| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| Reporters Without Borders suspended by UN Commission on Civil Rights |
| 2003-08-03 |
| Hat Tip: a chain of tips leading to InstaPundit The sham UN Commission, led by Libya, punishes the organization. A prime example of why the UN has lost any claim to mete out legitimacy or define morality. When Libya gained the chairmanship of the commission, it became a bad joke. Now this position has been used to throttle a group that calls a spade a spade. Sham. Mob rule describes the UN, today, no matter how desperately one may want to justify its continued relevance. Reporters Without Borders suspended for one year from UN commission on human rights The organisation publishes a report on the commission’s accelerating decline, entitled Wheeling and dealing, incompetence and "non-action," in which it recommends a radical overhaul United Nations 24 July 2003 Reporters Without Borders’s consultative status with the United Nations commission on human rights was suspended on July 24 for one year at the request of Libya and Cuba because activists with the organisation staged a protest during the inauguration of the commission’s last session in March against the decision to let Libya chair the commission. Reporters Without Borders insists that granting the chair to Col. Gaddafi’s regime has been a disgrace to the commission. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the body that took this decision, never invited Reporters Without Borders to explain its action. The failure to respect sanction procedures has been criticised by the French government, which lodged a request for a postponement of any decision to suspend the organisation. This suspension of one of the few press freedom organisations to have consultative status with ECOSOC is farce of the kind that increasingly characterizes the commission on human rights. Reporters Without Borders today publishes a report which details the excesses, shortcomings and accelerating decline of this commission, which dictatorships such as Cuba and China have taken over in order to strip it of all substance. The reports proposes a series of reforms that are essential if the commission is to be rescued : limiting the right to vote to those states that have ratified the main international human rights covenants, naming an independent human rights expert to chair the commission, and abolishing the so-called "non-action" motions that have repeatedly been used to block debates. The results of the vote on the suspension of the consultative status of Reporters without borders : In favour (27) : Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Against (23) : Andorra, Australia, Chile, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Abstentions (4) : Argentina, Ecuador, Japan, and Senegal. Read the report. Just check the list for and against to grasp the essence of why millions in the West believe the UN has been hijacked and is now an active adversary of free people everywhere. The Rogue’s Gallery of countries voting against features many repressive regimes as well as those who apparently have an active grudge against RWB for previous disclosures of their less-than-honorable behavior. I find Japan’s abstention the only obviously surprising vote. So, uh Koizumi - what’s up with that, Bro??? One thing is certain, it’s useful to have such obvious issues voted upon (and perhaps the only thing the UN is good for nowadays) as it offers you a rare view of who is who... To quote a John Huston line from 3 Days of The Condor" - "What I miss (referring to WWII) is the clarity." |
| Posted by:·com |
| #3 Wow, look at the countries against. Some of them tell us they're in this terrorism war with us, but are all against us when it comes against freedom of speech. Maybe our esteemed Dept of State can do a good job of asking those against to communicate as to why. If the answers aren't good enough, then we should reconsider our relationships with these "allies" |
| Posted by: michael 2003-8-3 10:40:58 PM |
| #2 11A5S - "the guys who rated the US and UK press as being less free..." Yeah - isn't that just precious? I couldn't pass up such a sweet piece of irony. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-3 9:42:05 PM |
| #1 I'm sure the ICC will be much fairer! Anyway, these were the guys who rated the US and UK press as being less free than France's. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-8-3 6:44:23 PM |