| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
At New Year 2003, the United States made it back onto the commission, just in time to raise objections to the developments in the chairmanship about to take place. Before long, the U.S. government was committing an act of unheard-of tactlessness, according to U.N. standards at least; it objected officially to the choice of Libya for the chairmanship and demanded a secret ballot. It is the first time this has happened since 1947, when the commission was founded. Unfortunately, the ballot resulted in a 33-vote majority for Libya with three countries voting no and 17 abstaining. Given that the chairmanship is normally chosen by acclamation, the U.S. objection is bound to cause a lot of ruffled protocol feathers. We can live with hurt feelings, however. Taking a stand on principle in defense of human rights is certainly worth it. Source |
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/wr2003.htm |
That I would say is not too far off the mark. But to insinuate in anyway that any human rights abuse that occurs here is worse then any where else in the world is foolish. |
sorry, clarification was needed |
(It's from the introduction to the report which you can find here) http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/introduction.html "Despite its declared policy of supporting human rights, Washington in fighting terrorism has refused to be bound by human rights standards. Despite its tradition at home of a government under law, Washington has rejected legal constraints when acting abroad. Despite a constitutional order that is premised on the need to impose checks and balances, Washington seems to want an international order that places no limits on a nation's use of power save its own avowed good intentions. These attitudes jeopardize the campaign against terrorism. They also put at risk the human rights ideal. This is hardly to say that Washington is among the worst human rights offenders. But because of the U.S. government's extraordinary influence, its willingness to compromise human rights to fight terrorism sets a dangerous precedent. Because of the leadership role it so often has played in promoting human rights, the weakening of its voice weighs heavily, particularly in some of the front-line countries in the war against terrorism where the need for a vigorous defense of human rights is great. For this reason, Human Rights Watch devotes much of the introduction to this year's World Report to highlighting this unfortunate trend in U.S. policy." |
Who has stuck 100% to human rights standards? And who set human rights standards? When we look at going into Iraq we are accused of violating human rights. when we do not march into pakistan we are accused of violating human rights. |