Libya slated to head U.N. human rights

[DEAD ZONE]

Patrick Goodenough


"Libya's nomination as the next chair of the U.N.'s top human rights body is expected to cause a stir at a meeting in Geneva next Monday, with the U.S. leading attempts to block the move.

Next week's gathering is a preparatory meeting for the annual U.N. Human Rights Commission session, beginning in mid-March.

Africa is the U.N. regional grouping entitled to choose the next chair on a rotating basis, and it has put forward Libya, one of just six countries that the U.S. State Department accuses of sponsoring terrorism.

In recent days, it's been reported that the U.S. delegation may take the unprecedented step of forcing a vote to try to stop the move, although it has virtually no chance of getting the required majority of the 53 members to do so.

Last August, one of the world's foremost rights groups, Human Rights Watch, wrote to top African leaders, saying that nominating Libya would undercut the newly established African Union's commitment to promote human rights and good governance.

"Countries with dreadful rights records should never be in charge of chairing the Commission on Human Rights," the group said at the time. "Libya's long record of human rights abuses clearly does not merit such a reward."

Senior Libyan officials responded to the criticism by saying the country was "one of the nations that is experiencing a stable human rights environment, and the proof for that is the political and economic security and stability."

Human Rights Watch retorted that the assertion of "security and stability" was precisely why Libya was wrong for the post.

"By equating its repressive policies with the protection of human rights, Libya is sending a loud signal that it should not chair the United Nations' most important rights body," said the group's U.N. representative, Joanna Weschler.

Libya was centrally implicated in the 1988 bombing of a PanAm airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people were killed. In 2001, a Libyan security agent was jailed for his role.

Its government has also been accused of extra judicial killings, detention without trial, torture and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression.

Apart from Libya, the present membership of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights includes three other countries on the State Department's list of terror-sponsors - Sudan, Syria and Cuba."
==============================================

Just another reason the U.N. is laughable.

[nacho cheese]

Just another reason the U.N. is laughable.
Yep. When a single nation is more powerfull than the rest of the UN it's worth of nothing. The UN has became more like the League of Nations. It has no real power.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nacho cheese

Yep. When a single nation is more powerfull than the rest of the UN it's worth of nothing. The UN has became more like the League of Nations. It has no real power.

Problem is,the U.N. has no powere ,wethere one nation has a lot or not.they cant do anything without getting their ass kicked.

[DEAD ZONE]

"In recent years, Libya has jailed and tortured hundreds of peaceful political dissenters. Political trials are held in camera. It is a country that has well documented links to international terrorism. It was for this reason that President Bush recently renewed an economic embargo.

What can possibly explain the fact that Libya stands on the verge of chairing the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? Under the U.N. system of regional blocs, members rarely overrule a region's nominee for a top post. States frequently trade favors and rarely apply objective criteria to the selection process.

So this time it is Africa's turn to chair the commission and, because Gadhafi has been helping bankroll the fledgling African Union, that body has made Libya its choice. More surprisingly, while more than three-fifths of the members of the rights commission are democracies, they do not represent a cohesive bloc and appear at the moment unwilling to challenge the status quo.

A recent study of voting patterns at the Human Rights commission found that from 1995 to 2000 most of the world's most repressive states, including Belarus, China, North Korea, Laos, Pakistan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Libya, successfully avoided any censure.

If Libya takes over the leadership of the commission today, the action will embolden dictators like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, whom Gadhafi has staunchly defended, as well as Hugo Chavez, who has proposed Libya as an arbiter for Venezuela's mounting strike and protest movement. The U.N. deserves better."

By Adrian Karatnycky

[nacho cheese]

Problem is,the U.N. has no powere ,wethere one nation has a lot or not.they cant do anything without getting their ass kicked.
Well if one nation has much power, UN can't be powerfull. Eg now the USA could attack Iraq, even if it doesn't get the approval of the UN.

[w1che]

Well anytime you have so many Euro Weenies with a little power then you should know there will be no power to act at all.. The Euro's think if they kiss Gadhafi's butt enough he will become a good little boy..

They kicked America off & now they want Gadhafi in charge.. I mean you have just got to know something is screwed up in La La Land.. :cool

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nacho cheese

Well if one nation has much power, UN can't be powerfull. Eg now the USA could attack Iraq, even if it doesn't get the approval of the UN.
No.What you are saying is the u.s. has the ultimate place of power.Thats not true.If it was,we would not be debating anything.The u.s. cannot take on the world militarily or any other way and when.The U.N. is made up of the nations of the world who can put sanctions on the u.s. if they feel like it.The u.s. has no more power than the rest of the world does.besides,its not our fault your system sucks and keeps you in that lowly post.

The u.n. is powerless in anything where a group does not want them.Bosnia,samalia ect.These are hardly powerhouses.

[w1che]

More for you Euro's to be proud of. Guess who the 17 countries were that abstained? Give up?... Oh ok.. It was Euro Weenie countries.. Surprise!!!
>>>>>>>>.
By secret ballot, Libya elected chair of UN human rights commission
20 January – Libya was elected today by secret ballot to head the top United Nations human rights panel - a break from nearly 50 years of tradition in which chairpersons are elected by acclamation.

During the selection of its officers for 2003, Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji was elected Chairperson of the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights by a secret ballot of 33 countries in favour, with three opposed and 17 abstentions.

According to a Commission spokesman, the procedure - invoked today by the United States - can be requested to contest a nomination for the panel's chairperson. Explanations of vote are not allowed, as they are following public ballots.

Upon her election, Ambassador Al-Hajjaji said the Commission must affirm the universality, indivisibility and complementarity of human rights, and that it must send a clear message that it will deal with human rights in all countries - not just some of them - taking into account the different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds in the world.
>>>>>
I wonder what the (Taking into account) means? I guess it means if your culture & historical background lets you commit the murder to keep power then it's now ok? ...Sad.... :cool

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nacho cheese

Well if one nation has much power, UN can't be powerfull. Eg now the USA could attack Iraq, even if it doesn't get the approval of the UN.

On Sept. 21, Annan published an opinion piece in The New York Times suggesting that the U.N. was the appropriate "forum necessary for building a universal coalition and ... global legitimacy for the long-term response to terrorism." It was an ill-timed and self-serving proposal that garnered support only from the usual suspects: Fidel Castro's Cuba, Libya, Iraq and, of course, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which wasn not even represented at the U.N.

On Sept. 28, 2001, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a wide-ranging anti-terrorism resolution -- the U.N.'s 39th since 1972. The council stated, among other things, that all states shall: take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts and deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. The resolution calls on all member states, among other things, to freeze the financial assets of terrorist groups. As in the case of the previous resolutions -- and the U.N.'s 12 prior "Conventions" on terrorism -- the Security Council vowed to "monitor implementation" by member states.

Unfortunately, this resolution, like all those that preceded it, is unlikely to have any real effect in the current war on terrorism. Since the U.N. passed its first measure aimed at combating terrorism 38 years ago, Islamic radicals and Palestinian terrorists have murdered, maimed or injured over 12,000 innocent American men, women and children. The latest effort, passed with such acclaim, fails to name any terrorist groups or identify the practitioners of this deadly trade. Saudi Arabia, the nation we protected from Saddam Hussein a decade ago, may just be one of several states bound by the resolution that have yet to freeze or even identify the financial assets of Osama bin Laden or his al Qaeda network.

It ought to be clear that these resolutions and conventions are meaningless to the 28 terrorist organizations identified by the Bush administration. It also appears that the measures are equally trivial to those who vote for them. Only five of the counter-terror treaties have been ratified by more than 100 countries.

To make matters worse for global government supporters, on Oct. 2n,[2001] the General Assembly, in the midst of its debate on how to stem the growing tide of terror around the world, suddenly discovered that the assembled diplomats couldn't even arrive at a consensus definition of what constituted terrorism. Libya's U.N. Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda offered a solution: convene an international conference to arrive at a definition. After five days of rhetorical excess, Annan wrapped up the session and told reporters, "The General Assembly meeting is only the beginning." Some beginning.

The U.N. General Assembly wasn't finished, though. After being notified on Oct. 7[2001] that the United States and Great Britain had launched military attacks against bin Laden and the Taliban thugs protecting him in Afghanistan, it quickly went to the next order of business, and the following day voted overwhelmingly to install Syria, a major state sponsor of terrorism, to sit on the U.N. Security Council in 2002.

Annan capped the U.N.'s month-long series of diplomatic debacles on Oct. 10 by expressing "anxiety" over a letter in which U.S. envoy John Negroponte put the U.N. on notice that, "We may find that our self-defense requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other states." In short: Saddam Hussein, you're next. The secretary-general told reporters, "That disturbed some of us."

Rather than being "disturbed," Annan ought to be preparing his colleagues at the U.N. to do something that really would be useful. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair aren't about to surrender control to the U.N. of the worldwide coalition they have now assembled to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

Reuters reports that the U.N. Human Rights Commission has elected a new chairman--Najat al-Hajjaji of Libya. That's right, Libya, a country still subject to U.N. sanctions because it blew up an American commercial plane back in 1988. Normally the chairmanship rotates among the world's regions; Africa's turn was up, and its delegates settled on Libya. In an unusual move, the U.S. forced a vote, which came out 33-3 in favor of Libya, with 17 abstentions. (The ballot was secret, but three cheers for Canada, which announced beforehand it would vote with America.) As America's Ambassador Kevin Moley said, "This is not a defeat for the United States, this is a defeat for the Human Rights Commission."

An earlier Reuters dispatch reported that "Asian and Middle Eastern states are increasingly opposed to the singling out of states for criticism" by the commission. Does this mean no more ritual denunciations of Israel? Don't hold your breath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14413-2003Jan19.html

No,The U.N. is powerless not because of the strenghth ofany one nation.It is powerless because of any one.It seeks no boarders,no states,simply one globbal rule and as long as 1 nation says screw yu,it has no power period.Wether it is samolia or the u.s.

[Phreakmeister]

By secret ballot, Libya elected chair of UN human rights commission (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5924&Cr=rights&Cr1=commission)
20 January – Libya was elected today by secret ballot to head the top United Nations human rights panel - a break from nearly 50 years of tradition in which chairpersons are elected by acclamation.

During the selection of its officers for 2003, Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji was elected Chairperson of the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights by a secret ballot of 33 countries in favour, with three opposed and 17 abstentions.

According to a Commission spokesman, the procedure - invoked today by the United States - can be requested to contest a nomination for the panel's chairperson. Explanations of vote are not allowed, as they are following public ballots.

Upon her election, Ambassador Al-Hajjaji said the Commission must affirm the universality, indivisibility and complementarity of human rights, and that it must send a clear message that it will deal with human rights in all countries - not just some of them - taking into account the different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds in the world.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, just back from his recent mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola, lauded the new procedure for early election of a Bureau, saying it was important for the Commission to demonstrate that it could manage with "wisdom, speed and restraint its procedural business so as to create the best possible spirit and conditions for addressing and resolving the many substantive issues on its agenda."

The Commission's procedural meeting took place this morning under a new rule intended to enable it to work more efficiently by having its Bureau in place well before the annual session begins. The panel's fifty-ninth session is scheduled for 17 March to 25 April.

Elected Vice-Chairpersons without a vote were Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru, and Mike Smith of Australia. Chosen as Rapporteur, also without a vote, was Branko Socanac of Croatia.

[Phreakmeister]

A press release by the UNCHR stated:

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ELECTS CHAIRPERSON AND BUREAU FOR FIFTY-NINTH SESSION (http://193.194.138.190/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/CED065131C9D5BF3C1256CB40049112A?opendocument)

Najat Al-Hajjaji of Libya Elected Chairperson by Secret Ballot
of 33 in Favor and 3 Opposed, with 17 Abstentions

The Commission on Human Rights -- meeting this morning under a new procedure two months in advance of its annual six-week session -- elected Najat Al-Hajjaji of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as Chairperson for 2003, along with three Vice-Chairpersons and a Rapporteur.
Ms. Al-Hajjaji was elected by a secret ballot of 33 in favour and 3 opposed, with 17 abstaining among the Commission's 53 member countries.

The vote, requested by the United States, was unusual -- Chairpersons are usually elected by acclamation.

In an address following the ballot, Ms. Al-Hajjaji said among other things that the Commission must send a message that it would deal with human rights in all countries, and not just some of them; that it would take into account in its activities the world's many different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds; and that among its tasks was to affirm the universality, indivisibility, and complementarity of human rights

Selection of the Commission's Bureau in mid-January follows on a Commission decision last year and was spurred in part by 1994 and 1997 recommendations of the Economic and Social Council. The procedure is intended to enable the Commission to work more efficiently by having the Bureau in place well before the annual session begins.

Elected Vice-Chairpersons without a vote were Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru, and Mike Smith of Australia. Chosen Rapporteur, also without a vote, was Branko Socanac of Croatia.

In a brief address before the vote, outgoing Chairman Krzysztof Jakubowski said among other things that the Commission, while it had its imperfections, constituted "a sort of human rights global parliament" and its dignity had been and should remain the basis of its approach to its work.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello, also speaking briefly, reviewed his recent mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to Angola, lauded the Commission's new procedure for early election of a Bureau, and said it was important for the Commission to demonstrate that it could manage with wisdom, speed and restraint its procedural business so as to create the best possible spirit and conditions for addressing and resolving the many substantive issues on its agenda.

The Commission's rules of procedure allow only a secret ballot to be requested to contest a nomination for Chairperson. Explanations of vote are not allowed afterward as they are for public ballots.

The fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights will take place from 17 March through 25 April.

Statement of Outgoing Chairperson

KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI, outgoing Chairperson, said the innovation of electing the bureau early in the year was an important step for improving the efficiency and impact of the Commission's annual session. What was at stake now was the vision of the Charter of the United Nations of a world of peace and justice, grounded in respect for human rights and in economic and social progress; the Commission had always maintained the message that gross human rights violations could not be tolerated -- by whomsoever committed. It had stood up for economic and social rights, for equality and dignity worldwide. Its proceedings must be effective, dignified, equitable and statesmanlike.

There had been many stories in the media about today's events, Mr. Jakubowski said. Whatever the outcome, he earnestly appealed for all to maintain intact the dignity of the Commission. At the end of the day, all must be able to go forward working together for the protection of human rights. The membership of the Commission must never lose sight of this sacred duty.

He was sure that others hoped as he did that this would be a business-like affair. He very much hoped that requests for the floor would be kept to an absolute minimum. He also appealed to everyone present to give the new Chairperson the benefit of a cooperative and dignified start. The Commission had its imperfections, without a doubt, but its sessions also constituted a sort of human rights global parliament. The dignity of the Commission had been and should remain the basis of its approach to its work.

Address of High Commissioner for Human Rights

SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said today was an important one -- it would lay the groundwork both in form and tone for the fifty-ninth session of the Commission.

As everyone knew, he had returned just yesterday from a mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. In order to attend today's meteing, he had regretfully not carried out a planned visit to Burundi. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was facing a unique situation where it could make a choice between continuing a disastrous conflict ripe with extensive human rights violations, misery, and the pillage of natural resources, or could follow the path of peace opening the way for reconciliation, an end to impunity, and the reconstruction of democratic institutions. It was vital for all parties to the conflict, including neighboring countries, to implement without delay the wide-ranging and inclusive peace agreement concluded in Pretoria last 17 December.

In Angola, he had witnessed the immediate dividends resulting from the end of hostilities between the Government and UNITA, Mr. Vieira de Mello said; millions of displaced persons and demobilized combatants had finally returned to their homes and had begun to resume normal live. The country was in the course of establishing an electoral process that would launch the foundations for a new democratic life. The country still had to be rebuilt, and he had assured the Government and Angolan civil society of the will of the United Nations to help with the development of a culture, political system, and institutions propitious for human rights.

For all the impressive work that had taken place within the human rights community in Geneva, he remained concerned by the ignorance in the world at large as to what was done here, the High Commissioner said; it was important for this Geneva community to open up to those on the outside -- it was their rights, after all, that the human rights community was working to develop and safeguard. Today offered a unique opportunity for the Commission to demonstrate that it could manage with wisdom, speed and restraint its procedural business so as to create the best possible spirit and conditions for addressing and resolving the many substantive issues on its agenda. He thanked the outgoing Chairman and his colleagues in the Bureau for guiding the Commission with considerable skill and determination through a year which had not been an easy one.

Statement of Incoming Chairperson

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI, new Chairperson of the Commission, said today's meeting two months before the normal opening of the Commission's annual session was an important innovation; it would enable the Bureau to get down to work in an efficient and organized manner. Her country was African, and it had an Islamic culture; it had been the site of great historical empires -- Egyptian, Phoenician, and Greek, as well as Islamic. Monuments from that past remained. Women played a major role in life and Government in Libya, and the country took its inspiration from the principles of the United Nations. She would make every effort to be open to new ideas and initiatives.

The Commission's agenda was a heavy one, and she would need the full participation and cooperation of everyone -- members, observer countries, non-governmental organizations and the Secretariat. The task of all was to affirm the universality, indivisibility, and complementarity of human rights, to give the Commission credibility, and to send a clear message to all those who were watching the Commission and awaiting the results of its work. The message must be that the Commission would deal with human rights in all countries, and not just some of them, and that it would take into account in its activities the world's many differences and its many different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds.

Statement on request for a vote

SIPHO GEORGE NENE (South Africa) said the call for a vote on the Chairperson nominee placed the Commission and the African Group in particular in a very difficult and unenviable position. It was regrettable that the U.S. delegation had opted for the extreme method of demonstrating its non-endorsement of the African Group's candidate. Since the decision to propose Ambassador Al-Hajjaji had been taken by the highest political organ of the African Union, the group had no choice but to respond to the political challenge posed by the subjection of the election to a vote. For 46 years the tried and tested practice of the unanimous election of the Chair of the Commission had contributed positively in setting a solid foundation for the proceedings of the Commission. This reliable practice had been violated today. It was the Group's hope that this unfortunate act would not be emulated in the future. The right of regional groups to present candidates of their choice should be respected.

Great efforts had been made to persuade the U.S. to use other available methods of expressing its displeasure. Members of the Commission were urged to demonstrate their confidence in the tried and tested methods of the past by voting for the African candidate with a resounding majority.

[DEAD ZONE]

talk is cheap and worthless.actions are facts undenied.

[DEAD ZONE]

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT

"This is a betrayal of human rights defender Nguyen Khac Toan, a former soldier, teacher and businessman now serving a 12-year sentence in the prisons of Vietnam, which also enjoys a seat on the Human Rights Commission.

It is a betrayal of Chinese supporters of pluralism, such as Wang Youcai and Qin Yongmin, who helped found the opposition China Democracy Party, and are now serving long sentences in the laogai, the gulag of China--yet another member of Gadhafi's constituency at the U.N.

Lofting Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission is a gesture of contempt toward Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who for the past 15 years has sacrificed her own liberty and dedicated her life to the struggle for freedom in Burma. It is a note of almost casual scorn toward thousands upon thousands of courageous people in the world's darkest places, unknown soldiers in the long, human struggle for justice, who have chosen to stand up for principles evidently too demanding for most of the folks who are supposed to be defending them at the U.N.

It is a betrayal of millions upon millions of people living under governments so brutal--from North Korea to Turkmenistan to Iraq--that most citizens do not dare to demand the freedoms that belong by right to all human beings.


Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home, They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their own fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear.
Then there are the 17 nations that abstained from the balloting, including such moral beacons of the European Union as France and Germany. Their thinking seems to be that they were simply complying with U.N. etiquette, which, as it happens, operates with lots of ritual but no regard for the actual needs of the oppressed.

The African members nominated Libya which has been liberally dispensing funds to curry influence among African rulers. Rather than take a stand on this outrage, the European Union took a coffee break. Thus did Libya take its seat on the throne of this erstwhile human-rights outfit, which we should perhaps start describing as the U.N. Commission on Rotating Chairs--a label that would better reflect its priorities.

All this has created a whole series of awkward moments for the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, where a permanent U.N. staff works with the 53-nation commission to carry out the agenda that will now be guided by Libya. Trying to make the best of what I can only assume is a bit of an ordeal for any civilized man, the new U.N. High Commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, told me in a telephone interview Monday that he trusts the professionalism of his new Libyan colleague, Najat al-Hajjaji, and feels he "must give her more than the benefit of the doubt." Mr. de Mello noted that with Ms. Al-Hajjaji's ascension, she ceases to represent Libya, and now stands for the interests of all citizens of all U.N. member countries.

Oh really? Then why were Ms. Al-Hajjaji's origins the decisive factor, when Africa's turn came round, in securing her this new job? And why is Libya's state press right now celebrating Ms. Al-Hajjaji's new credentials as a sign of high international regard for the regime of Gadhafi? Beyond that, there's room to wonder if Ms. Al-Hajjaji really plans to abandon her stock scripts, in which, despite all the world's many problems, a big order of business has been the trashing of Israel. Here's a sample of Ms. Al-Hajjaji's rhetoric, from a 1999 U.N. press release: "With support and conniving by the United States, Israel continued to commit aggressive and massive human-rights violations, to take everything and give nothing."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002944

[Phreakmeister]

Members of the UN Commission on Human Rights are:
Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea), Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

DZ: How does the author of what you posted know how Germany and France voted, if it was a secret vote? Did they release a press statement?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Members of the UN Commission on Human Rights are:
Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea), Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

DZ: How does the author of what you posted know how Germany and France voted, if it was a secret vote? Did they release a press statement? Same way we know anyone really voted that way.

Secret while votting. not after the results.Its public record.Same way it works here.Besides france and germany abstained.Thats not voting.17 nations did so.Not voting was not don by secret ballot either.

[DEAD ZONE]

"Annan: Terrorism Must Not Be Used to Abuse Rights"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 20

Brilliant. :rolleyes: :lol

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2074666

[DEAD ZONE]

"he obvious outrageous irony here is that Libya is to human rights what foxes are to chicken rights. According to Human Rights Watch, Libya's record "has included the abduction, forced disappearance or assassination of political opponents; torture and mistreatment of detainees; and long-term detention without charge or trial or after grossly unfair trails."

The idea that Libya should be chairing the foremost international body for investigating, condemning and even stopping human rights abuses throws a pie in the face of an institution that already stood out as a laughingstock.

It was just two years ago when the United States was kicked off the 53-member commission in order to make room for Syria. Syria! We're back on the commission this year, but we're sitting next to representatives from Algeria, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Congo, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe. I keep picturing Uncle Sam getting voted down on a committee by Lex Luther, Darth Vader and that guy with the net who stole children in the movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang."

You might wonder why so many countries that consider "human rights" the punchline to a joke would want to be on a panel dedicated to upholding human rights. Well, the answer is obvious. The inmates want to run the asylum.

If you want to keep the United Nations from condemning you for torturing your people, there's no better place to wield the monkey wrench then on the Human Rights Commission. "The greatest challenge for (the HRC) is going to be overcoming the tendencies of thugs to flock to it," Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told The Washington Times. "Their first instinct is to avoid condemnation, and now two dozen of the 53 are just abusers. It's reached a crisis point."

Well, it's only a crisis point if you look to the United Nations for moral leadership. But just because it holds votes and talks about human rights, doesn't mean the United Nations is what it ought to be. Criminals can take a vote and denounce the police, but that doesn't make the criminals democrats and their denunciations don't make the cops into criminals.

It's vital that Americans understand this, especially now that a majority apparently believe we should only go to war if the United Nations OKs it. U.N. approval isn't a blessing from the Pope or an attaboy from Dad. It's most often the result of a loose coalition of decent and indecent nations conspiring to protect their vital interests often at the expense of the United States. It ought not be that way, but it is. And the sooner Americans learn this, the better. "

Jonah Goldberg

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Same way we know anyone really voted that way.

Secret while votting. not after the results.Its public record.Same way it works here.Besides france and germany abstained.Thats not voting.17 nations did so.Not voting was not don by secret ballot either.

Could you post the link to the official "votes"? I tried the UN-site, but they didn't give any information. On what information is the statement that Germany and France abstained, based?

PS. Abstaining is a vote option.

Do any of you have the capacity to think, or can you only cut-n-paste like brainless fools?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Jim909
Do any of you have the capacity to think, or can you only cut-n-paste like brainless fools? WHAT BRAINLESS FOOL WANTS TO SPEND HOURS FORMING AND TYPING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE????????

Its not an ego thing,its an information thing.