For those blindly in love with the U.N

yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
edited November 2010 in A Moving Train
Just came across this tidbit. It was originally posted on Nov. 4th:

NEW YORK — Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    am i missing something here?

    http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/index.html

    if you look at the member states ... iran is not on the list ... iraq is ...

    also, it is a 45 member panel that has to have geographic distribution ...
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I love when everyone rips the UN yet ignores why there's fundamental issues with it. It's not because they're hypocrites or something similar - the UN has become a failure of the 20th century because it's members refuse to give it legitimate power and standing to make change in the world.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I'm all for the USA no longer being a member.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Our government wants to remain a member so we can continue to tell everyone what to do via referendums, yet ignore the one's that don't suit us. It's good to be the king eh?
    unsung wrote:
    I'm all for the USA no longer being a member.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    i think the power of veto needs to be taken away from countries. i think an overwhelming majority should be enough to carry and implement a resolution.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    well thats not much different than what happens now where a minority holds everyone else to ransom. but as weve seen even when resolutions are passed theyre not always successful in being implimented which makes a mockery of the UN.


    and i agree with you about states willingness to maintain their sovereignty above all else.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Just came across this tidbit. It was originally posted on Nov. 4th:

    NEW YORK — Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

    Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.

    Why don't you post the link?
  • yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    Yes much better to have the US protect Isreal at every turn. Instead of Consensus.
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    This is a predetermined excuse of why it failed to begin with. Selfish policies and reluctance to gain and grow as one world via international law has led to the world being far more unsafe and mob rule. Your comments almost are equivalent to saying a dictatorship centralizes power and makes it better for all compared to representative democracy.
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Yes much better to have the US protect Isreal at every turn. Instead of Consensus.

    I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that that was what he meant.
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    That's not at all what I meant. My problems with the UN have very little to do with Israel, and much more to do with how the organization is structurally malformed in such a way as to grant power and legitimacy to dictators and tyrants simply by virtue of the fact that they have managed to install themselves at the head of a sovereign state.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    That's not at all what I meant. My problems with the UN have very little to do with Israel, and much more to do with how the organization is structurally malformed in such a way as to grant power and legitimacy to dictators and tyrants simply by virtue of the fact that they have managed to install themselves at the head of a sovereign state.

    Sure. I believe ya! ;)
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    1) I wasn't aware you were a mind reader.

    2) Being a jerk still is not a good way to win an argument.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Being a jerk still is not a good way to win an argument.

    Sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for an argument.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    so ... is there clarification on my post??

    is the original article true or not true?
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    So I went back and did a quick search, and it's a little unclear. From what I can tell Iran was "elected" to a women's commission through a process requiring no vote back in April, but just recently their bid to join the new Women's Commission (which combines four UN bodies working on women's issues) was blocked (though Saudi Arabia and Congo, paragons of women's rights, did make it in). I'm not quite sure how to reconcile this. Maybe they got a seat on an old commission which is now being replaced. In any event here's the most recent article from the Globe and Mail:

    Stiff opposition from Western nations, including Canada, derailed a bid by Iran to join the executive board of a high-powered new United Nations agency focused on achieving equality for women.

    But other nations with troubling track records on women’s rights did manage to win spots on the board, including Saudi Arabia, where women aren’t allowed to drive, and Congo, where mass rape has become a tactic in a brutal war.

    Iran’s drive to earn a seat on the board had sparked angry responses from human-rights groups and quiet consternation among diplomats. They feared Iran’s presence would send the wrong signal just as the much-anticipated new agency, called UN Women, began its work.

    “Canada was deeply troubled by the prospect of Iran’s membership” on the board, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon said in a statement, which noted that Canada worked with “like-minded partners” to oppose Iran’s candidacy.

    During an election held Wednesday at the UN, Iran garnered fewer votes than Timor-Leste, also known as East Timor. In a surprise move, the tiny southeast Asian nation entered the contest just days before the vote and rode a wave of support from the United States, Canada, Australia and the European Union.

    The product of years of discussions, UN Women is the merger of four existing bodies focused on women’s issues into a single, streamlined agency that will benefit from increased funding for its activities.

    Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, said earlier this week that the presence of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia on the UN Women board would be “a joke.”

    Iran has a poor track record on women’s rights. An Iranian woman was sentenced to death by stoning for committing adultery, a number of women activists have been imprisoned, and women face discriminatory laws in everyday life, including one which makes court testimony by a woman less valuable than that of a man.

    Until very recently, Iran’s presence on the governing body of UN Women appeared inevitable. The executive board consists of 41 seats, with 35 spots divided up among the world’s regions and six reserved for nations that are major donors to the agency (Saudi Arabia ran unopposed for one of the donor seats).

    Asia is allotted 10 spots on the board and presented a slate of 10 candidates, including Iran, for those seats. In such a situation, the result is less a competition than a foregone conclusion. But, last week Timor-Leste, which gained independence from Indonesia in 2002, said that it, too, would run for one of the Asian seats, bringing the number of candidates to 11.

    Only the 54 nations who sit on the UN’s Economic and Social Council were eligible to vote on the board’s members. Canada is a member of the council, as are the United States, Australia and several European nations.

    Despite having just days to prepare for the vote, Timor-Leste trounced Iran in Wednesday’s poll, receiving 36 votes to Iran’s 19. The other nine Asian candidates – Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, and South Korea – all received 50 or more votes.

    Wednesday’s vote is an expression of “grave concern and disapproval by the countries of the UN concerning the situation of women in Iran,” said Morten Wetland, Norway’s ambassador to the UN. Norway also supported Timor-Leste.

    The United States noted its satisfaction at the result. “We’ve made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board [of] UN Women would have been an inauspicious start to that board,” said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador. “We think it was a very good outcome today.”

    American diplomats led the effort to oppose Iran’s candidacy, with countries such as Canada lending a helping hand, whether in discussions with voting nations or helping to scout possible rival candidates.

    Some speculated that Australia asked Timor-Leste to run, since the two countries have a close relationship, but the former denied any such role. “We did not recruit candidates to run against Iran,” said Gary Quinlan, Australia’s ambassador to the UN. “Once Timor-Leste became a candidate, we supported them.”

    It’s the second time this year that resistance from other nations, particularly the United States, has disrupted Iran’s plans to join a UN body. In April, Iran withdrew its candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council after facing growing opposition to its bid.

    Experts point out that the role of the UN Women executive board is to oversee the agency and approve budgets rather than to set policy priorities, so it’s unlikely that a single country could sway its operations simply by virtue of being a board member.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    You can pick and choose who you want to blame for hypocrisy of legitimizing dictators and tyrants as you refer too it, but the entire organization is unsuccessful because all parties don't really abide by or grant power to the UN. When the security council members themselves ignore rulings and international law for their own self-interest, who cares about legitimacy of small winded members? The one's you blame for hypocrisy and illegitimacy aren't seeking to follow international law or anything similar, but you know who allegedly is, all the big, rich nations breaking international laws, treaties and sitting on their hands as they screw up the world for their own interests and gains while all the time saying how everyone else should follow such things. How bout we put the focus and onus where it belongs?
    yosi wrote:
    That's not at all what I meant. My problems with the UN have very little to do with Israel, and much more to do with how the organization is structurally malformed in such a way as to grant power and legitimacy to dictators and tyrants simply by virtue of the fact that they have managed to install themselves at the head of a sovereign state.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soo ... iran didn't actually make it ... even if it did ... there are like 54 countries and asia gets to put 10 in there ... if they only have 10 countries willing ... what can you do?

    let's face it ... any bureaucracy is a nightmare and the UN is no exception ... the reality is tho that you have all these member states that constantly change politically every 3 or 4 years ... how is an organization going to survive that kind of thing? ... in the end, its a relevant organization that has to juggle many ideologies and politics ... it may not be perfect, but i can't imagine a world without it ...
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    The world got along without the UN for a very long time, and it could do so again. The organization is a joke, and that isn't going to change.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    If every nation simply holds their sovereignty in regards to international law and the UN, you are predetermining the failure of the UN. Then you complain about it's hypocrisy, lack of success and bureaucratic nonsense - can't have it both ways. Either nations comply and it benefits everyone or nations don't comply and you see lawlessness.
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    The world got along without the UN for a very long time, and it could do so again. The organization is a joke, and that isn't going to change.

    how do you define getting along? ... the world ran as the mightiest ruled the roost before the UN ... is that the world we want to live in where empires tried to expand and everything was dictated by military prowess? ...

    at least now ... smaller countries can have a voice in issues that have global implications ...
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    When exactly did the world do so great before the UN? History has said the opposite in fact the main and sole reason the UN was created and implemented was to change the ways things were before. Albeit it has been undermined in the 20th and 21st centuries, it's goals, objectives and mission are to the benefit of everyone in the world.
    yosi wrote:
    The world got along without the UN for a very long time, and it could do so again. The organization is a joke, and that isn't going to change.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • FiveB247x wrote:
    If every nation simply holds their sovereignty in regards to international law and the UN, you are predetermining the failure of the UN. Then you complain about it's hypocrisy, lack of success and bureaucratic nonsense - can't have it both ways. Either nations comply and it benefits everyone or nations don't comply and you see lawlessness.
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.

    I think that is kind of my point. I think the UN should fail and cease to exist.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    So basically because mainly the large, rich nations of the world don't want to bow to what's best for everyone in the world in basic areas and rights, everyone should suffer. Seems like a legitimate but very selfish request, no? Also, the UN does do many things of worth outside of some of the areas you and others refer too...whether it's humanitarian efforts or disaster relief or nation building... they've done better in that role than the world leaders on some occasions, so to simply dismiss the entire organization because the membership rots it's existence is hardly a viable or decent claim.
    I think that is kind of my point. I think the UN should fail and cease to exist.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    Does the UN do some good things? Of course. But if its main purpose is to prevent conflict then it is an utter failure. The 20th century was the bloodiest in history, and with the exception of WWI that all happened when there was a United Nations (and its predecessor organization). In the arena of international relations the world is a jungle where power is the ultimate trump card. All the UN does is put a slightly prettier face on this picture. You can argue that one world government would be preferable, and that the UN is a step in that direction, but I would never want to see that. One world government comes too close to totalitarianism for me, and I fail to see how it could function, given human diversity, without crossing that line.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • I for one have no issue with Iran being on a commission about womens rights. seems to be one of the more liberated muslim countries in regards to women in the muslim world from what I see.
    Regardless, if we only have peoples who hold the same views in our arguments, do we learn do we grow.
    Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints
    this thread is more aboout the enemy of isreal having a say
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    Are you for real?
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the UN isn't about one world government ... it's about finding common ground on global issues ... you can decry its results over the years but to say that it is unnecessary is to say that the voices of those that live in smaller countries are not relevant ...
Sign In or Register to comment.