World's Worst Regimes
 

WORLD'S WORST REGIMES UNVEILED
Several of the World's Greatest Human Rights Violators Sit on UN Human Rights Panel
Sadly this doesn't really come as much of a suprise to me. It is increasingly evident that the UN is a useless waste of an organization.

The idea of the UN is a good one, but, as it has increasingly shown, not exempt from fraud/hypocrisy, etc. Like any other normal government.

Still bitter because the UN didn't buy your lies about Iraq?

Seriously, you should first pay the billions you still owe the UN before you try to criticize its pitiful state.

Oh and, guess who selected Kofi Annan?
That's right, the US government wanted someone who's weaker and easier to influence than Boutros Boutros Ghali.

And btw, have you ever checked how many of the most repressive regimes are supported (including military support and CIA help for their tortureanti-terror programs) by the US?
The Problem is that certain circles (read: old conservatives and neo-cons) are opposed to the idea itself and have been doing everything to sabotage and discredit it from the beginning.

It's an interesting topic. I feel that it does a lot more good than bad, and the breadth of its membership mean that only small parts are ever corrupted in one way (unlike a larger homogeneous govt. where a "party" can be bought).

I don't know how much US history you guys have had, but the UN reminds me of the Articles of Confederation.

I think it's a great forum for leaders to talk,(instead of behind battlelines) but when it comes to taking action, nothings ever is really going to come from it.

The fact that it can't take the money from the Gov't is exactly the problem. It can ask for all the money it wants, but it doesn't have the power to DO anything.

And, I think this is a very cultural thing: Americans like action, and dislike empty promises. That's a generality, of course, but in this context generalities matter.

Another, equally valid, generality would be that "Americans" with that philosophy do not examine, or in many cases care about, the consequences of their actions. Action for action's sake is a mistake.

We're not asking for action because we like action, we want action to accomplish goals. I want the UN to act to prevent genocide in the Sudan, but they won't even recognize it as such because then they would have to do something about it (not that it'd be effective if history is any indication). I wanted the UN to act to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. I want the UN to kick human rights violatros off of their human rights commission. I want the UN to stand up for what is right, regardless of who they are standing up to. I don't see this happening. Look at how many UN resolutions there have been condemning Israel about the palestinian conflict, then look at how many resolutions there are condemning palestine or palestinian terrorist groups. Look at the rape being committed by UN slodiers in the congo, against people they're supposed to be protecting. Look at the oil-for-food scandal that goes up all the way to Kofi being involved.

I don't want them to act for the sake of action, I want them to act for the sake of people who are being killed, oppressed, tortured, starved, and enslaved.

so it's the fault of the US that the UN is so ridiculously corrupt? Do you think the money that the US owes the UN would have changed any of this, would it have prevented Rwanda, would it have changed the order to withdrawl UN troops when the genocide began? This isn't about the US, it's about the UN, an organization that is supposed to represent all of the free countries of the world. It seems to me that you don't care if the UN is corrupt, hypocritical, and worthless as long as you can blame the US for it.

Shit, sorry! I forgot there was an expert in international relations here! I'd rather the UN acted to stop the genocide in the countries friendly to the US, since many of them are where much of the worst violations happen. Don't hear about it on the TV as much though. If you want to move in to the country that your country most-recently chose to villify as if there weren't many other countries the same or worse, that's cool though.

I have to take issue with the Palestine bit in particular. Palestine is not a country at this point, and the fighters cannot be associated with this country. Israel, however, is/was killing innocent civilians with state troops and ordnance, and occupying land. As for the UN troops in the Congo, those are rogue troops of countries' militaries, and I can't think of a national military without this kind of blood on your hands. If you're going to send people trained to kill into somewhere, these things happen.

The corruption in the UN is no worse than in the US, so I guess starting at home is the way forward here.

Well since palestine isn't technically a country then Israel wasn't technically killing civilians or occupying palestinian land.
Please note I also said palestinian terrorist groups in my rant. Regardless of whether or not palestine is a "country" (who decides this anyway?) it still has a government and it still gets money from the UN. Saying they shouldn't be condemned for their share in that shitty situation because they aren't a "country" is utter bullshit.

The government ain't the terrorists :)

Why would we need to, we own the world! :p :D

J/K, I see what you're saying; that's the other side of the coin.

Lets just get rid of the UN now while we still have the chance.

And Esso/Halliburton/flavour o' week owns you!

:D

Apparently you missed:
from my rant:
but I guess I shouldn't criticize the UN because I'm not an expert in international relations. That's bullshit. Why are you defending the UN and ignoring these obvious problems? why are you telling me to shut up and stop critisizing what I see as severe problems in the organization? Are you saying these problems don't exist, or they're not that bad? I'm not the only person in the world who is losing faith in the UN.

The UN's purpose is not to condemn terrorist groups. That's common fucking sense! They're terrorists!

I interpreted your post as making a concrete equivalence between the government and the terrorists in Palestine. I'm not telling you to shut up, I'm just arguing that an awful lot of your criticisms are unfounded.

I see that you don't argue my criticisms though.

Looks like the US with George W Bush as president could turn into on of the world's worst regimes as well. :D :D

I'm too tired and emotional for this nonsense at the moment :)

How so?

that was just a joke but his security measures are getting more and more strict every couple months pretty soon the geat wall of china will be bulit around the whole country so canada and mexico cannot get in. He says the U.S isn't scared off from the terrorists but with all these security measures it seems like they or Bush is scared. But like I said it was meant as a joke and im sure none of this relates to a regime in any way

So it's okay for the UN to have some of the worst human rights violators on the UN commission for Human Rights?

How many UN resolutions were there against the Palestinian government for it's complete lack of even an attempt at curbing terrorist activities in Palestine? At best the government in Palestine was doing jack shit about terrorism in Palestine and at worst it was supporting Palestinian terrorism.

It is the fault of the US (among others) that the UN is powerless and unable to protect people (because then it would also be able to protect people from the US, or be able to prosecute US war criminals).
But on the other hand you don't want the UN to be able to act.
And that's what the constant conservative UN-bashing is really about.

yeah I only bash the UN because I don't want it to act, not because it is being hypocritical and useless. See my first post in this thread.
Please answer this question:
Is that okay that there are serious human right's violating countries on the UN commission for Human Rights? yes or no?

Pardon me,
but how the fuck do you know what I want?

Either the UN needs to have enough power to be worthwhile (probably with a bicameral system based on economics) or it needs to go.
(or it can just exist like it is now, be ignored and go broke)

Is there an alternative?

And answer this queastion: Is it OK that your own government ignores human rights in Guantanamo, that its services hand over suspects to torturers, that it supports dictators?

Based on your past comments: you've proven time and time again to be a chauvinist.
And why should it need a 'bicameral system based on economics' (and why not based on population, wouldn't that be slightly more democratic?), what it would need is the powerful countries to give up some of their power (and UN-bashing only serves the purpose of preventing this).

I think if you look though this forum, most of the time I'm reacting.

Typical conversation:

1. person: The US is stupid because it does X different than the rest of the world.
   
   me: How does doing that different make the US stupid?
   
   person: If the brainwashed US citizens would elect democrats, it could do it things like the rest of the world
   
   me: but why is that way better, isn't the US's way just as valid of a way, and maybe even a bit better in Z certian aspect?
   
   person:The American revolution just copied the French Revolution.

Obviously, anti-US arguements can be a little more
coherent than that, but often they aren't.

I think it's a shame you interpret that as chauvinistic. (Yes, I have a little dislike in the general direction of the french, but cut me a little slack! They're the French!)
Because otherwise it would have absolutely no way of being initiated.
Do you see this ever happening?

well you didn't answer my question and I don't really see what your question has to do with the UN. It really seems like a deflection but I'll answer it anyway.

no it is not okay that the US ignores human rights in guantanamo. it is not okay for the US government to hand prisoners over to be tortured. it is not okay that they support dictators.

Your argument seems to be that the US isn't perfect therefore the US has no right to criticize the UN.

No the US is not perfect but that doesn't give the UN a free pass to be god-awful fucking incompetent and completely retarded and corrupt. If the US sucks so much, then it's a real opportunity for the UN to be better than us. But they aren't, instead they put human rights violators on their human rights commission. It's like letting prisoners guard the jail.

now answer my question please.

I still would take the U.N. as the worlds police then the U.S.A. any day. Its funny that the U.S thinks it rules the world

Yes. It forces them to engage in proceedings critical of their own government, something that a few other countries would benefit from.

That's probably going to be an unpopular opinion, though. I'm trying not to participate in this thread though, since I copped out earlier and still haven't the energy (or intention) to finish my argument further up.

I wanted to let it die since the argument obviously wasn't going anywhere, but ok
My answer is that, like it or not, there's no alternative.

(Other than handing all over all power to one government without any global legitimation whatsoever, and this is why I'm criticizing the US.)

zoot makes an interesting point, but on the other hand it also gives them authority to prevent dealing with human rights violations elsewhere, which in turn protects their government.

gaekwad, why is there no alternative? why can't the human rights commission only have non-human rights abusing countries on it?

Because then it would be empty.

heh, well I guess in that case it would be just as effective as it is now, only it would waste a lot less money.

You did check the Commission on Human Rights' activities before claiming its inefficiency, right?

If you want to talk about wasting money there'd be much better subjects (eg. 'defense' spending).

Well, you have to remember that this is a committee of countries, not just a single one. Theoretically any attempt to cover up their own offences would stick out like a sore thumb.

Can you name one? Sure these are the worst, but most countries have some form of blood on their hands.

BTW guess who's blocking a UN reform?

I'd block those reforms, too.

fruitless agenda as long as republicans control the us administration...

Since neorepublican security agenda is for the US to remain an unrivaled superpower, so powerfull it can force any agenda trough, anywhere in the world, at any time - why would the US want any organisation, be it The UN, the Kyoto Protocol, The Land Mine Treaty, The Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, the international court of justice, or anything similar, to be able to hamper it's efforts? Obligational International commitment is against all that the US stands for, and it has been so ever since Bush entered the white house, in fact it has been this way troughout most of the US' history.

Personally this is why i support the Franco-German alliance to add a security dimension to the EU. And why i think NATO should be dead and burried as fast as possible, for one i'd happily pay the price for the necessay increased defence spending if europe were to take care of our own defence.

It's just plain stupidity that europe so heavily depends on the US military infrastructure to carry out any operations, when the two sides of the atlantic so obviously has such diverging views on world security.

I know few americans who would accept any form of dictation from Brussels, why should I accept it from Washington? i'd be much happier taking them from New York, where my countries voice is heard, and last time I checked that wasn't the case in the US senate, this concept, although simple, is something few americans seems to grasp.

So the only way to make the voice of 450 million europeans heard, is to gain just enough military clout, not to match the military might of the US, but enough too force the international political agenda out of the hands of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheeny.

I agree that Europe should take over responsibility for its own defence.

I seriously doubt it will happen in the next 4 years.