC)Some points:
It was Africa's turn to lead the UNCHR. African leaders chose the Libyan leader. How can you say no to their elected choice without undermining the whole effort?
Are other countries, like the US, really that much better than Libya? I would say that right now the US is better (at least in its treatment of its own citizens), but over the course of the next year or more, we seem to be going down a path that may make us worse.
Perhaps chairing this commission will put the spotlight on Libya and bring it more into line with world standards.
The UN is not the be-all and end-all of global stability. If this decision encourages more people to get involved with worthy global players in the Human Rights field (AAAS, HRW, Amnesty, Witness), then that will further human rights more than choosing some other symbolic leader.
At least they didn't choose Mugabe.
And I love this comment: "The US however, must bear a lot of responsibility for creating this situation by playing gross double standards with regard to human rights - simultaneously condemning abusers like Iran and Iraq, while turning a blind eye or even supporting countries like China and Israel despite their actions. The US has in this way undermined its own authority to speak on the issue of human rights by this hypocrisy."
Re: More to it
Date: 2003-02-01 12:56 am (UTC)If a decision process leads to Libya being elected to UNCHR, or Iraq to being head of a commission on disarmament, do you agree that there's something seriously wrong with the decision process?
Re: More to it
Date: 2003-02-08 04:22 pm (UTC)I would rather have Libya serve as the UNHRC chair than to have a minority group of nations claim to somehow know better than the ones who voted for Libya. Yes, it's ironic, and yes, you can probably change the process later to more suit actual desires, but you can't change it ex post facto, as long as the process was conducted legally.
I don't ever want to see the US or any other minority group of nations saying what can and can't be done outside of the existing and already-agreed upon UN guidelines.
[ sorry for the delayed response - was in the middle of a move :-/ ]