Canada Elected to Latest Useless UN Talk Shop
Congratulations to Canada for being elected to the new UN Human Rights Council. For those who haven't heard of this new UN body, it's the one that is replacing the old regime, the UN Human Rights Commission, which was plagued by legitimacy problems after electing Libya to chair it and its members voted off the United States so that Syria could get a seat. Thumbs up to the UN for realizing that cynicism can only run so deep before even the states with the greatest proclivities for having a fetish of UN-based multilateralism had to throw their hands up in disgust.
This new body is greatly different from the old one, and will go much further in promoting human rights causes around the world. With such a stellar membership that also includes Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, and Pakistan...oh, really? The Saudis are on there? An authoritarian regime that systemically denies women any source of freedom or rights to women, that is a spawning ground for Islamist terrorism, and has been recommended for its own membership slot in the "axis of evil" is on a council that advocates human rights. Cuba's there? Castro managed to get himself a spot in there so that he can spew forth his anti-American rhetoric to deny away the reality that his people are living in abject poverty?
But there is a bright side to all of this. Venezuela and Iran failed to make the cut! Those are the actual words of the President of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth. I'm not making this up. Sure it's great that Hugo Chavez won't get to ape Castro on the Council, and yeah it is for the best that an authoritarian regime that has vowed to eliminate an entire segment of the human population from the planet didn't get any representation. But look at the list of names that DID make it! These are the types of states that Canada gets to work with to make the world a better place for human beings!?! I also notice that Ghaddafi's Libya isn't on the list, I suppose we should throw a parade for that too.
There's only so much cynicism I can take. In my opinion, any state that does not have any accountability to its citizens, does not respect the rule of law, and does not have the institutions and traditions and spirit of democracy has no place on a world body that is supposed to be standing up for human rights. To see a state such as Saudi Arabia on that list absolutely makes my stomach turn, and sets the groundwork for the new body to be as ineffective and corrupt as the old one.
**Update** 5/11: Lead editorial in today's National Post essentially says the same thing I'm saying, and even goes further by listing 15 suspect members of the Council. Doesn't bother mentioning the United States because they're not on the Council, and thus not important to the discussion at hand, but if any hysterics want to vent their anger at Washington go bug them.
11 comments:
I couldn’t have said it better myself. The list of countries on the council makes me sick. Nothing is worse than allowing countries that massively violate human rights and show no respect for democracy to set the UN agenda. Check out the record of this terrible country that sits on the council now:
- Constant use of torture against military detainees
- a poverty rate of 1 in 8 while enjoying the highest number of the worlds billionaires.
- a homeless population of 3.5 million
- Nearly one third of the African ancestry families and 26 percent of the Latin American ancestry families have negative net assets.
- The rate of being victim of murders for the black people is five times that of the white.
-The rate of being affected by AIDS for the black people is ten times that of the whites
- In 2003 the country witnessed 93,233 cases of raping. Virtually 63.2 in every 100,000 women fell victims
- 12.9 million children living in poverty
GOD BLESS AMERICA WITH ITS FINE TRADITION OF UPHOLDING HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS.
Damn, dude, everyone knows that Cuba and Libya have terrible records with human rights but to pretend that America doesn’t is not only foolish but shows just how far you have slipped off the map. I imagine in a few years you will be goose-stepping in a basement somewhere saluting some new right wing god.
Cheers
There is something ironic and comical in the above post. While I'm easily able to tolerate anti-Americanism, I have a real problem with it when it is completely misapplied. If you had actually bothered to read what I was talking about, you would notice that I was discussing the new UN Human Rights Council. The United States is not on said Council, after voting against its creation because it didn't go far enough in establishing penalties against states which violate human rights and did not want to share a venue with states such as Saudi Arabia and Cuba. Nobody ever wants to be known as the person who doesn't read before they launch into a spiel, but you've done that anyways. Congratulations.
I do not deny that there are problems within the United States. If you visit this blog on a regular basis you would be acutely aware of the extent to which I do anything but "pretend" that there are no problems in America. I deplore the rape culture that pervades North American society. I am firmly against torture and I have often been critical of its use by the United States because it is deeply offensive to the liberal values that all democracie share. There is no such thing as a perfect policy or a perfect country; that is not meant to mitigate the impact of the gap between American values and the results its institutions have created, it is simply a statement of reality. I love Canada but we've got our fair share of skeletons in the closet too, and that certainly doesn't prompt me to go off on a rant about how evil the country is because of certain inconsistencies with its stated goals and objectives.
If you read this blog you would also be acutely aware of the reality that I have a considerable problem with any feeble and ill-considered attempts to link current political events with those symbols and practices affiliated with Hitlerite Germany. I do not "goose-step" to any "right-wing God," and I find your comments tasteless and reprehensible, and would greatly appreciate a retraction of said comments. I have not "slipped off the map" by any standards, you are the one whose comments completely miss the point of this post and are "off the map."
Might I suggest that you take a little time to actually read what I was talking about and come up with something credible that makes sense within the discussion? It makes for a more enjoyable time for everybody and then I don't need to waste my time responding to such inappropriately-utilized anti-American rhetoric that serves only to make people feel so much better about themselves because they aren't affiliated with the Great Satan. Thanks for dropping by and all, but do put in a little more effort next time.
If a 3rd party may chime in, I must say that reading this blog every few weeks gives me a somewhat decent perspective on the opinions of the author (at least as he presents himself online).
And if I were to give an opinion in this case I would say that the author suffers from a lack of self-reflective or critical thought.
His arguments, even when the progress to include new and important 'minorities' (such as women) generally fall short of the myriad of other minority perspectives that exist.
Rather, the comments generally appear ethno-centric and firmly rooted in a Western liberal-conservative background (small 'l' liberal, not meant to be a contradiction in terms).
Many "lefties" only criticize the USA or Canada and the "West" and glorify dictatorial countries like Cuba, China or North Korea. But this is no more right than blindly supporting American aggressions and their own sullied human rights record.
I think an honest compromimse between these two posts would be to acknowledge some serious American deficiencies in human rights (refusal to sign onto the ICC for one, despite guarantees against the prosecution of soldiers ordered into battle - a primary excuse).
Furthermore, despite the grievances of other countries, the USA is in the spotlight, largely because it chooses to waive its values as rolemodels for the rest of us. So every misstep of the USA must be acknolwedged and critiqued, as it bears a higher responsibility.
And lastly, a 'working' and 'practical' world cannot be one where the winners define who has a decent human rights record and who does not. We may be appalled but Syria and the likes that does not invalidate their criticism of us. In this regard I point to the president of Iran's letter. He may well have been circumventing the issue at hand or utilizing it as a ploy to enhance his stature amongst his people, but are his points not valid? Has the United States not commited gross attrocitise that must be reckoned with, just as the US demands recognition of others' crimes?
I think when we drop the partisanship of politics, nationalism and ethno-centrism we will come to see our own faults as clearly as we see those of others.
Abu Dihab,
Thank you for your comments. I am curious, by what standard are women to be included in your categorization of "minorities"? Given that women comprise 3.25 billion members of the world's population, they are a majority. Nonetheless women face a myriad of problems in our society and that is one issue that I have chosen to focus on here.
This is not meant to be an all-purpose blog where I discuss everything using every political perspective; if that means I "fall short" in your eyes, I'm sorry to be a disappointment to you, but I go with what I know. I have no interest in writing from a Marxist perspective, as I find it of limited value and not consistent with my own worldview.
I am critical where I find the need to be critical. I don't blog on every issue that arises, if I did I would be constantly at this site and thus not doing things that are of greater importance to me, such as spending time with my SO or working on my thesis. Just because I don't knock Uncle Sam here doesn't mean I don't do it elsewhere or at all.
Cheers.
Yeah, I look forward to getting some "learnin'" from Syria on human rights.
human rights itself is a western concept. how can someone use the term "human rights" and then go on to blab about ethnocentrism?
you're working off western assumptions just as much as the next person.
Hey, Richard, you may find this interesting. It's Michelle Malkin's take on the UN.
Not surprisingly, it isn't completely flattering.
WATCH VIDEO — Macromedia Flash
Thanks to all for the comments, cool to see all this feedback.
I'm glad to post, its always good to hear some new perpsectives I think.
Although I am confused in three ways: First my comments were deflected by RGM as being Marxist or supporting Marxism. I don't see how that adds up. My post was about being reflective enough to understand ones own (country's) deficiences and appreciated the complaints of others. Specifically, appreciating the charges that the US has tripped up several times in relation to human rights. In my opinion, truth is truth, fact is fact. If a blindman says the sky is blue one cannot simply say it is not blue because the man is blind. In this case, because country X (Iran, Cuba, Venezuela) has a poor human rights record does not negate claims against the United States's own record. For world governance to work in any form it cannot simply follow the charges of one power and one perspective.
Secondly, RGM tried to deflect my comments in relation to women as a minority group although I don't think he or I disagreed on anything outside of a technicality. I will point out however that I purposely put "minority" in quotes in my initial post in order to demonstrate that women are considered a minority because of their political marginalization and unequal status. Hence a qualitative interpretation versus a simple quantative one. Statistically, white people are a minority within the world and within growing pockets of the "First World" and yet no one would consider them a political minority. Thus I must assume you deliberately chose to misread my comments in order to deflect my critique.
Lastly, Chuckercanuck has charged that I am working off of "western assumptions" because I use the word / phrase human rights. Since I did not define what i considered a human right I must disagree. While he may point out that the origin of the term "human rights" is clearly western that is not a sufficient argument in an age of globalization and specifically on a topic regarding the United Nations Human Rights Council which is composed of countries from around the world. Whether or not human rights was or is largely defined in the west, the (eager) participation of other non-western countries on the council demonstrates the new-found pervasiveness of the term.
Anyway, I didn't fancy a repost. Beating a dead horse and all, but I thought I'd try to point out that most of the detractions against my post were not aimed at what I said but merely technical and/or superficially-related to the argument which is, disappointingly, a weak style of debate.
Abu Dihab,
Thanks again for posting; I think we're kind of talking past each other and not really understanding what each is saying.
I wasn't implying that your comments were Marxist, I was merely responding to your comment about my lack of use of "critical thought" and firm rooting in "Western liberal-conservative" traditions. In the typologies of international relations theories that I have studied, I equate "critical thought" with Marxism and the other theories that do not fit within the "mainstream" liberal-realist strains. You are correct, I am a product of Western thought, and I am most heavily influenced by the foreign policy values that are associated with the two mainstream theories mentioned above. Like many, I do not conform to only one of these theories and tend to cherry-pick and amalgamate what I feel are the best of both worlds. Some other people that have done this have been labelled neoconservatives, and I often find myself sharing common ground with people in that midst, be it Francis Fukuyama (who, it bears mentioning, has attempted to re-brand himself a "Wilsonian realist," a term that I rather like and wouldn't mind being saddled with myself). My primary influences are Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, the latter of whom "normalized" Wilsonian foreign policy in the United States and incorporated a greater degree of realism (due to the influence of George Kennan and Dean Acheson, among others) suitable to prosecuting the Cold War. That's where I come from, and I often see hints coming from the current Administration of attempting to fit in this mold. It's bold, it's assertive, and it often holds considerable skepticism for international organizations. That doesn't mean I won't critique or criticize American foreign policy when I see fit to do so, but it won't necessarily be done in this venue, and won't occur regularly.
On your second point, a simple crossing up of paths over the use of the term. No harm, no foul, and no malicious intent done on my part.
The third point is directed at chuckercanuck, so if my colleague wishes to make a counterpoint he is entitled to do so. He doesn't need me, or anybody, to tackle his debates for him.
I hope that this post helps to clear up the "ships crossing in the night" sentiment that I'm getting out of your post. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the concept that there exists a significant gap between the rhetoric of American values and the results of its institutions' practices. That very subject is going to be discussed in my MA thesis, where I'll be discussing the necessity of ending American support for the Saudi regime, Musharraf in Pakistan, and other allies in this war on terror that don't reflect the values of American grand strategy. It was morally unacceptable during the Cold War, and it is even moreso now given that there exists no legitimate ideology for other states to succumb to. You probably won't see it posted on this blog, but yes, even yours truly is capable of discussing the negative features of American foreign policy. The difference between my doing it in my thesis and the post here is that my critique is appropriate given the context of the discussion (promoting democracy and universal values of liberty), whereas bashing America's human rights record is not relevant to the debate of the credibility of the new UN Human Rights Council, where anonymous falsely stated that the US was on the Council in order to justify his rant. Surely you can understand the difference between the two situations.
Anyways, it's been a long day, tomorrow is another thesis writing day, so if there's any comments here in the morning for me to address it may take a while.
Thanks again for posting, and I hope that we're a little closer to being on the same wavelength in terms of the discussion, if not on the same page as to what to do to make the world a better place.
abu dihab,
sorry to be superficial and a disappointing debater. I guess I was just dazzled by your soliloquy.
not signing on to the ICC is one of the worst violations of human rights the world has ever seen.
Post a Comment