daver 0 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I don't want to start a thread of nation bashing, and I understand that every nation has its flaws and dark spots, but I just can't for the life of me figure this one out: The United Nations inaugurated its new Human Rights Council on Monday, promising the new body would be more effective in preventing human rights abuses than the Human Rights Commission it replaces. "The eyes of the world, especially the eyes of those whose human rights are denied, threatened or infringed, are turned towards this chamber and this council," Secretary General Kofi Annan told the 47-member council in Geneva, Switzerland. "This council represents a great new chance for the United Nations and for humanity, to renew the struggle for human rights. I implore you, do not let the opportunity be squandered." The previous commission was criticized for protecting countries with poor human rights records, and was often marked by confrontation. "Never allow this council to become caught up in political point-scoring or petty manoeuvre," Annan said. "Think always of those whose rights are denied." The 47 members of the council were elected by the UN General Assembly. The United States declined to stand for membership, while others such as Sudan, Venezuela and Iran failed to win a seat. Can some one explain this to me, with out resorting to the tiresome 'the USA is the evil bad guy' tune? I am serious, what is the US's motive for not standing for membership? Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Would it be because despite what they say their reasons are, they didn't want to stand as they might not have won a seat? The US gets its fair share of HR complaints. Link to post Share on other sites
daver 0 Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 i am sorry, but i forgot to add this final aspect of the article: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and China were elected to the council despite objections. In the new system, the rights records of all council members will be periodically reviewed. The council will meet at least three times a year. I understand that the US in many cases violates human rights, but certainly no more than some of the afore mentioned members. Does this then suggest that the US recognizes it is an offender yet would rather continue in that direction than deal with its offences and set and example for the international community? Link to post Share on other sites
ncorrenti 0 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.un.int/usa/06_051.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 >Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and China were elected to the council despite objections Link to post Share on other sites
daver 0 Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 the article posted by nicole (thanks for doing the search for me ) suggests that it is for exactly these reasons. i am sort of at a cross roads with this issue. part of me believes that the security council should not be allowed membership, and the task should befall middle countries, thus giving the UN that little bit of universality that it is sorely lacking right now. on the other hand, if the security council wants to remain relevant, it is in their best interest to lead by example. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts