Iran elected to UN commission on Women's Rights.

[The Fool]

The UN became a joke the instant it decided that "inclusion" was more important than requiring its members to actually adhere to its ideals, laws, and treaties.

what???
its the UNITED ****** nations. You want another Nato or another selective alliance? Then it wouldn't be the united nations would it.

The joke is that people want a united nations, think its a good idea then whine that it shouldn't include a long list of nations they don't want included....thats the joke.

if you want an all inclusive worldwide organization.....ummmmm....you can't just cull a bunch out.

 

[The Fool]

Who said the UN was a "democraty"? I'm sorry but the rogue states shouldn't have their say.

correct....the "rogue" members in your parliament shouldn't have a say either should they.....

 

[Virus]

Saying the Iran is a rogue state (assuming youa re speaking of them) , while at the same time others (Russia for example) is given a free pass is a bit misleading. Furthermore many country would like to point out that there are some country which agressed others, tortured people, broke geneva convention, incited and supported anti democratic coup against otehr country, and are given a free pass.

About the other post above, if you make it a privilege, then there is no incencitive *at all* for many country to participate. After all why let a FOREIGN body allow you to dictate anything, if you can't even express you opinion/vote in it. So what now ? Well you run into the situation where it makes it about as irrelevant as today.

Anyway even having to show white paw to enter, afetr a period of a few years, would be much much better, than the curent situation where 6 countries are more equal than otehrs. really.

Do you think Iran has any place being on a council for women's rights?

 

[Delphinium]

Having Iran there would seem rather like setting a fox to watch a chicken coop, however they didn't get on and it appears they got the least votes. Great reporting there.

I'd say that focusing on Iran only was a mistake as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Congo won seats unopposed, when really it should be countries with some commitment towards human rights, let alone that of women.

.....In the face of opposition from the United States and human rights organizations, Iran has lost its bid for a seat on the board of a new UN agency to promote women's rights. Iran has faced criticism on the international stage for the government's treatment of women. In the most recent case to garner attention abroad, 43-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.....


....U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice was happy with the vote's outcome. "We've made no secret that Iran joining the board of UN Women would have been an inauspicious start to that board," she said, "We think it was a very good outcome today." However, rights groups expressed concern that countries including Saudi Arabia, Libya and Congo won seats on the board uncontested.
http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...an-un-board-101110/20101110/?hub=WinnipegHome

 

[Aepervius]

Do you think Iran has any place being on a council for women's rights?

If they bungle it, they have no right. If they do a great job, well yes they have a right.

You are confusing the local culture and politic, with whether they do a good job at a governing body. I would contend that by your standard, the US should not have a place in the council of human right either.

 

[Aepervius]

That is just a reflection of reality (or at least, reality as it stood in 1945). Certain countries do - like it or not - have such power that they get a veto as a reflection of it. Would you rather they apply their effective veto via deploying real world firepower or by politely saying "veto" in a meeting?

So don't call it united nation. Call it, "Might makes Right Nation". Or even "Pigs are more equal than other pigs, especially we don't like"-nation.

 

[brenn]

Remind me why the UN has credibility again?

If somebody told you the UN has credibility, you are probably hanging around with idiots. Most of us never thought so, nor did our parents and grandparents before us.

 

[armageddonman]

Yes, the UN is a joke. Tell us something we don't know.

Millions saved by UN aid programs - what a joke saving lives is.

UN decides something I don't like - what a joke democratic decisions are.

Btw. I don't like having such countries on board either but you cannot exclude countries from the UN just because they are evil regimes.

What's your alternative solution?

 

[dtugg]

Millions saved by UN aid programs - what a joke saving lives is.

You speak as if this could not be done without the UN. Bill Gates and friends will probably save millions of people and they are just rich white people.

UN decides something I don't like - what a joke democratic decisions are.

Who elected the members of the UN again?

Btw. I don't like having such countries on board either but you cannot exclude countries from the UN just because they are evil regimes.

Sure you can.

What's your alternative solution?

What gumboot suggested sounds like an excellent idea.

 

[armageddonman]

You speak as if this could not be done without the UN. Bill Gates and friends will probably save millions of people and they are just rich white people.

Good to hear that they have those plans. I guess the millions saved in the past are irrelevant then?

What would you have preferred? No UN and millions dead by Polio, Pox etc.?

Who elected the members of the UN again?

Countries are admitted through vote by the General Assembly. What exactly is the point of this question?

Sure you can.

Show me the UN regulation that says you can, please.

What gumboot suggested sounds like an excellent idea.

Do you even know what the UN are? Protip: they are not a world government and they are not a world police.

 

[dtugg]

Good to hear that they have those plans. I guess the millions saved in the past are irrelevant then?

What would you have preferred? No UN and millions dead by Polio, Pox etc.?

Again, you speak as though this couldn't/wouldn't have been done without the UN.

Countries are admitted through vote by the General Assembly. What exactly is the point of this question?

Who elected the general assembly?

Show me the UN regulation that says you can, please.

Didn't you just say that countries were admitted by vote? Surely that would mean that they could be excluded by vote. Yes I understand that counties are by convention not excluded for being evil regimes but that doesn't mean they couldn't be.

Do you even know what the UN are? Protip: they are not a world government and they are not a world police.

A joke of an organization that is growing increasingly irrelevent?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Btw. I don't like having such countries on board either but you cannot exclude countries from the UN just because they are evil regimes.

So you seriously have no issue with giving Iran responsibility for women's rights?

 

[armageddonman]

So you seriously have no issue with giving Iran responsibility for women's rights?

Of course I do but I'm not using it as a pretense to make silly comments about the UN that just show how ignorant I am about the organization in general.

Apart from that, Iran is not "responsible for women's rights". You guys obviously have no clue about what UN commissions are actually doing. If membership in this commission would give ANY country a say in women's rights, I would oppose it.

Protip 2: the UN Commission on the Status of Women could not e.g. decide (and enforce) a rule that all women worldwide would have to wear headscarfs or that rape would be legal.

If you want to know why this is the case, look up how "international laws" work.

Protip 3: "International laws" are something very different from what you normal understand about a "law. Why? Because if your government passes a law, it doesn't ask you for your opinion or for you to accept that it applies to you. Your government can also send you to jail for breaking it.

But I agree that this is a wonderful red herring to use for attacking the UN.

 

[Aepervius]

But I agree that this is a wonderful red herring to use for attacking the UN.

My experience of those attacking the UN, is that they would take anything as a ground to attack the UN, but the success are simply ignored. They are neither aware of (or intentionally ignore) , for example of UNICEF, or any other successful UN led group or action. They just limit themselves to a few ideological tidbit ("Iran is accepted in the UN, horror, horror", "some people tried to pass a motion agaisnt one of our friendly country, horror, horror" etc...). Every negative value will be inflated to the heck.

Sure the UN and UNICEF and other group have problems, but ignoring the success while pointing the finger and yelling at any small stuff, reeks of pure propaganda, remote from any realities.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What has the UN done that could not be done without the UN again?

 

[armageddonman]

What has the UN done that could not be done without the UN again?

The point is that those things have been done and not if someone else might have done them if the UN never had existed. Are you seriously tring to question the UN based on what might have happened without it?

I don't even know if there's a name for this silly argument of yours.

 

[gumboot]

what???
its the UNITED ****** nations. You want another Nato or another selective alliance? Then it wouldn't be the united nations would it.

The joke is that people want a united nations, think its a good idea then whine that it shouldn't include a long list of nations they don't want included....thats the joke.

if you want an all inclusive worldwide organization.....ummmmm....you can't just cull a bunch out.

Do you not know anything about the UN? It was a world body set up to promote a certain ideology, as laid out in the preamble to the UN Charter:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

If the UN is unwilling or incapable of even ensuring its members adhere to the most basic principles upon which it was founded, what exactly is the point of even having it?

The UN is not about "all the nations of the world united" it's about "all the nations who agree on said ideology united".

The point, and the purpose behind bringing nations into the UN is that it was thought other nations would want to be included, and therefore would improve themselves until they met the standards of the UN, thereby ensuring the spread of the UN's ideology across the globe.

Somewhere along the way the UN has forgotten what it was created to do, and a landmark opportunity to achieve something the human race has never before achieved has been lost.

Instead, by allowing nations who are polar opposites to the UN ideology to join, the reverse has happened, and it has sent a clear message to all UN members that it's fine to disregard the ideals of the UN and pay lip service to international treaties. And then you get someone like George Bush.

 

[gumboot]

Do you even know what the UN are? Protip: they are not a world government and they are not a world police.

Actually strictly speaking they are a world police force, as they have the authority, via the UNSC, for enforcing international law.

 

[gumboot]

Having Iran there would seem rather like setting a fox to watch a chicken coop, however they didn't get on and it appears they got the least votes. Great reporting there.

Actually there's nothing wrong with the reporting. Iran WAS elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. In April.

Here's the UN press release as linked in the Fox News article

I quote:

Next, the Council elected 11 new members to fill an equal number of vacancies on the Commission on the Status of Women for four-year terms beginning at the first meeting of the Commission’s fifty-sixth session in 2011 and expiring at the close of its fifty-ninth session in 2015. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe were elected from the Group of African States; Iran and Thailand were elected from the Group of Asian States; Estonia and Georgia were elected from the Group of Eastern European States; Jamaica was elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Netherlands and Spain were elected from the Group of Western European and Other States.

In July the UN decided to combine all of the various UN bodies regarding women into a single council, and it was this NEW council that Iran failed to win election to this month. That's the vote your article refers to.

In July, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to combine four UN organizations focused on women's issues into a single entity with greater authority. It has a 41-member executive board: 35 chosen based on regional representation plus six donor countries.

It's important to read articles fully before making bold statements.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The point is that those things have been done and not if someone else might have done them if the UN never had existed. Are you seriously tring to question the UN based on what might have happened without it?

I don't even know if there's a name for this silly argument of yours.

WTF is wrong with you?