The state department announced today that the United States will try to get back into the United Nations Human Rights Council. Why isn't the US currently in the UN Human Rights Council? Well it was, until during the Bush administration, they boycotted this group because of its criticism towards Israel, and its refusal to criticize other countries like Sudan. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that this is in an attempt to bring about a "new era of engagement" under the Obama administration.
However major Jewish groups across the country are "outraged". They explain that the track record of the UN Human Rights Council is "abysmol". They refuse to lend aid to situations such as Darfur and turn their back on the violation of human rights that occurs in the member countries.
The UN Human Rights Council is a stage for much slander against the State of Israel and President Bush realized that they would not get anywhere by being a part of this group. The United States wishing to join back in this group will cause a setback in the Israel-US relationship, as well as hurt many Jews in the country.
I agree that joining this group is probably not the best thing to do at this time, especially when Israel is currently under as much scrutiny as it is. If the UN Human Rights Council does fail to look at the member countries violating human rights, than there is no reason that the United States should feel inclined to be a part of it. So far, joining this group has caused more turmoil than it has good, and for that reason alone, it hasn't been worth it.
4 comments:
I'm not Jewish. So some may accuse me of not understanding the situation fully. I may counter saying that I have the ability to analyze this without bias. The first time I read this I agreed with Brett. Now, I see this as a good opportunity for America and not as a detriment or an insult to the Jewish community.
If all these comments about the UN Human Rights Council regarding its "criticism towards Israel and refusal to criticize other countries like Sudan" are true, and it seems they are, then it seems that joining such a group will only make us look as though we share the same views as other countries in the Council. In doing so, we may outrage (as we already have) Jewish citizens across the nation.
Now this all makes sense and I'm not surprised it happened, but this can be spun in a way that benefits America and makes this action look like the positive move that it should be(after all, who would have thought that joining a human rights council would anger so many?). Why can't Obama or a member of his administration come out to the public and specifically address the Jewish community and tell them that their concerns are understood and that our place in this council is to further the development of human rights worldwide? Tell them that we understand the problems with the council and why some may be upset, but assure them that we will do our best to promote equality for all.
Now we have a situation where someone is advocating for those that seemed to be left out or unfairly criticized. Both across the world and across the nation, the United States becomes a nation that promotes human rights for all. The UN Human Rights Council could use another point of view, and America just may have it.
Now some may point out that it just is not that easy. I agree, I am dealing with a very simplified version of our story here. But how good are politicians at balancing the feelings of two groups? That's what they do for a living: they try to garner the support of as many without offending too many. I have no doubt that someone can get the message out that America respectfully comes to the UN Human Rights Council with appreciation and admiration of what it stands for while also promoting the fresh insight that American has to offer. The Jewish community is not upset as it now has someone going to bat for it and the UN Human Rights Council does not get insulted by the comments made.
The U.S. should remain off the UN Human Rights Council. The US itself was criticized for not officially denouncing Sudan and labeling its actions a genocide early enough. The UN Council on Human Rights contains both Sudan and Zimbabwe as members, and has repeatedly refused to criticize Sudan for its practicing of genocide. Even after many countries have denounced Sudan’s practices, the UN Council on Human Rights still has not. How could this council even be worth the US joining if it cannot even recognize the most horrific violation of Human Rights currently going on in the world? The UN Council on Human Rights should have been the first organization in the world to state that Sudan was practicing genocide, forgetting all of the political consequences, as they should only be focusing on human rights. The U.S. has repeatedly shown that most international organizations are completely useless without its membership, yet that does not even matter in this case, as the UN Council on Human Rights was useless beforehand.
To respond to JCruise, Secretary of State Clinton should have come out and stated that the UN Council on Human Rights has been in need of some reform, and we are determined to provide this reform. They could have said that although the Council has been very Anti-Semitic in the past, they would like to change this and most first join the council in order to accomplish this. Instead, Clinton discussed how the US believes in human rights.
The UN Council on Human Rights responded by saying it strongly welcomes the United States running for a seat, even though “It has been self-evident in recent years that the U.S.’s own human rights has been far from perfect, but the weight and authority of the U.S. to confront human rights abuses around the world remains enormous.” (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ab_30ukeqqYs)
I find it hysterical that the council has the nerve to criticize the United States for its Human Rights violations yet will not criticize Sudan for its Human Rights violations. I assume the Council is talking about water boarding in Guantanamo. Sorry, but a little bit of a practice which can be laughed at when compared to the torture practices of many other countries is absolutely nothing compared to the mass murder of many innocent civilians.
After all of this is taken into account, the US has to be careful not to lose a valuable ally in Israel. Although this is not important enough to lose any of their support, it certainly is a step in the wrong direction. Obama won 79% of the Jewish vote in the last election. Jewish supporters also provided valuable funding for his campaign. He has to be careful not to make too many more unpopular decisions or he may lose their support.
I disagree with Brett and CaptainMorgan on this one. The US should rejoin the Human Rights Council.
However, that does not mean that I see the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) as an efficient and effective organization. According to the Human Rights Watch, “In its first two years, however, the Human Rights Council has failed to address more than 20 human rights situations that require its attention, eliminated human rights monitoring in places desperately in need of such scrutiny, and adopted a long stream of one-sided resolutions…” (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/06/05/us-leaving-un-rights-council-fails-victims-abuse). The HRC is an organization in desperate need of some assistance, and who better to provide that than the US? After all, the US accounts for 45 percent of the world defense spending, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (http://yearbook2008.sipri.org/05). While I do not condone military action in most circumstances, this is advantage provides tremendous clout and power.
As elitist as this may sound, the world needs the US to tell it what to do. It is the most powerful nation, both politically and culturally. Young people everywhere wear Abercrombie and watch Hollywood movies. We have the largest GDP by far. We have so many advantages over these developing countries like Sudan, and the US should employ these advantages. I am sure that no American wants to use military force like we did in Iraq to solve future diplomatic problems. It proved too costly to the US. We need to utilize the existing international organizations to our benefit. Just because the HRC has proved ineffective thus far, does not doom the committee to perennial failure. It can turn around, and what it needs is strong leadership. The Western governments can provide that, under the direction of the US. After all, what good does it do for human rights if the HRC is underfunded and mismanaged? The US can no longer unilaterally accomplish international goals, and the sooner we realize this, the better. We can garner the support of many nations, especially those whom we funnel our tax dollars into.
This is a delicate situation, but the US has made the right choice. The US will not stop supporting Israel, and should make that clear. Instead, it should steer the HRC to its stance. It should make it clear that while killing the citizens of Palestine is bad, the complete annihilation of Israel (the goal of many Arab states) is a considerably worse attack on human rights.
The issue of this article is not that Obama wishes to associate the United States with the United Nations Human Rights Council but that the council needs to be reformed to represent what its name would imply. Yes this council has “passed five separate resolutions condemning Israel” but more to the point “since 2006 the council has called for restrictions on free speech and ignored blatant human rights abuses in a host of countries.” The idea that this hurts Jews in America seems a bit farfetched, after all Israel has been acting in a morally questionable way by staging missile attacks on Gaza. Following this reasoning Chinese Americans should be just as angry because of how the United Nations Human Rights Council has reacted to the China Tibet issue. It is evident that the UN Human Rights Council has been relatively selective in which cases of human rights abuse they take issue with. The United States should join this group with the intentions of making their stance strictly against all abuses of human rights. While it would be near impossible for them to afford a reaction for every case of abuse a concerted effort should be made to make sure the council defends worldwide human rights without bias or discrimination.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obamas-seek-seat-human-rights-council-draws-fierce-criticism/
Post a Comment