Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jackmormon

US quits UN Human Rights Council

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AndroidAggie said:

Attempts at international cooperation aren't a farce nor a sham. There is no other option than the UN. 

It's not at all a perfect institution. And the accusation that the human rights council is anti Semitic has merit. Equally, the resolutions against Israel have a lot to do with the way Israel occupies Palestinian territory, wields nukes(some resolutions go back years and deal with disarmament attempts and demands that Israel yield to inspections), and bulldozes west Bank Palestinian homes to build Israeli settlements

Quitting the council because they are too anti Semitic ignores the basis for these charges and is another step away from international cooperation. I think it's a bad move and given the administration's track record, not wholly borne of a desire to stick with Israel. I find it more believable that the sentiment prevails that cooperation is stupid and weak, so this is a convenient excuse.

Nothing about trumps administration has given me confidence in the desire to work to a solution in any circumstance. It's just bowl through and do whatever you want. 

No dude. It's a sham. Always has been. It's always loaded with the biggest human rights violators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

No dude. It's a sham. Always has been. It's always loaded with the biggest human rights violators.

Does separating kids from parents and putting them in cages count as human rights violations in your book?  Or is it just immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

No dude. It's a sham. Always has been. It's always loaded with the biggest human rights violators.

insofar as they never really got anything done, i agree with you

but it cost us very little and bought us a lot of goodwill on the international stage for at least being willing to entertain grievances.  i'm probably not as pro-Israel as a lot of folks on this board, and i realize our presence there was by and large symbolic, but i still think it was a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

insofar as they never really got anything done, i agree with you

but it cost us very little and bought us a lot of goodwill on the international stage for at least being willing to entertain grievances.  i'm probably not as pro-Israel as a lot of folks on this board, and i realize our presence there was by and large symbolic, but i still think it was a bad move.

It did?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I don’t know.

imo, it did

a recurring theme i've noticed in the last 20 or so years of american foreign diplomacy is that we're unwilling to cooperate with the rest of the world and act unilaterally.  not saying it's correct or incorrect.  measures like staying on the council help in that respect.  leaving does the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

it didn't?

Not really.  Nothing the USA does really buys us the goodwill it should.  Aside from Hollywood block busters and sitcoms that is.  Anything we do that is regrettable draws international ire that is disproportionate.  I mean Europe should have an annual God Bless America day for what we have done and have continued to do for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AndroidAggie said:

imo, it did

a recurring theme i've noticed in the last 20 or so years of american foreign diplomacy is that we're unwilling to cooperate with the rest of the world and act unilaterally.  not saying it's correct or incorrect.  measures like staying on the council help in that respect.  leaving does the opposite.

I am sure the next Democrat will have us rejoin, maybe even a moderate Republican.  Obama's administration even said the reason we joined was to try and make it a better body.  Well 8 years later it is as ineffective as ever, accomplished nothing aside from admonishing Israel incredibly disproportionately to the rest of the world.  Granted some of that was fair but...why just Israel?  Think about it.  I am sure the centuries of antisemitism had nothing to do with that.  Nope.  Countries that tortured peaceful activists and their families sometimes to death had 0 resolutions passed.  

I would be down to stay in it if a dozen or so countries were not a part of it.  The only consensus is that Jews are bad and Islamic countries stick together, despite the atrocities.

Screw em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alum93 said:

Does separating kids from parents and putting them in cages count as human rights violations in your book?  Or is it just immoral?

WTF does that have to do with the UN human rights council.  I'm not getting into idiotic tit for tat partisan bullshit.  find some other hack to have your bs argument with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AndroidAggie said:

insofar as they never really got anything done, i agree with you

but it cost us very little and bought us a lot of goodwill on the international stage for at least being willing to entertain grievances.  i'm probably not as pro-Israel as a lot of folks on this board, and i realize our presence there was by and large symbolic, but i still think it was a bad move.

I don't agree that it brought goodwill.  everyone knows its a sham for the biggest abusers to do two things, fling shyt at israel and cover their own atrocities.  Israel does a lot of shyt that violates human rights, but not enough to warrant 50% of all measures from this body. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

I don't agree that it brought goodwill.  everyone knows its a sham for the biggest abusers to do two things, fling shyt at israel and cover their own atrocities.  Israel does a lot of shyt that violates human rights, but not enough to warrant 50% of all measures from this body. 

Disagree but that's a fair take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

Disagree but that's a fair take. 

Which part do you disagree with?  That Isreal is not responsible for 50% of all human rights violations around the world?  Or that powerful abusers have created coalitions and voting blocks so that no resolution can ever be passed against them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Which part do you disagree with?  That Isreal is not responsible for 50% of all human rights violations around the world?  Or that powerful abusers have created coalitions and voting blocks so that no resolution can ever be passed against them?

 

that leaving it is a nonissue, that staying didn't bring us goodwill.  that its resources, attention, and capacity were unlimited and its annual resolution set represented all human rights violations in all nations and all societies such that 50% of *all* violations are committed by israel.  and also the powerful abusers thing.  it's a bit negative of a take, don't you think?

i do think that it was ineffectual, but i see it as a necessary step to creating international cooperation and goodwill that would, in time, yield useful results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AndroidAggie said:

that leaving it is a nonissue, that staying didn't bring us goodwill.  that its resources, attention, and capacity were unlimited and its annual resolution set represented all human rights violations in all nations and all societies such that 50% of *all* violations are committed by israel.  and also the powerful abusers thing.  it's a bit negative of a take, don't you think?

i do think that it was ineffectual, but i see it as a necessary step to creating international cooperation and goodwill that would, in time, yield useful results.

I am assuming, based on this post, you are typing from a phone and thus likely busy.  I am not sure what you are saying in a few of these sentences and I know how articulate you are and how good your prose is when you have time.  Let me ask you some clarifying questions and answer at your convenience.  

Can you explain further how, maybe give an example (although I know even if it did such an example would be hard to find, not trying to trap you just wondering if an international leader applauded Obama for joining it) of how it created goodwill?

How does the UN not have the resources to pass resolutions?  Not sure what your point is here regarding resources.  I do not recall anybody saying they had unlimited resources, just that the TIME, not money, was mostly directed at Israel.  Speaking of resources, there is a certain country that dedicate a whole hell of a freaking lot more than every other.
 

The powerful abuser thing is not a negative take at all.  Powerful countries committing atrocities never had a resolution passed against them, and non powerful Islamic countries rarely did.  The only powerful nation to be condemned was Israel.

The thing should be blown the +++++ up and something new created.  Hopefully the US leaving brings it closer to being blown up.  It did more harm than good and being tied to it makes us guilty by association IMHO.  The US can advocate for human rights far more effectively on their own.  In fact we did for decades prior to 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I am assuming, based on this post, you are typing from a phone and thus likely busy.  I am not sure what you are saying in a few of these sentences and I know how articulate you are and how good your prose is when you have time.  Let me ask you some clarifying questions and answer at your convenience.  

Can you explain further how, maybe give an example (although I know even if it did such an example would be hard to find, not trying to trap you just wondering if an international leader applauded Obama for joining it) of how it created goodwill?

How does the UN not have the resources to pass resolutions?  Not sure what your point is here regarding resources.  I do not recall anybody saying they had unlimited resources, just that the TIME, not money, was mostly directed at Israel.  Speaking of resources, there is a certain country that dedicate a whole hell of a freaking lot more than every other.
 

The powerful abuser thing is not a negative take at all.  Powerful countries committing atrocities never had a resolution passed against them, and non powerful Islamic countries rarely did.  The only powerful nation to be condemned was Israel.

The thing should be blown the +++++ up and something new created.  Hopefully the US leaving brings it closer to being blown up.  It did more harm than good and being tied to it makes us guilty by association IMHO.  The US can advocate for human rights far more effectively on their own.  In fact we did for decades prior to 2009.

part of it is being distracted with work stuff and part of it is that you are asking very penetrating questions that are causing me to check and double-check my assumptions to make sure i'm not up in the night

creating goodwill: joining a council such as that augments the critique that America is unwilling to cooperate internationally in any meaningful sense.  given our ideals and what we're about, on paper, "all men are created equal" kinda thoughts, leaving a multi-national panel is a sign that we're only willing to deal with human rights when it matches our interests and is on our terms.  addressing human rights has, in the history of abuse, been in the hands of the powerful and they have to yield or relent control or power over a specific subclass and subgroup of people. truly giving up power to abuse because you recognize as a society that it's Wrong(TM) to persist and profit from it with no strings attached is a Right(TM).  right or wrong, there is the perception that America is Israel's puppet or guard dog.  seeing as how so much conflict and energy-based political interest in the middle east is shaped by their people's and government's perception of us, staying on the council can be seen as a Good Thing(TM).  say we're trying to nation build in Iraq, and we're trying to tell the shia's in charge that they need to lay off and let sunni's into power and treat them like equitable human beings (https://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS for background)  well, how does it look when we're not prepared to take israel to task in a way that can be construed as genuine?  imo it's a bad look.  we lose the right to say to other nations that they ought to do this or that when we scale back our ability to have the moral high ground to do so -- moral high ground in THEIR eyes, not ours.  this is why i think this move is a bad one.

the UN resources thing: i'm going out on a limb here, so if i'm way off then i'm way off.  my thoughts here are that i don't know what the "50% of the resolutions are against israel!" communicates.  i don't know if the human rights council had the time, money, energy, and resources to identify every single solitary issue of human rights that could be addressed by the UN and that 50% of those are against Israel.  that would be a wayyyyyyyy overrepresentation.  ostensibly it would have the ability to look at the entire picture, it is the UN after all, but then i wonder how a state with either inept government (thinking of failed african states like sudan or somalia or something) or states that don't really recognize the authority of the UN (thinking of North Korea here) would even pay attention to those kinds of strictures.  so i think that instead, 50% of the resolutions is 50% of a downselected set of issues that nations that meet certain criteria could even address.  so of that downselection, what fuels the 50% against israel number?  is it anti-semitism?  very possible and likely.  is it the fact that israel is currently a.) occupying territories whose populations are sizable and not citizens of israel b.) has nukes and is therefore in a position to really do something terrible (if it was believable that they would)?  i think that definitely contributes.  in other words, i think the way you address human rights issue through such a council as the UN necessarily filters down the list of countries who are amenable to even listening to said council.  the UN (guessing here) doesn't have the will nor resources to go into Sudan, try to figure out who is actually in charge, and then get after them through diplomacy or threat of sanction by participating nations to be nice to their own citizens.  the nation you're going to censure has to be receptive and have a clear picture of the rule of law and who is governing.  israel meets those criteria -- which is a point in their favor, imo.  perhaps i misread you but you appeared to be convinced that anti-semitism was such a strong operating factor so as to be the dominant factor in the number of resolutions against them as a percentage of all resolutions passed.  did i misunderstand?

the powerful abuser thing: i may've misunderstood you, and i'm going full i-love-everyone hippy mode, but i'm trying to believe the best of intentions by participating nations.  even israel isn't monolithic and a strong and numerous component of the country disagree with how they treat palestinians.  ostensibly there are similar factions in other countries (china, ksa) who are hoping that the tide turns or continues to turn in their nations where eventually they *can* deliver the same sort of censures and that their respective countries will be receptive to it.  laying the groundwork now for something that may take 20-30 years is a Good Thing(TM)

Something new created?  sure, i'd be ok with that.  i just don't like the whole double birdie, the flippant "you guys hate israel.  later, virgins" sentiment.  a lot of moves like that have characterized this administration.  trump allies (not thinking of you specifically here) see it as a Good Thing(TM).  "finally, someone with the balls to talk straight"  but that's how people who don't want to deal with longterm effects think.  i think it's a Bad Thing(tm)

 

Good(TM)

Wrong(TM)

A Good Thing(TM)

A Bad Thing(TM)

^^^ value judgments that people all have that are almost never in agreement because people are people

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...