Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

U.S. Blasts Decision to Keep Sudan on U.N. Rights Panel
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP

UNITED NATIONS (May 4) - The United States walked out of a U.N. meeting Tuesday to protest its decision minutes later to give Sudan a third term on the Human Rights Commission, the world body's human rights watchdog.



AP
U.S. Ambassador Sichan Siv leaves a U.N. meeting in protest of a vote giving Sudan a third term on the Human Rights Commission.


U.S. Ambassador Sichan Siv called the vote an "absurdity" and accused Sudan of massive human rights violations and "ethnic cleansing" in the western Darfur region before getting up from his chair and walking out of the Economic and Social Council chamber.

As he was leaving, Sudan's deputy U.N. ambassador Omar Bashir Manis launched into a heated response, accusing American forces of engaging in degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners and committing "atrocities" against innocent Iraqi civilians.

But the United States' seat in the chamber was empty, and no American diplomat was there to hear it.

Finland's U.N. Ambassador Marjatta Rasi, the president of the 53-nation Economic and Social Council, then noted that the slate of candidates from Africa was uncontested, and it was approved by consensus as she banged her gavel.


More on This Story


· In Sudan, Militiamen Uproot a Million

Under U.N. rules, regional groups decide which countries are nominated to fill seats on U.N. bodies.

The African group waited until late last week to present its list of candidates for four seats. It presented four names, guaranteeing election for Kenya, Sudan, Guinea and Togo.

The United States scrambled to get another African nation to apply in an effort to make it a contested race and unseat Sudan. But with so little time it was unsuccessful, U.N. diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Siv, the U.S. ambassador to the economic council, said the United States was "perplexed and dismayed" by the African group's decision to nominate Sudan, a country that he said "massacres its own African citizens."

He noted that at last month's Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, members expressed concern about Darfur even though they blocked a stronger U.S. resolution that would have condemned the Khartoum government.

"The least we should be able to do is to not elect a country to the global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdred or left to die of starvation," Siv said.

"Consider the ramifications of standing by and allowing the commission to become a safe-haven for the world's worst human rights violators, especially one engaged in `ethnic cleansing'," he said.

Manis countered that Sudan has acknowledged the humanitarian problem in Darfur, noting the government's call for international help and the recent visit by two U.N. teams.

"It is yet very ironic that the United States delegation, while shedding crocodile tears over the situation in Darfur ... is turning a blind a eye to the atrocities committed by the American forces against the innoncent civilian population in Iraq, including women and children," he said.

Manis also cited "the brutal attacks against innocent civilians in Falluja where for the first time in our lives we saw live reporting of mass graves - women, children and elderly and other innocent civilians buried in a football stadium" and the "infamous and degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison."

So Sudan's seat on the Human Rights Commission "is not at all different" from the U.S. presence, Manis said.

Sudan was one of 14 new members elected to the 53-member commission by the economic council.

Three other African countries - Kenya, Guinea and Togo - were also elected by consensus to represent Africa. Armenia and Romania representing Eastern Europe and Ecuador and Mexico representing Latin America also faced no opposition.

In the contested race among Western nations, Canada, Finland and France won seats, defeating Spain. And in the contested Asian race, Malaysia, Pakistan and South Korea defeated Vietnam.

A coalition of 10 organizations concerned with human rights issues complained Monday that too few democracies are being nominated for seats on the commission.

It said among the four African countries, only Kenya was a democracy and both Pakistan and Vietnam had serious human rights problems.

Last year, the United States also walked out to protest Cuba's re-election to the Human Rights Commission, which it called "an outrage." Russia, Saudi Arabia and several African countries with poor human rights records also won seats, and Libya chaired the commission in 2003.

*****

This is the sort of thing that makes it impossible for me to take "international law" seriously. Nor would I ever really consider allowing laws democratically arrived at in the US to be subordinated to the authority of bodies which allow this sort of thing to occur.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10173

That, and Syria's presence on the Security Council.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

There are decent reasons for Syria to be on the Security Council.

Sudan being on the HRC is simply bizarre.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 337

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goatboy
There are decent reasons for Syria to be on the Security Council.

Sudan being on the HRC is simply bizarre.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

ah! the asylum brain trust is back!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35736

Dafur is the American dream. Arabs killing black people.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9462

"The least we should be able to do is to not elect a country to the global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdred or left to die of starvation,"

How many U.S. citizens are murdered and die needlessly each year due to a lack of government intervention (gun control, economic development, education, housing, health care, etc.)?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

So the problem isn't that people misbehave, but that government doesn't parent us correctly? Why is that a political problem rather than a societal one? Why must the solution be from the top down rather than otherwise? Is it because it's easier to tax us and create another layer of beaurocratic machinery to employ social work majors to tell us how to live and another layer of laws to keep us in line for our own good than it is to try and raise awareness on a societal level outside the machinery of government in order to change the way people act? Why is the initial reflexive response one of looking to Washington for an answer rather than looking to our own neighborhoods? I'm not trying to bait you or be combative. It's an honest question. THere are some government programs that work. I think Head Start is a good example. But I have so little faith in the ability of the Federal government to accomplish any real change in people's lives without creating so much complication in our lives and more abdication of personal responsibility and accountability that I have an equally knee-jerk reaction against what you're putting up as a solution.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nutrimentia
"The least we should be able to do is to not elect a country to the global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdred or left to die of starvation,"

How many U.S. citizens are murdered and die needlessly each year due to a lack of government intervention (gun control, economic development, education, housing, health care, etc.)?

---

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 05-06-2004 at 05:51 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
The UNHCR, through its inclusion of Sudan, is providing legitimacy to a regime that is engaged in the active slaughter of a sizable portion of its population. This is a good deal worse than the inaction in Rwanda. It is a situation which merits immediate and widespread outcry. I am damned proud that my national representative walked out on this fiasco, and ashamed that the chamber did not empty out entirely.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9462

Busted! Of course i wasn't being completely serious about comparing them. There are (unacceptable in my opinion) human costs of living in a conservative society, but they can't compare with active slaughter of the population. Our government only kills a few hundred citizens a year, not thousands or millions.

I would also agree with you if you suggested that even though they are different problems, the lesser of them is still a problem that is shameful and needs to be addressed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged