May 14, 2004
Coalition of the Walkout
Matt from 1115.org points out that it’s hard to get things done in this world when delegations from a certain superpower (the American one) keeps walking out of important meetings on a wide range of subjects in protest.
Maybe We Would Get More Done if our Diplomats Stopped Walking Out of Meetings:
"U.S. Delegation walks out of U.N. Human Rights Commission. Check.U.S. Delegation walks out of U.N. debate on Iraq war resolution. Check.
U.S. Delegation walks out of U.N. World Conference Against Racism Check.
But really, what else could be expected from an administration that pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming and the 1972 Anit-Ballistic Missile Treaty?"
That's a very good point that hasn't been covered well in the media so far. While the Bush Administration has boldly declared through it's actions that Bush and his Cabinet will do whatever they want when it comes to, let's see, Iraq, oil costs, the economy, gay marriage, ignoring the environment, etc., walking out of numerous international meetings just makes America look worse in the world's eyes.
And that's something we really don't need right now.
Posted by Anthony at May 14, 2004 10:21 PMI agree with all your points, except the 1972 ABM treaty.
To me, it’s obvious that a treaty written in 1972 - the height of the Cold War - might need revision or even become unnecessary given a complete restructuring of the world powers.
I don’t agree with the reason we withdrew for it - missile defense, at least as proposed by this administration, is absurdly useless - but I certainly believe that we have a right to do so.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 14, 2004 10:34 PMWhat other reason would we have to pull out of the AMB treaty? It may be old and out of date, but so are a lot of treaties. Also we have the “right” to pull out of treaties, but that doesn’t make it right.
Posted by: Matt Cohen at May 15, 2004 12:44 AMI am surprised that as a democrat and/or liberal you didn’t recognize the politics of dissent, Anthony.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at May 15, 2004 03:19 AMEric, there’s a difference between dissenting and just dropping out.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 15, 2004 12:29 PMYou really think it was a bad idea for us to walk out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission? Let me note that this commission is CHAIRED by Lybia. To stay on a commission headed by a country who has absolutely no concern for human rights by every account would be an insult to the very notion of human rights. It would be like sitting on a business ethics commission headed by Kenneth Lay. If i was ever on a commission that was chaired by a pereson or a group of people who exemplified everything the commission was supposed to work against, I can promise you I would walk out and have no respect for anyone that did not join me. Just another example of why the U.N., once a noble concept, is being a joke.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at May 15, 2004 04:21 PMI know… you have to ‘tune in’ first, then drop out.
The UN has outlived its usefulness, Christopher. It is rapidly becoming a den of theives and dictators. We should walk out. More than that it should be abolished. At least the way it is now. International institutions are only useful when they serve the interests of the right and good. The UN has become corrupt. Part of that is due to its organization.
He also walked out a year ago when Cuba won a seat on the commission.Sudan’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Omar Bashir Mohamed Manis, said the United States had no right to accuse anyone of human rights violations after the allegations of mistreatment of Iraqis held in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.
Images of the Iraqi prisoners “are fresh in the minds of all justice-loving people around the world,” he said.
…A coalition of 10 human rights groups complained on Monday that too few democracies had been nominated to the commission. It said that among the four African countries only Kenya was a democracy and that Pakistan had serious human rights problems. -NYTimes
The Sudan is carrying out a reign of terror on civilians. Does the UN care? No, it appoints Sudan to the Human Rights Commission!
That’s because everyone is equal, right? We must have dialog.
The report said that while black African rebels in western Sudan appear to have violated human rights in their quest for development, the Government of Sudan and its Arab proxy militia have responded with a “reign of terror” of massive human rights violations which “may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.” -allafrica.comPosted by: Eric Simonson at May 15, 2004 04:49 PM
I wouldn’t talk too soon Eric, it’s looking increasing likely that the Bush administration is going too need the UN to bail them out of Iraq. Their desperation for UN help will be evidenced by the the concessions they are going to make to France and Russia in the drawing up of the latest and greatest security council resolution on Iraq.
The unwillingness of this administration to be a team player on the agreements and treaties outlined by Anthony, alerted many people around the world, right from the off, to the shortsighted and self-interested way in which Bush was going to conduct his business. You can also add America’s refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court to the above list. Which is quite ironic given the recent behaviour of some US soldiers.
This administration will be remembered for it’s obsolete ideology and inflexible unilateralism which increased distrust and antipathy towards the US to unimagined new levels.
Posted by: Bob Hope at May 16, 2004 08:24 AMThe Sudan is carrying out a reign of terror on civilians. Does the UN care?
Eric, the UN consists of delegates from 191 countries. It’s not correct to ask if “the UN” cares.
It’s more correct to ask why the representatives of countries that find the situation offensive are allowing it to continue. Why isn’t Negroponte screaming about it? Why isn’t President Bush making a big deal over it?
As for screaming, if Bush said one thing about the Sudan, some 188 of those 191 nations would start screaming the exact opposite. “We must stop the killing” would equal Bush making more imperialistic demands as he tries, for the benefit of Halliburton, to force his values upon poor innocent foreigners.
Posted by: Martin at May 20, 2004 01:41 AMIf that’s true, then Bush is obviously a piss poor president, is he, Martin?
