Annan says rights body harming UN




 
--
Boots
 
April 7th, 2005  
SwordFish_13
 
 

Topic: Annan says rights body harming UN


Hi,

Quote:
Source:BBC News

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has accused the UN Human Rights Commission of failing to uphold human rights and said a new, permanent body is needed.

Speaking in Geneva, Mr Annan said the commission was undermining the credibility of the entire UN.

Human rights groups say the body's member nations are too concerned with protecting their national interests.

Current members include Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia - all accused of rights abuses.


Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself
Kofi Annan

"We have reached a point at which the commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system," Mr Annan said as he addressed the commission's annual six-week session at its Swiss headquarters.

"Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself," he said.

Greater status

As part of his programme of UN reforms, Mr Annan wants to create a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members must uphold the highest human rights standards.

Mr Annan said the UN needs the new council if it is to prevent appalling suffering occurring around the world.

He said the council must be more accountable and more representative.

It would, he explained, allow for a more comprehensive and objective approach, which, in turn, would produce more effective assistance.

"The main intergovernmental body concerned with human rights should have a status, authority and capability," Mr Annan said.

Sudan controversy

The commission was launched in 1946 to uphold human rights worldwide, and has 53 members.

Libya chaired the commission in 2003, despite opposition from the US and human rights groups.

In his annual address last year, Mr Annan warned that the conflict in Sudan's province of Darfur bore worrying similarities to the Rwandan genocide.

The commission had before it strong evidence of atrocities being committed in Darfur and of the Sudanese government's involvement in them, but no resolution was passed condemning Sudan.

Instead, Sudan was elected to the commission for another year.

There is talk of a resolution this year, but the countries drafting it include Sudan itself and Zimbabwe, also in the spotlight for human rights violations.

Activists also want the commission to condemn the US for its treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Peace
-=SF_13=-
April 7th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
There are a lot of human rights groups out there already, how do they expect things to change with another one? You would still need a security council decision to allow troops into any area, it would just be another department of the UN that cannot accomplish anything but give statistics, which is what happened to the league of nations.
April 8th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
The problem is, if we replace these morons in the UN, another group of idealistic idiots will come in. The UN is just like it's pre-dessor, it wil cause WWIII.
--
Boots
April 8th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
Think what it's based on though. A group of nations that diplomatically settle issues and try to reduce global conflict with the powers of the strongest militaries in the world. In theory this should work, but not when the security council doesn't get along.

Think about it, in it's 60 year long history, only in the korean war and gulf war 1 were participated by un security members. There's got to be a better to use force than unamimous vote, how often does that happen anyway?

If there was a clearer focus, maybe we could have averted the genocides of many countries.