Mucking Up the UN
The NY Times has recently been on a real tear when it comes to criticizing the Bush regime for its double-super-secrecy, its general incompetence, and its overall mendacity. Alas, nothing lasts forever. One of today's editorials deals with the shameful state of the United Nations, yet completely overlooks the primary reason for it, the current US regime.
When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America's ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.
Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles. But he also represents the United States, with its long and proud human rights tradition. We hope that his refusal to go along with this shameful charade can produce something better. [Emphasis added]
Oh, come on! The UN world summit, called to reform and restructure the United Nations, was deliberately sandbagged by Mr. Bolton at the direction of his superiors. The summits failure was ensured once this tool at the very last minute came up with pages of changes that would have to be considered if the US was going to commit to any reforms.
The current regime apparently considers the United Nations essentially worthless, except when it wants to cover its backside. Why else would the Emperor appoint a man who made a career out of bashing the UN as Ambassador to that body?
For example, at the present time, the US is using the UN for the purpose of punishing Iran. The scenario, of course, looks painfully familiar. Even our neighbors have noticed. In a recent op-ed piece published in the Mexican newspaper El Universal a former Mexican Ambassador to the United Nations (and to the United States) writes about US behavior in ways completely ignored by the NY Times editorialist.
But America's new strategy of shared responsibility has yet to arrive at the United Nations, where the summit of Heads of State [December, 2005] failed to achieve even minimal advances on proposed reforms, especially in the realm of human rights.
The prospect of change in the actual structure and especially the modus operandi of the U.N. doesn't seem even remotely possible. The organization has conceded that selective management, double standards and the obscene politicization of its agenda, all products of the Cold War, are beyond reform.
In the recent weeks of negotiation over Iran, the recommendations of the most well-informed group have been marginalized, resulting in an angry discussion between those in a politically submissive position and those who violate fundamental liberties as a policy of State [those favoring Iran vs. those backing the United States]. The resulting reciprocal accusations have condemned the process to a continuation of the existing (flawed) standards.
The possibility of change has been reduced to almost nil, with the White House's sharp rejection of a report by a committee of five experts, which was endorsed by the High Commission on Human Rights. They recommended the closure of the prison at Guantanamo and said that the treatment of the prisoners there amounted to torture as defined under international law. The report also recommended that personnel at Guantanamo receive U.N.-supervised training.
With this attitude, the United States has committed acts for which it criticizes its most galling enemies every year; for example,...it denied the U.S. team private access to the detainees. Under these conditions, the investigators concluded that for them to even visit Guantanamo would have violated rules of the U.N. Commission of Human Rights.
...Under these conditions, it is simply not feasible for the traditional defenders of human rights [the U.S.] to have authority over those named as long-standing violators of them. They simply corroborate - with a vengeance - the famous double standard, under which Washington does justice for some, but not for others. The rejection of the U.N. report offends countries that had sought to correct such abusive practices, practices that without doubt, the cheerleaders of reform themselves are engaged. And this, with the inexplicable help of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who disassociated himself from the U.N. report, saying that the report’s authors were independent … as if this were a factor that was detrimental to the weight of their opinion. [Emphasis added]
It has taken the United States just five years to undo decades of work in establishing a viable organization for, among other things, the peaceful resolution of international disputest and the implementation of basic human rights. We shouldn't be surprised. If it can't be intimidated or manipulated, this arrogant regime isn't interested.
Way to go, George.
When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America's ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.
Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles. But he also represents the United States, with its long and proud human rights tradition. We hope that his refusal to go along with this shameful charade can produce something better. [Emphasis added]
Oh, come on! The UN world summit, called to reform and restructure the United Nations, was deliberately sandbagged by Mr. Bolton at the direction of his superiors. The summits failure was ensured once this tool at the very last minute came up with pages of changes that would have to be considered if the US was going to commit to any reforms.
The current regime apparently considers the United Nations essentially worthless, except when it wants to cover its backside. Why else would the Emperor appoint a man who made a career out of bashing the UN as Ambassador to that body?
For example, at the present time, the US is using the UN for the purpose of punishing Iran. The scenario, of course, looks painfully familiar. Even our neighbors have noticed. In a recent op-ed piece published in the Mexican newspaper El Universal a former Mexican Ambassador to the United Nations (and to the United States) writes about US behavior in ways completely ignored by the NY Times editorialist.
But America's new strategy of shared responsibility has yet to arrive at the United Nations, where the summit of Heads of State [December, 2005] failed to achieve even minimal advances on proposed reforms, especially in the realm of human rights.
The prospect of change in the actual structure and especially the modus operandi of the U.N. doesn't seem even remotely possible. The organization has conceded that selective management, double standards and the obscene politicization of its agenda, all products of the Cold War, are beyond reform.
In the recent weeks of negotiation over Iran, the recommendations of the most well-informed group have been marginalized, resulting in an angry discussion between those in a politically submissive position and those who violate fundamental liberties as a policy of State [those favoring Iran vs. those backing the United States]. The resulting reciprocal accusations have condemned the process to a continuation of the existing (flawed) standards.
The possibility of change has been reduced to almost nil, with the White House's sharp rejection of a report by a committee of five experts, which was endorsed by the High Commission on Human Rights. They recommended the closure of the prison at Guantanamo and said that the treatment of the prisoners there amounted to torture as defined under international law. The report also recommended that personnel at Guantanamo receive U.N.-supervised training.
With this attitude, the United States has committed acts for which it criticizes its most galling enemies every year; for example,...it denied the U.S. team private access to the detainees. Under these conditions, the investigators concluded that for them to even visit Guantanamo would have violated rules of the U.N. Commission of Human Rights.
...Under these conditions, it is simply not feasible for the traditional defenders of human rights [the U.S.] to have authority over those named as long-standing violators of them. They simply corroborate - with a vengeance - the famous double standard, under which Washington does justice for some, but not for others. The rejection of the U.N. report offends countries that had sought to correct such abusive practices, practices that without doubt, the cheerleaders of reform themselves are engaged. And this, with the inexplicable help of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who disassociated himself from the U.N. report, saying that the report’s authors were independent … as if this were a factor that was detrimental to the weight of their opinion. [Emphasis added]
It has taken the United States just five years to undo decades of work in establishing a viable organization for, among other things, the peaceful resolution of international disputest and the implementation of basic human rights. We shouldn't be surprised. If it can't be intimidated or manipulated, this arrogant regime isn't interested.
Way to go, George.
posted by Diane at 4:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home