US rejects new UN rights proposal

Herald Sun ^ | 28 February 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

THE United States has called the proposal for a new UN Human Rights Council unacceptable and says it will vote against a draft resolution unless negotiations are reopened.

"We are very disappointed with the draft that was produced last Thursday. We don't think it's acceptable," US ambassador John Bolton told reporters today.

He said his instructions were to reopen negotiations "and to try and correct the manifold deficiencies in the text of the resolution, or alternatively to push off consideration of the resolution for several months to give us more time".

The new council would replace the discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission, where a number of rights violating nations have seats.

Mr Bolton said that if UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who drew up the compromise proposal after months of debate, put it to a vote this week, the United States would vote "no".

If Mr Eliasson wants a consensus decision, without a vote, he may delay consideration because an objection from a major nation, such as the United States, would weigh heavily.

If he calls for a vote in the General Assembly, where the United States has only one vote among 191 nations, Mr Bolton would lose.

New negotiations could result in a line-by-line parsing of the text. Supporters of the resolution, which include major human rights groups, fear this would open the door to opponents of a new council and produce a deadlock.

[Aussie Dasher]

The United Nations and human rights go together like Lard Ass Kennedy and sobriety!

[nopardons]

bttt

[SmithL]

Shhhhhhh! Don't tell Mr Eliasson that Ambassador Bolton wasn't confirmed by the entire Senate

heh heh heh

[proud_yank]

The United Nations and human rights go together like Lard Ass Kennedy and sobriety!

Or a condom at an Indigo Girls show.

[paudio]

If he calls for a vote in the General Assembly, where the United States has only one vote among 191 nations, Mr Bolton would lose.

So? Sometimes I wonder what the worst thing the UN can do to the US if the Americans don't want to follow them...

[Aussie Dasher]

I suppose expulsion is expecting too much...

[sarasmom]

If they expel US, can we expel the UN?
I say we quit with no notice, and expel them first.

[Aussie Dasher]

I don't care how it happens, so long as the US and Australia are removed from these crooks!

[snoringbear]

If we can't persuade the UN to expel us, say by eod tomorrow, then I say we quit asap! I suggest that we then form a new organization made up of like-minded countries such as Britain, Japan, Australia, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, perhaps Egypt S. Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and some others that don't come to me at the moment. We should disqualify countries such as Germany, France, Spain, most of the countries in Africa and the middle east. This new organization should have a Permanent leadership council but no permanent subcommittees. Any and all subcommittees in this new organization would be created and funded to address specific objectives, in other words project driven, and once the objective has been either achieved or considered a bad idea, then the subcmmittee/project would be dissolved and funding stopped. I suggest that we name this new organization the "Council of Like Minded Nations". I would be interested in other names though.

[Paperdoll]

>If they expel US, can we expel the UN?
I say we quit with no notice, and expel them first.<

Or even better than that, nationalize the UN taking it over completely before either disbanding it entirely or giving each country a vote according to population. (Expel China, of course). If that wouldn't work, take the building by eminent domain and evict them from the country.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

Well, if Bolton said the United States would stop making payments to the U.N., his vote could carry a lot more weight.