Libya Heads Up UN's Humanitarian Rights.....

I think the US was right to protest and that the EU was right to abstain.

I thought I'd float this boat down the Realm pike once more, to see if anyone else wants to share their opinions.

Craven, if you feel like it, why do you agree with the EU asbstintions (is that a word?)?

Their abstaining effectively gave a known terrorist leadership in global human rights. Is this patently absurd to anyone else?

How do the victims of Lockerbie feel about this?

As we believe individual voting is an important right and responsibility; are not the UN voters responsible to cast a vote on all issues facing this world?

Yup it's a misspelled word. :-)

I think they were right to abstain because I agree with their rationale. And no iu do not think it's a duty to vote. Abstention IS a vote, it plays a huge part in UN politics and we do it all the time (e.g. abstaining instead of voting against Israel, this way we don't impede the resolution but also don't vote against our ally).

Furthermore I do not think Libya is currently in bed with terrorism. It would have caused more problems to keep them from this position than them having the position does.

Our complaint highlights the fact that Libya still need to reconcile itself with the international community, the EU was right not to try to block them because that would just cause retaliatory action and would not bring Libya (and Africa) any closer to the level of human rights recognition that we desire of them.

Repecting human rights isn't just a matter of a choice, it's an evolution that needs to be coddled prodded etc. No nation has undergone that metamorphis overnight and a mix of the stick and the carrot helps.

In this scenario there was a good cop/bad cop routine and I think it's a reasonable situation.

Interesting comment, Craven - "Repecting human rights isn't just a matter of a choice, it's an evolution that needs to be coddled prodded etc. No nation has undergone that metamorphis overnight and a mix of the stick and the carrot helps." and as a matter of fact, I agree. There are some things that can't even be imposed by dictators or absolute monarchs.

It's a shock, Lash, but no more so than the inclusion of the Sudan a year ago - or was it two?

From Slate.

Canada's Globe and Mail noted that the commission is not a working agency and has no permanent staff. The chair's main task is to run a six-week annual meeting where human rights are discussed and "reports are tabled by investigators assigned to look into conditions in certain countries or into violations occurring in more than one country. Having a voice on the commission can help deflect such probes and water down or block resolutions condemning particular behaviour." Still, said the editorial, if the United Nations is serious about these resolutions, it should demand minimum qualifications for the chairmanship. "A democratic government that allows free speech and other basic rights would be a good start." (Emphasis mine.)

France's Le Monde said, "The event would be clownesque [where are the French language police when you need them?] if it were not also serious and full of implications for the current situation. Here is a nomination that affects … the United Nations' credibility at a time when the organization must play a major role in the Iraq crisis." The editorial also fretted about the formation of two diametrically-opposed blocs: "We thought that such binary logic, which paralyzed the organization during the Cold War, was over. But the blocs have been reconstituted. On the side of human rights, international justice, the right to intervention, and the defense of the environment, the South, almost automatically, opposes the North (China and Russia abstain or side with the South, depending on the vote)." (Emphasis mine.)


I agree.The Slate article.
The gray area of playing politics in the UN, when their choices should be more about right and wrong makes me feel as though this is more evidence that the UN is a waste.

Appeasing Africa in their self-serving choice of Libya sends a loud message by the EU. We are more interested in popularity than doing what is clearly right.

Can't believe Slate and I are saying the same thing.

On the other hand, this COULD lead Libya in a whole different direction, so some good might come of it...

Having a voice on the commission can help deflect such probes and water down or block resolutions condemning particular behaviour.

Or, could be like letting the fox guard the chickens.

Suzy,

I was about to post that.

Lash,

I don't think Livya will get any special treatment from their position. In any case the US sanctions are what they are eager to have lifted and the sanctions don't depend on the UN.

Hmmmm - I was interested when I read about that - and I was aware that Gaddafi's status had been changing - does anyone knowof any good sources to reead about the background to this decision?

Human Rights Watch link. Multiple articles.

dlowen--

Above is a good place to start. Many articles accessed from here.

Interested in your assessment.

Thanks lash - when I get home again...

I found this: "Since its nomination by the African Union, Libya has indicated that it would invite U.N. investigators and international human rights groups to visit Libya. It has declared its intention to review the role of the grossly unfair Peoples' Courts, with a view to abolishing them, and announced several amnesties for prisoners.
While welcoming those initiatives as important indicators of Libya's intentions, Human Rights Watch called on Libya to formally issue a standing invitation to all the U.N. human rights monitoring bodies, following in the footsteps of forty-one member states that have done so already, and to promptly submit its outstanding reports to the U.N. treaty." http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/libya0117.htm
So we'll see what comes of it.
They don't call me Suzy Sunshine for nothin! I try to look on the bright side, and it's pretty much a given that sometimes having an important responsibility such as this, along with the perceived trust, or at least good graces, of much of the world, could be just the boost they need to improve their image by improving their behavior, if you know what I mean. Perhaps they will take pride in this and strive to become great role models for everyone. Craven, I'm glad that you had similar thoughts. I say they should have a shot at it. Not because they're currently a great model for human rights, but because they could become so.

Just like my little motto, as a matter of fact!
It's never too late to be what you might have been.