U.S. says won't seek seat on U.N. rights council

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. says won't seek seat on U.N. rights council
Tue Mar 6, 2007 2:40PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it would not seek a seat on the new U.N. Human Rights Council, saying it was not a "credible" body.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would retain its observer status on the 47-member council, created last year over objections from the United States that rules were not strong enough to prevent rights violators from getting a seat.

"We believe that the Human Rights Council has thus far not proved itself to be a credible body in the mission that it has been charged with," McCormack told reporters. "Our decision is that we do not plan to run (for a seat)."

The announcement came on the day that the State Department issued its 2006 report on human rights worldwide.
(snip/...)

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0640887120070306

[mikelgb]

1. pot ket......... it's no use

[gratuitous]

2. The Council's credibility was just enhanced

Because no Bush appointee will be serving on it. Sort of like how the aggregate IQ of a room goes up whenever W leaves it.

[Solly Mack]

3. the rules seem to be strong enough to keep at least one human rights

violator from even trying to get a seat

just saying

[MountainLaurel]

4. Yep

They knew the backlash they'd see if they dared step a foot inside that meeting chamber.

[Miss Chybil]

5. Guess they don't want to get embarrassed in public.

Not like they're not already shameful, or anything.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. the new U.N. Human Rights Council, not a "credible" body

Sadly, a true statement.

[Nihil]

7. Oh I don't know ... it seems to be starting out ok ...

> State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would
> retain its observer status on the 47-member council, created last year
> over objections from the United States that rules were not strong enough
> to prevent rights violators from getting a seat.
>
> "We believe that the Human Rights Council has thus far not proved itself
> to be a credible body in the mission that it has been charged with,"
> McCormack told reporters. "Our decision is that we do not plan to run
> (for a seat)."

Sounds like the rules are *just* strong enough to keep out a major
human rights offender.

Wonder who else will "voluntarily abstain"?
China? Iran? Algeria? Zimbabwe?

[Behind the Aegis]

8. It is as biased and warped as the body it replaced.

It isn't a matter of who sits out. Cheer all you want that the US is stepping out, it doesn't change the fact that it is an overly biased, bordering on bigoted, international body. However, it is not at all surprising that so few are actually getting the point.

[Nihil]

9. Nor is it surprising who is complaining of "bias" ... (n/t)

:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Nor, those ignoring it.

[carla]

14. Facts, please?

Otherwise it sounds only like your opinion. Human rights are an issue that should be decided by the world, ie; all the countries, all the people...not just "pseudo-enlightened" Western governments and organizations. Remember it is HUMAN rights, not governmental rights..."biased, bigoted"?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Their record is the "proof."

They only focus on a few issues, all the while, ignoring other issues, even some that are monumental. A simple search will provide that for you.

[HuffleClaw]

11. the TRUTH is they know they wouldn't win a vote to get on the council

sour grapes

[truthisfreedom]

12. "I wouldn't join any club that wouldn't have me as a member."

gwbush and co are mafiosos. That's why they break every law on the books, have kill-diaries (not just enemy lists like Nixon), and will never do anything kind, good, or right.

[TomClash]

13. Are we really morally entitled to make this judgment? nt

[Vidar]

16. The body which is not credible on this issue is the United States.