Thug state Syria on UN Human Rights Cuncil?

[arildno]

The moral corruption of the UN reached a new level of stink when the Security Council was unable to agree upon issuing a condemnation of the Assad regime's cold-blooded murders of their own citizens (how many condemnations, with much less evidence behind them, have been issued against Israel?).

To cap it off, Syria will probably be accepted as a new member of UN's Human rights Council tomorrow.

But hey, we've already lived with Saudi-Arabia on that council, and iran on the Women's Rights Council!

We'll manage to swallow this camel as well..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/world/middleeast/28nations.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

Alternatively, the western democracies that bear the burden of more than 2/3 of UN's expenses, and are in a minority in deciding policy in this criminal robber state organization might just withdraw, and kick the whole UN farce into the historical dustbin it belongs to.

 

[rootX]

I wouldn't share similar beliefs on relying on morality for international policies/strategies. UN response to Libya was wrong and Russia has taken correct measure from preventing similar thing happening in Syria. Western democracies have long played these stupid games and I think Russia and China presence in Security council is a good thing but still not enough.

I see UN as an ineffective organization that only works for dealing with weak governments but fails miserably when it has to deal with powerful nations including western nations.

I am not sure what you are proposing here other than engaging in propaganda.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I am not sure what you are proposing here other than engaging in propaganda.

Leaving the UN is propaganda?

 

[rootX]

Leaving the UN is propaganda?

OP seems more interested in painting Syria in dark colors: "Thug state Syria ", "cold-blooded murders", "criminal robber state".

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm not sure they're any bigger of a thug than us

 

[arildno]

i'm not sure they're any bigger of a thug than us

It's not my fault if you lack a moral compass.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's not my fault if you lack a moral compass.

i'm not convinced the massive killing of innocents we engage in is moral. despite their autocratic government, the syrians don't seem to be killing as much as we do. and we've been doing it nearly non-stop since WWII.

 

[Alfi]

It's not my fault if you lack a moral compass.

I guess I don't have a 'moral compass' either.



good thing it's not your fault.

 

[mugaliens]

The moral corruption of the UN reached a new level of stink when the Security Council was unable to agree upon issuing a condemnation of the Assad regime's cold-blooded murders of their own citizens (how many condemnations, with much less evidence behind them, have been issued against Israel?).

To cap it off, Syria will probably be accepted as a new member of UN's Human rights Council tomorrow.

But hey, we've already lived with Saudi-Arabia on that council, and iran on the Women's Rights Council!

Sounds a lot like calling good "evil," and calling evil "good."

 

[Pengwuino]

OP seems more interested in painting Syria in dark colors: "Thug state Syria ", "cold-blooded murders", "criminal robber state".

i'm not sure they're any bigger of a thug than us

i'm not convinced the massive killing of innocents we engage in is moral. despite their autocratic government, the syrians don't seem to be killing as much as we do. and we've been doing it nearly non-stop since WWII.

So... in conclusion, this is all okay?

Is Switzerland the only country allowed to call a spade a spade?

 

[arildno]

Well, there is no point having a debate with Chomskyites.

They do not have a moral compass other than thinking that if a man can afford to eat a chocolate cake for breakfast, then he must necessarily be a vile oppressor of the man who can only afford to eat stale bread.

 

[rootX]

So... in conclusion, this is all okay?

Is Switzerland the only country allowed to call a spade a spade?

What will be 'okay' in case of Syria? (I am not asking for a conclusion about current events but a recommendation)

Will overthrowing or changing their whole political structure and then hopelessly spending next few decades trying to make things 'okay' from our perspectives will be 'okay'?

Well, there is no point having a debate with Chomskyites.

Sure ...

OP you seem to claiming three things:
- Syria is an evil state
- bringing Syria in UN's Human rights Council is wrong
- not involving in Syria current internal matters is wrong
Could you provide some legitimate source that not involving in Syria internal matters is wrong and bringing Syria in UN Human rights Council is wrong? You only seem to be relying on your personal views on Syria to come with a conclusion of 'wrong'. Could you also provide what will be right decision? Isolating Syria is right? Not talking to Syria is right?

 

[russ_watters]

What will be 'okay' in case of Syria? (I am not asking for a conclusion about current events but a recommendation)

In the context of this thread, not allowing a country that is rolling tanks through its own cities and firing indiscriminantly at its own civilians on the human rights council would be "ok" to me.

It boggles my mind that when an "evil" is pointed out in the world, someone has to steer the conversation to 'well the US sucks too'. Whether that's true or not, it doesn't have anything to do with whether Syria is a "thug state".

 

[arildno]

What will be 'okay' in case of Syria? (I am not asking for a conclusion about current events but a recommendation)

Will overthrowing or changing their whole political structure and then hopelessly spending next few decades trying to make things 'okay' from our perspectives will be 'okay'?



Sure ...

OP you seem to claiming three things:
- Syria is an evil state
- bringing Syria in UN's Human rights Council is wrong
- not involving in Syria current internal matters is wrong
Could you provide some legitimate source that not involving in Syria internal matters is wrong and bringing Syria in UN Human rights Council is wrong? You only seem to be relying on your personal views on Syria to come with a conclusion of 'wrong'. Could you also provide what will be right decision? Isolating Syria is right? Not talking to Syria is right?

Since you don't have a functional moral compass, you consistently make false premises, and discussion with you is pointless.

 

[rootX]

Since you don't have a functional moral compass, you consistently make false premises, and discussion with you is pointless.

I asked for some kind of substance to back up your claims not this nonsense.

 

[arildno]

I asked for some kind of substance to back up your claims not this nonsense.

Since you, for example, manage to conflate "talk with Syria" with "elect Syria to the UN Human Rights Council", you have proven yourself to be intellectually&morally corrupt.
You are simply not worth to hold a discussion with.

 

[russ_watters]

I asked for some kind of substance to back up your claims not this nonsense.

Let's start with something easy: Do you accept it as a fact that Syria is rolling tanks through its cities and killing hundreds of civilians because they are protesting aganst the government?

 

[rootX]

Lets start with something easy: Do you accept it as a fact that Syria is rolling tanks through its cities and killing hundreds of civilians because they are protesting aganst the government?

While it's quite easy that it is not okay but as I stated earlier (in other threads also), external involvement leads to much bigger and long term problems.

 

[russ_watters]

While it's quite easy that it is not okay but as I stated earlier (in other threads also), external involvement leads to much bigger and long term problems.

As far as I can tell, the only one here bringing up external involvment is you. The OP is about Syria being on the human rights council and the failure of the UN to prevent it and the implications of that for the UN.

So you accept that it is fact that Syria is killing its civilians because they are protesting the government. Do you agree that that's illegal? Something that would probably rise to a war crime? Something that is a violation of human rights?

 

[russ_watters]

I uderstand you're upset at how your thread has gone, arildno, but your attitude isn't helping matters.

 

[rootX]

As far as I can tell, the only one here bringing up external involvment is you.

OP article:

Envoys for several wary Council members that had agreed to at least abstain in the vote against Libya, particularly Russia, spoke out against any international intervention on Wednesday, while Lebanon would have found it impossible to support criticism given the influence Syria holds over it. The required unanimity among the 15 members for a press statement was impossible.

The OP is about Syria being on the human rights council and the failure of the UN to prevent it and the implications of that for the UN.

It might not be as negative because at best it could open up Syria and Syria might ended up learning one or two good things. However, when sanctions were put on Libya and it was isolated, two thing that were harmed were its economy and people.

So you accept that it is fact that Syria is killing its civilians because they are protesting the government. Do you agree that that's illegal? Something that would probably rise to a war crime? Something that is a violation of human rights?

I mainly hold onto what can be done about it not what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

OP article:

Citation of an article doesn't imply that everything that is in the article is intended for discussion in the post. The text of the OP is what tells you what the OP wants to discuss. You also can't even assume that something you saw in the article fits the OP's position if the OP doesn't explicitly state it.

I mainly hold onto what can be done about it not what it is.

How can you make a reasoned decision about what can be done about something if you can't judge what it is? That's like going to a doctor and him giving you medicine before even examining you!

It might not be as negative because at best it could open up Syria and Syria might ended up learning one or two good things.

You're saying that you think having Syria on the Human Rights Council could be good because Syria might learn about human rights from it? That's not what the Human Rights Council is for. It's not a forum for learning and discussion, it exists for the purpose of actively protecting human rights. Do you not see how inviting a member that is clearly deficient in that area could undermine the purpose of the council?

 

[arildno]

Nobody, rootX, prevents members of the Syrian elite to pick up, say, a work of ethics of Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher.

Your misguided idea that Syria somehow "must" join the Human Rights Council in order to learn something about human rights is just stupendous.

Besides, has it helped on the human rights situation in Saudi-Arabia that they already have been on that council?
Or is the position of women on Iran appreciably improved since Iran served on the Women's Council?

Or, might it be, that the membership of such countries on such councils obstruct and pervert the proper workings of these councils themselves? For example, by their power of voting enabling them to block motions against the misconduct of their own regimes?

But, of course, people of your ilk has already said what you think of such ideas:
It's "propaganda" and "nonsense"...(and besides, the US is eviller than anything else)

 

[rootX]

Citation of an article doesn't imply that everything that is in the article is intended for discussion in the post. The text of the OP is what tells you what the OP wants to discuss. You also can't even assume that something you saw in the article fits the OP's position if the OP doesn't explicitly state it. How can you make a reasoned decision about what can be done about something if you can't judge what it is? That's like going to a doctor and him giving you medicine before even examining you!

I believe OP posted wrong link which is not related to Syria's acceptance in Human Rights Council.

You're saying that you think having Syria on the Human Rights Council could be good because Syria might learn about human rights from it? That's not what the Human Rights Council is for. It's not a forum for learning and discussion, it exists for the purpose of actively protecting human rights. Do you not see how inviting a member that is clearly deficient in that area could undermine the purpose of the council

Nobody, rootX, prevents members of the Syrian elite to pick up, say, a work of ethics of Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher. It might have been more meaningful post if OP only focused on the Human Rights Council issue not Russia's action for rejecting involvement in Syria.

Your misguided idea that Syria somehow "must" join the Human Rights Council in order to learn something about human rights is just stupendous.

I don't think Syria "must" join the HRC to learn something. I see it as a part of involvement in the international community. More involved Syria is with international community, more it depends on international community, easier it will be to see reforms in it. Isolation and condemnation of it cannot improve things.

 

[arildno]

More involved Syria is with international community, more it depends on international community, easier it will be to see reforms in it.

Again, how has SA's and Iran's position on similar councils led to a distinct improvement??

Isolation and condemnation of it cannot improve things.

It was (threats of) isolation and systematic CONDEMNATION of Saudi Arabia that led to the abolition of slavery there in 1962.

Perhaps you might also reflect upon the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa.
Was it respectful dialogue&commerce with those two regimes that brought apartheid to an end??
Did anyone, for example, seriously think they ought to have a place in the UN committee on combating institutional racism?

Hmm..?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe OP posted wrong link which is not related to Syria's acceptance in Human Rights Council.

It wasn't well cited, but I believe the point is to ask (rhetorically): how can we keep Syria off the HRC if we can't even get an on-the-record criticism of them by the UN?

I don't think Syria "must" join the HRC to learn something. I see it as a part of involvement in the international community. More involved Syria is with international community, more it depends on international community, easier it will be to see reforms in it. Isolation and condemnation of it cannot improve things.

Well that's a nice sentiment, but it just plain isn't what the HRC is for. The HRC's mission is to advance the cause of human rights and having on it a country that doesn't have any concept of human rights can only undermine that goal globally even if there is a small chance (I doubt it) of advancing the cause for Syria. Being on the HRC means they'll have the opportunity to make policy statements and write rules. It would be extremely bad for the world if Syria was writing the rules on human rights.

As arildno said, despotic regimes don't typically respond to cajoling. Their power is based on force/conflict and they typically only change when shown force (see: Ghadaffi a decade ago)... if at all. As we've seen with the current conflicts in the ME, more often than not, they'll fight just about to the death to keep their dictatorships.

 

[rootX]

It wasn't well cited, but I believe the point is to ask (rhetorically): how can we keep Syria off the HRC if we can't even get an on-the-record criticism of them by the UN?

I think that was part of confusion on my part. I was only responding to the harsh language used for Syria and that link.

I would have to look for what works better condemnation or opening rogue states to international community (while I understand that HRC is not for that purpose). Currently, I was only relying on Libya example from the article I posted a while ago (need to go look for it)

 

[baric]

To cap it off, Syria will probably be accepted as a new member of UN's Human rights Council tomorrow.

Honestly, the United States lost any moral authority to criticize the membership of the human rights council when we decided to systematically torture prisoners.

 

[arildno]

I apologize for having linked to an article that only directly addressed one-half of my complaint, namely the Security Council's inability/unwillingness to condemn Syria.

The UN WAtch grouphas put together a pressure group to squash Syria's election to the Council, where the election will take place May 20th.

Syria is on the so-called "closed list" of 4 Asian countries "contending about..4 seats.

So unless Syria is actively rejected on suitability grounds (such caveats exist in a vague manner), Syria will be voted in:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9371761 This case highlights, once again, the deep structural flaws in the UN system that apportion power to states on basis of regional&demographical grounds, rather than apportioning power relative to, for example, proven commitment to uphold human rights beyond making a signature on the UN Charter.

 

[arildno]

Honestly, the United States lost any moral authority to criticize the membership of the human rights council when we decided to systematically torture prisoners.

Why?
Is there any rhyme or reasoning behind this effluvescence??

Let's see:
A rapist has lost his right to criticize a murderer?

A thief must keep his mouth shut if witnessing a case of child abuse?

Really, your statement is just meaningless.

-------------------------------------------------------
A moral criticism remains valid, whoever issues it.
What you are arguing is simple ad hominem, namely that what a provably bad person says must be invalid, because the person is bad.

Logic doesn't work that way, though.

 

[baric]

Why?
Is there any rhyme or reasoning behind this effluvescence??

Let's see:
A rapist has lost his right to criticize a murderer?

It's not the criticism, it's the supposed indignation.

Really, your statement is just meaningless.

-------------------------------------------------------
A moral criticism remains valid, whoever issues it.
What you are arguing is simple ad hominem, namely that what a provably bad person says must be invalid, because the person is bad.

Logic doesn't work that way, though.

You cannot apply logic in that fashion to morality, which is based upon commonly-agreed upon standards of behavior.

If person A commits a "bad act" but then claims it's not worthy of criticism, then he has no grounds for criticizing when person B commits a comparable bad act.

By his own willingness to exonerate himself of his own bad actions, Person A is implicitly stating that his previous "bad" actions were not actually bad. So therefore he is being inconsistent when he attempts to apply a different moral standard to Person B. That is illogical.

 

[arildno]

1. Whenever did torture of prisoners become "comparable" with shooting down your own citizens waving flags and chanting slogans??

Do you have private access to some magical line, or square, perhaps, on which those acts can be compared?

You can't compare incommensurable quantities.

2. Furthermore, being guilty of hypocrisy in strictly comparable cases does not in any way invalidate a moral condemnation.
Instead, hypocrisy removes any praise from the condemnator, because he is as guilty himself. But that is a long shot from invalidating the condemnation as such

 

[rootX]

Honestly, the United States lost any moral authority to criticize the membership of the human rights council when we decided to systematically torture prisoners.

I believe main subject of this thread as restated more clearly by OP is in #29 post. Things like morality and what US does are not related.

I do see some concerns over Syria in HRC. It is (very) wrong time for that. Currently, I have not seen this much in main stream media (at least in BBC):

The UK broadsheets and the BBC have as yet failed to cover Syria’s candidacy to fill the vacant seat on the UN Human Rights Council, in elections for 15 of the council’s 47 seats to be held on 20 May.

http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/syrian-candidacy-for-seat-on-un-human-rights-council-unreported/

 

[arildno]

I believe main subject of this thread as restated more clearly by OP is in #29 post. Things like morality and what US does are not related.

They're certainly not strict opposites (since that would make them related), but thy are not orthogonal quantities, either.

Rather, they have a skewed relationship..

 

[arildno]

I do see some concerns over Syria in HRC. It is (very) wrong time for that.

Care to expound why the timing would be so very wrong??