US pulls out of UN Human Rights Council

[RoofGardener]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44537372

Well, the writing was on the wall. The original Commission on Human Rights was abolished back in 2006, as it was deemed both politically biased and hopelessly compromised (by having members that where themselves gross human rights violators). It had become an embarrassment to the UN, and to the Secretary General of the time. 

The current incarnation looks to be heading the same way. Its membership list is a real "basket of deplorables" when it comes to human rights. 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Like its abolished predecessor, it also has a remarkable bias against Israel. This has drawn Britains ire; http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/boris-johnson-un-human-rights-council-anti-israel-bias-palestine-468463263

How long before it too is abolished ? The USA is certainly correct in my opinion to distant itself from them, lest it be tainted by the association.

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by RoofGardener

[ellapenella]

43 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44537372

Well, the writing was on the wall. The original Commission on Human Rights was abolished back in 2006, as it was deemed both politically biased and hopelessly compromised (by having members that where themselves gross human rights violators). It had become an embarrassment to the UN, and to the Secretary General of the time. 

The current incarnation looks to be heading the same way. Its membership list is a real "basket of deplorables" when it comes to human rights. 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Like its abolished predecessor, it also has a remarkable bias against Israel. This has drawn Britains ire; http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/boris-johnson-un-human-rights-council-anti-israel-bias-palestine-468463263

How long before it too is abolished ? The USA is certainly correct in my opinion to distant itself from them, lest it be tainted by the association.

 

What do you know about the UN? Can the United States evict them? 

[aztek]

that would be the day, i'm not liking crazy traffic jams and street closures in midtown every time un has a meeting, and i'm sure majority of new yorkers feel same way. the  un building looks horrible, just a concrete block, i wish they kicked un out and demolished it.,

[RoofGardener]

31 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

What do you know about the UN? Can the United States evict them? 

Umm.... you mean the ENTIRE United Nations ? Not just the UN HRC ? 

That would be a bit... drastic. They could do it, but would lose a lot of international prestige. Brussels, Beijing and Moscow would JUMP to offer alternative accommodation.  

New York would lose a LOT of money as well. Just think of all those foreign UN staffers occupying hotels etc. 

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.... you mean the ENTIRE United Nations ? Not just the UN HRC ? 

That would be a bit... drastic. They could do it, but would lose a lot of international prestige. Brussels, Beijing and Moscow would JUMP to offer alternative accommodation.  

New York would lose a LOT of money as well. Just think of all those foreign UN staffers occupying hotels etc. 

pi$$ in a sea compared to millions of tourists, we wont lose anything.

[ellapenella]

40 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.... you mean the ENTIRE United Nations ? Not just the UN HRC ? 

 

Correct.

I was inquiring some information in regards to this. I don't understand it fully.do you?

Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations and not the U.S. government. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police, fire protection and other services, the United Nations agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

Quote

Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations.

Historically, this primarily applied to individuals, as jurisdiction was usually claimed on peoples rather than on lands.^[1] Extraterritoriality can also be applied to physical places, such as foreign embassies, military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations. The three most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign heads of state, the persons and belongings of ambassadors and other diplomats, and ships in international waters.

I was not aware that they  do not  have to acknowledge  all of our laws, is it a culture thing? An ideology thing? Something is very wrong with the UN. 

 

[ellapenella]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

that would be the day, i'm not liking crazy traffic jams and street closures in midtown every time un has a meeting, and i'm sure majority of new yorkers feel same way. the  un building looks horrible, just a concrete block, i wish they kicked un out and demolished it.,

I don't see how it will ever be reformed . Not everyone accepts the same  things  as humane  that others may practice within their culture. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Ellapennella

[aztek]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

I was not aware that they  do not  have to acknowledge  all of our laws, is it a culture thing? An ideology thing? Something is very wrong with the UN. 

 

they sure do not give two shts about parking and traffic rules,  they used to be immune to them, until Bloomberg decided enough is enough and started towing councils cars, (one good thing he did) still can't arrested them even if they kill someone in broad daylight in front of dozens of cameras.

[aztek]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

I don't see how it will ever be reformed . Not everyone accepts the same  things  as humane  that others may practice within their culture. 

i was talking about physical building and mess associated with their assemblies

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.... you mean the ENTIRE United Nations ? Not just the UN HRC ? 

That would be a bit... drastic. They could do it, but would lose a lot of international prestige. Brussels, Beijing and Moscow would JUMP to offer alternative accommodation.  

New York would lose a LOT of money as well. Just think of all those foreign UN staffers occupying hotels etc. 

Given the current political climate, this is actually quite possible.  Especially if they continue to criticize someone who has a history of picking up his toys and walking away when he gets mad.

[ellapenella]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

i was talking about physical building and mess associated with their assemblies

I know and I agree for it to be gone too. I agree because I don't ever see it ever reforming, how could it? Some don't even have to acknowledge American laws. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Ellapennella

[aztek]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

I know and I agree for it to be gone too. I agree because I don't ever see it ever reforming, how could it? Some don't even have to acknowledge American laws. 

of course it wont reform, the whole idea is they are above all laws

Edited June 20, 2018 by aztek

[The Narcisse]

I love it when pots call kettles black!

[ellapenella]

13 minutes ago, aztek said:

of course it wont reform, the whole idea is they are above all laws

That's pretty serious. So they uphold international law over  America 's laws ? 

[ellapenella]

15 minutes ago, The Narcisse said:

I love it when pots call kettles black!

So you love calling foul on our Nation when our people are  doing the right thing?  

[RoofGardener]

Weeeeelll.... I'm guessing from  your comments, that the UN building operates as a sort of Embassy when it comes to laws and extra-territoriality ? 

The thing is... President Trump doesn't need to do anything THAT drastic; he could just refuse to pay them any money ? (I believe a significant proportion of the UN budget is provided by the USA ? )

I doubt he would go that far though, other than as a tactical threat. The USA does get various "soft power" benefits from hosting the UN. 

The UN HRC is another kettle of fish entirely, however. 

[Gromdor]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeeeelll.... I'm guessing from  your comments, that the UN building operates as a sort of Embassy when it comes to laws and extra-territoriality ? 

The thing is... President Trump doesn't need to do anything THAT drastic; he could just refuse to pay them any money ? (I believe a significant proportion of the UN budget is provided by the USA ? )

I doubt he would go that far though, other than as a tactical threat. The USA does get various "soft power" benefits from hosting the UN. 

The UN HRC is another kettle of fish entirely, however. 

You are correct.  The UN building operates as a sort of embassy when it comes to laws and extra-territoriality.  

[Setton]

On 20/06/2018 at 4:04 PM, Ellapennella said:

I was not aware that they  do not  have to acknowledge  all of our laws, is it a culture thing? An ideology thing? Something is very wrong with the UN. 

About as wrong as literally any embassy on the planet. 

And if course they hold international law above American law. They are not an American organisation nor do they reside on American soil. 

Seriously, you need to go and do a lot of reading. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Setton

[Uncle Sam]

On 6/20/2018 at 8:00 AM, RoofGardener said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44537372

Well, the writing was on the wall. The original Commission on Human Rights was abolished back in 2006, as it was deemed both politically biased and hopelessly compromised (by having members that where themselves gross human rights violators). It had become an embarrassment to the UN, and to the Secretary General of the time. 

The current incarnation looks to be heading the same way. Its membership list is a real "basket of deplorables" when it comes to human rights. 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Like its abolished predecessor, it also has a remarkable bias against Israel. This has drawn Britains ire; http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/boris-johnson-un-human-rights-council-anti-israel-bias-palestine-468463263

How long before it too is abolished ? The USA is certainly correct in my opinion to distant itself from them, lest it be tainted by the association.

 

Doesn't surprise me. Since 2000 till now, UN has been extremely bias in who they condemn or praise. It has been rather pathetic that they allowed human rights violators on the council. They are about as useful as a wet paper bag... the idea is great, but it just falls through due to members not willing to support it.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Uncle Sam

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

Doesn't surprise me. Since 2000 till now, UN has been extremely bias in who they condemn or praise. It has been rather pathetic that they allowed human rights violators on the council. They are about as useful as a wet paper bag... the idea is great, but it just falls through due to members not willing to support it.

I can see their dillemma Uncle Sam... if they "crack down", then the countries involved will disengage. I guess the hope is that - by getting them involved in a committee - it might encourage them to change their ways. 

I don't think it has worked. It's like the "softly gently" approach to North Korea, or Iran. 

There is a time for negotiation and compromise. But sometimes, you have to stand up to bullies, decide what you believe in, and bring the hammer down. At the very least, we shouldn't be complicit in a sham. My Grandparents where alive when the UK tried that in Munich. It didn't work out terribly well, and both they - and my parents - had to live through the consequences.   

Edited June 21, 2018 by RoofGardener