Anyone who has ever read anything I’ve said about the U.N., cannot mistake my extreme contempt for the organization as a whole. This is the organization in which the Human Rights Commission has to be completely scrapped because of its notorious habit of being run by blatant human rights abusers, just to be replaced with another organization (Human Rights Council) with a supposedly more reasonable membership base with one main focus: criticize Israel.

Meanwhile they ignore human rights violations in Sri Lanka, Guinea, and of course Darfur, and make special efforts NOT to hold Hezbollah accountable for anything.

So in other words, don’t get a blogger started.

That being said, I found this passage interesting in the Economist article:

In some areas Mr Annan and the superpower have been of one mind. The UN can claim significant successes in encouraging Nigeria to give up military rule and in deploying a peacekeeping force to East Timor. On Mr Annan’s watch the UN also contributed to peace efforts in Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and elsewhere. In 2001 Mr Annan and the organisation picked up a Nobel peace prize.

So other than East Timor, it looks like every success that Mr. Annan can claim comes from Africa. How about that for looking out for your constituents. Now this still doesn’t explain the Human Rights Council’s singular obsession with Israel and the ignoring of Darfur, but it does bring to light the idea that looking out for the “folks back home” goes beyond the U.S. Congress.

Now, maybe, Mr. Ban will solve all of the problems in Sri Lanka, North Korea, China, and Indonesia…

Farewell Annan | Economist.com

Don’t let the door hit ya on the backside

6 thoughts on “Don’t let the door hit ya on the backside

  • do you have any supporting evidence of your fantastic claims?

    there is a reason the human rights council focuses on israel ; israel has been violating resolutions for close to 40 years now.

    israel is permanently banned from sitting on the security council because it is the number one violator of all time of UN general assembly resolutions and security council resolutions, where the US strategically uses it security council veto power.

    you come across trying to paint the picture that the entire world has it in for your beloved israel ; maybe the entire world is tired of seeing 2 countries obstruct justice for 4 decades.

    that said, i think the overall problem with the UN is the strength of the security council. when votes historically are like 154-3 in the general assembly for issues like right of return for refugees, or israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, and one security council veto can undo the entire will of the world, thats goofy, plain and simple.

    if 90% of the general assembly vote one way, it should be enforcable by sanctions guaranteed by all member nations. something along those lines.

    but as it is currently, the UN is powerless, in that it fields not its own army, and cannot exactly force compliance.

    take israel’s destruction of lebanon last summer . you conveniently quote hezbollah, but they did not start that war. if you mentioned “kidnapped” soldiers, i believe i will puke on my keyboard.

    the UN could not stop what the whole world wanted to be stopped.

    lebanon will be a decade rebuilding, and there is no punishment for israel. yet you still claim that the UN has an anti-israel bias. bollocks. the US is too strong, and the US should not use its debt of over 1.2 billion to the UN to force even more reforms which favor the giant industrialized nations, namely itself.

    as far as the other humanitarian crises you mentioned, east timor is an interesting case. one third of the east timorese population was eradicated by the indonesian government. the US ambassador at the time to indonesia was paul wolfowitz, and make no mistake, the US could have stopped that slaughter with one telephone call. i can prove that claim. yet suharto was “our kind of man”, at least that was the press’s and gov’s take on the genocide-director.

  • Israel is not my beloved…my only point was that the UN’s credibility is in question if they single out one country as the source of all the evil in the world. This single-mindedness is bordering on childish.

    I’m not saying that Israel is not guilty…I have noted on this site that they are indeed guilty. But they are not the only guilty party in the world. If the UN wants to frame itself as the “Anti-Zionist Coalition” then so be it (which would be odd, since they were the ones that blessed it in the first place)…just be honest about it.

    Disagreed on veto power…pure majority rule can be very dangerous…and that’s a whole different discussion.

    And on Lebanon/Hezbollah…well just save me the trouble and go ahead and puke on your keyboard.

    :o)

    So what do you think of the S. Korean guy?

    Merry Christmas!

  • one quick point :

    i do not think a simple majority is a good idea
    thats why i said something like 90%, or some really high ratio of member states voting a particular way

    if it 60% – 40% there is substantial disagreement

    but if its 154-3 voting, well lets see, thats 98% – 2%

    in such cases, then the measure should still pass

    and non-compliance should have some negative consequences, like sanctions, or getting booted from the UN, something …

  • “This is the organization in which the Human Rights Commission has to be completely scrapped because of its notorious habit of being run by blatant human rights abusers, just to be replaced with another organization (Human Rights Council) with a supposedly more reasonable membership base with one main focus: criticize Israel.”

    this is the comment, big daddy, that sparked my introduction.

    can you deal with that ? (ben stiller from “meet the parents”)

  • All the references are linked in the post. If you were unaware of the transition between the “commission” and the “council” then read this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *