U.S. angry over U.N. membership policy

NJ.com ^ | 12/08/04 | GEORGE GEDDA, AP

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most people would say countries that tolerate slavery should be ineligible for membership on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Same goes for those guilty of crimes against humanity.

The presumption is that egregious rights violators have no business on a commission whose prime purpose is supposed to be to protect rights.

But in a report last week, a U.N. panel established by Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected the notion that there should be any standards at all for membership on the Human Rights Commission. That means Sudan need not worry about losing its seat on the 53-member commission even though the country stands accused by the United States of committing genocide in its western Darfur province.

At the State Department, frustration over the commission is accelerating, and officials wonder how long the United States can justify its continued membership on the panel if current trends continue.

[snip]

"The message from the General Assembly is very simple, and it is: You may be suffering, but we can't be bothered," Danforth said.

[snip]

This past spring, the Africa bloc, showing disdain for Western concern over Sudan, nominated the Islamic government for a third consecutive term on the U.N. rights commission.

When the United States registered its disapproval, a Sudanese diplomat, Omar Bashir Manis, said it was ironic for Washington to raise objections in light of the "atrocities" committed by American forces at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Election to a seat for Sudan "is not at all different" from the United States itself winning a seat, said Manis, who saw the Abu Ghraib scandal as a handy way to question whether Washington has the moral authority to criticize the rights performance of others.

[Texas_Jarhead]

USOOTUN, UNOOTUS

[26lemoncharlie]

The Unknown Nation, Get the US out of the UN and Throw the UN out of the US. We can form our own Treaties without these Gangsters. I would rather be a Rogue Nation than be affiliated with these Gangsters! Who needs THEM, WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT THEM!!

[drt1]

Disgusting but not surprising. One really has to question the relevance of this corrupt political machine that has been so from its founding. At some point the costs in terms of dollars, wasted time and sheer frustration at the ignorance, corruption and apologist behavior will outweigh all of the benefits of membership (Anyone think of a single benefit?) and reason will prevail - We will exit this phony stage.

[Cinnamon]

UN is run by 3rd world terro states and thugs now. We do not need the UN, the UN needs us. screw them and ship that damn building to the netherlands

[Jammz]

Not only do we need to get out of the U.N., we need to start a new organization who's guidlines state that anyone who supports terrorists will have their capitol and major cities leveled.

I think alot of americans are getting fed up with all these islamofascist states ganging up on us and OPEC getting their way.

[Petronski]

UN begone.

[Robert Drobot]

the UN...."WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT THEM!!

Amen brother!!!

[walford]

The UN's irrelevance is long-standing. Since its founding soon after WWII, tens of millions have died at the hands of their own governments while the UN has not raised a peep of objection. Meanwhile the state of Israel stands as the most the UN's no. 1 Pariah state -- having been condemned more all other nations combined.

Let the terrorists, thugs and dictators of the world [and their apologists and appeasers] have their little international tyrants' social organization w/o being contaminated by American influence -- and American taxpayers' hard-earned money.

[Constantine XIII]

Sudan: "We've killed a million people for Allah, but that's ok, because you put panties on a terrorist's head."

[usurper]

We need to start a new organization.

Agreed, new members would have to meet just a few standards.

1) Hold free elections. 2) Promote basic human rights to its citizens. 3) Have a free press. 4) Provide freedom of religion. 5) Not be France

I think there are only about a handful of countries that meet this standard.

[Cronos]

I say we get out of the UN and form a union of democracies -- the US, the UK, Japan, Australia, India, Israel, Poland, Italy, etc. with strict membership rules -- countries that have a democratic tradition only, and no slamic states (not too different as there aren't any mooselimb states that have the tradition and don't tell me army-run Turkey)

[aShepard]

....." seat on the 53-member commission ".......

53 of them. Now you know that absolutely nothing gets accomplished by a commission of 53.

[mewzilla]

53 of them. Now you know that absolutely nothing gets accomplished by a commission of 53.

Au contaire :) They spend a lot of other people's money...

[Jammz]

I agree wholeheartedly