UN farce as Libya judges Israeli rights

[drdon326]

http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=786192003

ISRAEL will find itself in front of a Libyan ‘judge’ when it appears in the dock at the United Nations this week over alleged human rights abuses.

The UN’s Human Rights Commission - chaired by a diplomat from the North African country that was behind the Lockerbie bombing - will hear Israeli officials defend their country’s record in what is sure to be a stormy encounter in Geneva.

It is also certain that Israel’s case will be swept aside in a welter of criticisms of the Jewish state, which will result in condemnatory resolutions, all of which will be approved by the UN body.

The proceedings’ main effect will be to provide an angry backdrop to the latest efforts to make progress on the Middle East ‘road map’, which has already got off to a shaky start.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is to meet Israeli leader Ariel Sharon (below) today and press him to release more Palestinian prisoners, a move that Palestinians believe will bolster the US-sponsored peace effort. Abbas and Sharon will make separate trips to Washington later this week to meet President George W Bush.

The UN Human Rights Commission sits at the Palais Wilson, former home of the League of Nations, a location the UN website describes as "The House of Human Rights".

But controversially, the chairwoman in charge of proceedings is a Libyan, Najat al-Hajjajia. The career diplomat, elected on a rota basis, promised she would be impartial. Yet one of her first actions at the beginning of the year was to use the platform to launch a political speech against the US over Iraq.

Then the Commission barred the non-governmental body, Reporters Without Borders, from attending its meetings as a punishment for criticising Libya’s record on human rights.

....................................................

the UN...CLASS-A SCHMUCKS

[Maple]

1. And after you ban

all the countries you disagree with...what's left?

No UN. Or is that the idea?

[Darranar]

2. You don't ban every country you disagree with....

You ban the intolerant dictatorships that brutally repress their people and are not conductive to world peace.

You know; the ones like Libya, Cuba, etc.

[Maple]

3. Really? With you judging hmmm?

And how many countries are there that have NEVER committed human rights abuses?

[Darranar]

7. Notice that I never used that phrase...

To make it clearer, I am not talking about any real democracy. Those all should be represented in the UN. However, many of them I would not put on the Human Rights Commision: Israel, The US (under any neocon president) Jordan, etc.

I AM speaking of repressive dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China, Libya, etc. I think that their people should be represented in the UN, but not their government.

[Maple]

10. Well that would eliminate

half the countries in the world...which is not then, a UN is it? The whole point of the UN after all, is to bring countries together, to talk, to negotiate...and not to go to war.

And who made the decision that only 'real democracies' are the right way to govern? Or that you aren't allowed to do anything if you aren't a 'real' democracy? It's up to the people of a specific country to determine their govt. No one else.

Who would even define it? According to some people, Canada isn't a 'real' democracy because we don't operate the same way as the US.

Forcing your worldview on other people does nothing to promote the cause of either peace or democracy.

[Darranar]

12. I guess I didn't explain well enough...

The UN has gone far from its orgininal goal, which was to promote world peace. I think that it has finally realized that the goal of world peace will never be realized and the best way to acheive peace in any degree is to aid the millions of innocent people around the world who suffer. When a country supports that suffering, or even inflicts it themselves, what right do they have to have a say on how to stop it?

One of the inherent properties of the UN, which is "one country, one vote" is unfair. As I believe I have mentioned before, it implies that a benevolent democracy of 50 million people is and should be represented as much as a brutal dictatorship of 5000 people. That is unjust, and on top of that, makes no sense, as I addressed above.

A real democracy is a government in which the people have a say to the extent that every or almost every position of power in the government is elected directly by the people or appointed by people who were elected by the people. Canada qualifies, as does the US, Britian, Japan, Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on.

As I have said on this board, the poeple within those repereive dictatorships should be represented, simply not their dictatorial government.

[Maple]

14. The UN has done a fantasic job

of keeping the peace during a very very long Cold War that had many possible flashpoints.

And just when things were calmed down, and we seemed to be moving forward along came someone (who shall go nameless) who 'brought chaos into world affairs'. Again.

World peace will never be realized? Really? Whatever makes you think so?

History has shown us that many former implacable foes are now friends. Europe was a battlefield 50 years ago. Canada and the US went to war with each other several times.

And if the final act...the US and USSR didn't go at it...we just have brush fires to put out now.

I'm afraid you can't help anyone out of their 'suffering'. They have to do it for themselves.

The US has 'helped' many countries 'for their own good'....Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq etc....for years. Please...fer the luva gawd, STOP helping them!

You can't just remove countries like China...a quarter of the worlds population from a world body, because you don't happen to fancy their kind of govt.

The UN isn't there for US approval. It represents ALL nations, and ALL cultures.

[Darranar]

18. What is this?

You want to ignore the thousands of innocent people who are starving around the world due to corporate interests because...? Ntoice taht I advocate very rarely military help in the form of an attack.

I think that world peace will never be realized because it is human nature not to get along.

The UN did not help the US and the USSR avoid a nuclear war. That was done by both governments. They could not do anything when their two most powerful members hated each other.

Once again, the quarter of the world's population in China needs to be represented, but not through their repressive government.

[Maple]

21. Thousands of innocent people

aren't starving around the world due to 'corporate interests'. That may be your ideology, but it's not reality.

It is very much in human nature to 'get along' Humans are social animals.

It is the nature of 'some' people to attack others apparently though. And for their own advantage.

Those are the ones we have to stop.

The UN did indeed help the US and USSR avoid a nuclear war. That's how contacts are made, that's how negotiating is done, that's how people get to know the other guys don't have horns....through the good offices of an objective third party. Flashpoints were calmed or contained, networks were formed....even people who came to the west to talk at the UN saw the rest of the world for a change, and learned. That's how the US traded US bases in Turkey for USSR bases in Cuba. It took a lot of work by many people.

You can't 'represent' China, by people who are not the govt there. What would be the point? They would be unable to do anything.

[Darranar]

23. They are...

Their governments are deying them the aid they should get because they spend it on attracting tourism and corporations.

Anyway, for whatever reason they are starving, they are still starving. A man with his head cut off is different then a man who has been hung, but does it matter to the man? The US and other countries have the power to help them and save thousands of lives. The reason they don't is because big corporations exploit those people and don't want them helped.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. The Cold War...

I tend to agree with Darranar on that one. What helped the US and USSR avoid a nuclear war was the fact that they knew that each could destroy the other several times over thanks to the arms race. I don't think the UN really had much to do with what contact each nation had with the other during the Cold War....

Violet...

[Gimel]

34. Where was the UN when...

Melosovic practiced ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? As Clinton waited for the last moment to send US troops in with NATO? Where was the UN when Saddam invaded Kuwait and shot scud missiles at Israel? What about in Indonesia and England's little game in the Falkand Islands? What about when katusha rockets rained on Israeli communities and kassam rockets now? Those situations are ignored. The UN has no teeth, and that has been know since it was created.

It is a forum for discussion. Not a forum of truth.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. There's such a thing as benevolent democracies?

Goodness, I didn't know that. Anyway, I have no problem with the one country, one vote idea in the UN. The General Assembly works by having resolutions passed by a majority, which makes sense. What doesn't work for me and seems really flawed is the power that the permanent members of the Security Council have to veto resolutions. I think the reason they were made permanent members originally was because they were the five major powers that won WWII, but that time's long passed and things have changed, especially when you think about things like the British Empire vanishing in the years after the war, and along with the habit of the US to play dirty tricks to get what resolutions it wants through while torpedoing anything it doesn't like, the Security Council at least should be restructured to be much more fair and effective...

Violet...

[Darranar]

36. I agree with you...

on the veto issue. It gives the US, Britian, China, Russia, and France far too much power.

The one country one vote system is inherently unfair. Despite the name, I feel that the UN should represent the people of the world, not the governments.

[tinnypriv]

4. Right

So if those type of countries are banned from the UN, are they also banned from being U.S. allies?

[Darranar]

8. YES!

I believe you are speaking of either Saudi Arabia or Israel. I would like you to clarify your point if I am making a false assumption.

If you are speaking of Saudi Arabia, I never liked their government. I do not think that they should be an ally of the US. They deserve the hatred that is given to Iran, North Korea, etc. (Oh, I forgot-they have oil. There goes all my hopes.)

If you are speaking of Israel, Israel is a democracy. It deserves representation in the UN, as do the Palestinians.

[tinnypriv]

11. I wasn't thinking about either

FWIW, I've got no problem with Israel being a U.S. ally. I just define Israel as a country within the 1967 borders. I consider sending arms to prop up a military occupation outside of those borders to be a seperate issue, but that is getting off the topic.

Saudi Arabia not being a U.S. ally isn't even a question - the country I was thinking about when I posted is Uzbekistan. But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume you don't think they should be U.S. allies either.

So, I assume your basic point is that only democracies should be represented within the UN, and only democracies should be U.S. allies?

[Darranar]

13. Yes, both...

Sorry for my mistaken assumption. But to repeat a point IU have made, their people should be represented, but not their government. In a democracy, the government represents the people, so the problem doesn;t exist there, or at least not to such an extent.

[tinnypriv]

16. Then I think you would like

The Age of Consent by George Monbiot. He has discussed this topic quite extensively. He could tell you better than I that unilaterally cutting non-democracies out of the UN would be a disaster.

[Darranar]

19. Can you paraphrase for me?

I'll consider reading this book, but I will not be able to read it in time to respond to this thread.

[tinnypriv]

25. I couldn't paraphrase the entire book

Nor should I (it wouldn't do it justice), but this should do:

http://www.monbiot.org/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=585

[Darranar]

26. I agree with that article...

Not completely, but almost.

[pw]

6. Just the intolerant regimes that disagree with us?

So not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Guatemala, Colombia, Indonesia, Argentina, Chile, Russia (oops, let's let bygones be bygones), Mississippi...

[Darranar]

9. NO!

ALL The intolerant, brutal, dictatorships. Whether they agree with us or not.

[Aidoneus]

15. and the intolerant, brutal democracies?

I think countries like Israel & Russia make life miserable for far more than all of these various dictatorships in the last few years, why spare the lash because of a marketing ploy?

at any rate exclusion is a bad idea that would ultimately be hijacked by powerful hypocrites with a petty bone to pick.

[Darranar]

17. That is not true....

Israel and Russia, at the most, make misery for two or three million people, and that's assuming ntaht all your claims about them are true. there are brutal governments in Africa and Asiataht make life miserable for basically everyone in a thousand mile radius, which means over twenty million people, at the least.

[Aidoneus]

27. Not strictly what I meant

I'll approach it differently. Would you accept as legitimate the idea that economics could have a greater detrimental effect than the headline-grabbing whims of some eccentric asshole? The "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov of Turkmenistan is a most colourful fellow indeed, but there's a great many economists and think-tankers in democratic societies (many herded into the "neoliberal" or "neoconservative" labels lately, though I would not restrict myself to them) responsible for exponentially greater suffering than dictators like him, but through clever marketing techniques are put in a different class--or not at all seen as the destructive force that they are and are rather praised as "liberators" or "defenders of freedom" in the most absurd of displays.

As for Russia, their adventure in Chechnya was not just what I meant, but rather state, economic and foreign policy in general (which is in itself not all that different from the other major powers in the world, whom I assume would be left out of this UN purge). Their "free market capitalist" system has the same effect that other similar systems have:--a few people with a whole lot of scratch that run everything, a whole bunch of people that have to do some awful things just to (maybe) survive. They supported destablizing wars in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Karabakh, the ethnic cleansing of the Ingush of Prigorodny, support and defend the "Red Sultan" ex-Soviet dictators of Central Asia, state-encouraged policies of racism and manipulation at every level of the media for state benefit. But they also have a more or less democratic system of government (greatly flawed, but so are most others), and would probably be excluded from this to name an example.

Across decades, Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors and maintains by force land seized in wars of aggression. That's a big no-no to me, maybe it's ok by some others.. (seems to be a common practice among the other stronger powers, anyway)

Of course, our own record is even worse than those, but in the interest of fairness I tried to bring up something other than just my knee-jerk anti-American treasonous blamemurkafirstism, or whatever it would be called.. :)
Just going by economic means, the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Major/Blair (democratic-republican) governments killed something like a million Iraqis under a more or less legal and accepted program (and "we think the price is worth it"), is that worth something? The means or clever labels that these people employ should not distract from consideration of the effects.

As far as Africa goes, again it is ultimately the economic systems at the heart of the wars and dictators; the "failed states" produced by freemarket capitalism, hijacked by personality cults and military regimes in service of whatever economic elites that exist and foreign corporations to reap profits, will naturally use force directed outward and inward to sustain an existing order that benefits a small handful of powerful people. That's the case in a lot of places, Central America for quite some time with some terrible dicators and governments put in place to guard the economic status quo, though the effect is not always as traumatic as it is currently in Africa.

Ultimately it appears to me as little difference whether some leader seizes power through corruption, deception and/or manipulation in the democratic countries, or through corruption and force in the non-democratic places; the result is often the same, selective linguistic gynmastics aside and whatever the packaging. I suppose I would not be opposed to weeding out some of the "bad leaders" and destructive systems in the world, starting here, but the criteria should be altered to reflect the true nature of the results rather than just arbitrarily going by certain labels while leaving out more "worthy" candidates.

[Darranar]

29. I agree...

with most of what you say. My point remains, however, that you cannot blame Israel and Russia for all the horrible stuff going on in the world.

We both know that you and I disagree on who is least violent in the situation i Israel/Palestine, but if we consider all the factions as one collective entity, the number of people hurt, indirectly or directly, is much smaller than the number hurt by incidents of true, violent, and completely evil genocide of millions in several African states. Though the economic situation there is indeed a factor, that, too, you cannot blame on Israel and Russia.

And, btw, I have no problem with your blamemurkafirstism. I am a bit of a blamemurkafirstist myself... :) However, in this situation you can't blame America for acting as much as not acting... Not acting as its corporations bribe their way into ensuring free market capitalism in Africa and other places that cause misery for millions all around the world.

[Aidoneus]

31. ok

...you cannot blame Israel and Russia for all the horrible stuff going on in the world...

That's good, because I didn't. :)
For the stuff around them, maybe.

What I did hint at was that since economic and other conditions develop internationally and are maintained through the intervention of dominant forces, the effect is so as well. These dictators and the armies/police they wield are responsible for their own horrific actions, to be sure, but the motives are almost always tied to international economics and the preservation of an social/power/economic order threatened by social interests of some form or another, of perhaps some other faction that opposes the existing divisions and/or exploitations.

Such dictators, when not merely acting out of self-interest alone, are often in their position to defend the interests of the existing division of power/wealth/etc. When threatened by an opposing or revolutionary force, the existing order turns to violent force (and in the case of interventions by outside powers, the threat of force as well), directed first inward and then outward, to maintain itself for the benefit of already-privileged and foreign interests. This was the case in Europe previously with the various fascist dictatorships and their groupies in the other western European states (like Churchill, the cabal of businessmen that tried to overthrow FDR, etc etc); Latin America and Asia since then, I suppose Africa now, etc.

The question of "who benefits?" from these brutal governments must ultimately come up, and some patterns become very clear after a short while, thus my suggestion that the stronger (sometimes falling under the lable of 'democratic') powers are ultimately culpable as well. Perhaps moreso, for while individuals should be held responsible for their actions, the environments they act in are usually crafted by the stronger and more dominant powers, and these would otherwise go without having the credit due to them.

mm.. I guess I'm rambling and deviating a bit (just a bit..) from the original post.

[Darranar]

37. As I said before...

The major problem with the US and Britian and other major democracies is not the actions they make, though those are often immoral (Iraq, Vietnam, etc) but with what they DON'T do. They DON'T make an effort to rein in the major corporations taht make life miserable for thousands of people. They don't care about the consequences of other people's actions, and they refuse to clean up their own mess.

[Gimel]

35. Revisionism

Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors and maintains by force land seized in wars of aggression.

Not only was Israel attacked twice by Egypt, it returned the Sinai twice. Not a shred remains in Israel's hands. Lebanon was invaded because of attacks on Israel's communities and for harboring the PLO which staged numerous attacks on civilian targets inside Israel and Israel (then) national carrier El Al. All of Lebanon has been returned, not a shred remains.

Thus, this sweeping statement is untrue. The Golan (Syrian) is the only area Israel maintains. The West Bank and some of Jerusalem were Jordanian, but a peace settlement has been made with Jordan.

Peace will bring the establishment of a Palestinian state. No, the Palestinians won't get their greatest dreams, and Israel will lose land that it considers her heritage. Yet, peace is a higher priority. Rabin, Barak and Sharon know this.

[StandWatie]

5. yadda yadda..

The chairman of the UN commission on Human Rights has the power to do what? The story makes it sound like:

#1 The chairman makes some sort of decision
#2 Anything whatsoever will become of the hearing

[Darranar]

41. That is correct...

but the bias inherent in the commision still is an important point to make.

[Trajan]

20. The current US administration ....

Especially those of the PNAC/AEI NeoConservative mindset, HATE the UN ....

It is that hatred that now hamstrings an international response to the expanding tragedy of the Iraq Occupation .... primarily because the whole notion of unilateral ANTI-internationalism is a bankrupt philosophy .....

I presume that those who constantly repeat the hateful mantras of the US administration support the philosophies and policies of that administration ....

But HERE at DU ? .... we despise that administration .....

Are you POSITIVELY SURE this is the proper forum to express support for NEOCON policies that mimic those espoused by the ugly US administration ???? ...

[Maple]

22. Sure seems to follow the

Bush doctrine doesn't he?

We decide. You comply.

[newyorican]

24. Rather than yammer about the UN

or partake in sideshows, I prefer to address the topic which is human rights.

This in particular:

"Israel’s overall human rights record in the occupied territories remained poor and had worsened in several areas as it continued to commit "numerous, serious human rights abuses". "

Not exactly behavior one expects from an wannabe EU member (a pipedream, IMO).

[cantwealljustgetalong]

28. to quote Marx (Groucho, not Karl)...

"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

[newyorican]

30. Not advice the Israelis are following

as the lead ballon of EU membership is floated, now on a monthly basis.

It will never happen as long as the statement I highlighted remains true. In fact, they couldn't even become a state in the U.S. with that record, unless the confederacy is brought back that is...

[Darranar]

38. The US record is worse...

the treatment of Native Americans was worse and less justified than anything the Israelis have done.

[newyorican]

39. except that Israel is doing it today

a little facts like that make all the difference.

[Darranar]

40. Yes...

But my point was that Israel's human rights record is not as bad as that of the US, Spain, Britian, etc, expecially in regard to those who lived here in the Americas first.