Slashdot Mirror

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

please tell me your objections to the imposing of these beliefs anywhere, and why you think there should be an area of the world where slavery should exist, for example, or people should be forced into marriage

you can't impose something that is universally recognized as your right

if, for example, you dismantled a government that egregiously abuses rights, that's not an imposition of anything, that's a liberation

how can i impose on you something you already agree is your right? couild you explain that to me?

the only thing that can be "imposed" is the removal of those who abuse your rights

and of course the group that is doing the abusing will kick and scream bloody murder and oppose their dismantling with great anger

but it would pretty silly to side with the "rights" of the government that abuses its citizens, and not the citizens themselves

right?

please educate me on what i don't understand here

I already do all of the above and more.

Great. Go get a cookie.

Iran is a tangible enemy because they have threatened direct military action:

Threaten me with violence, you won't have to wait until there is direct action before I treat you like an enemy. You talk about diplomacy, yet the country you seem to love shuns diplomacy at every turn. Iran continuously subverts international law and order. How about this UN directive, passed over a year ago, yet still ignored by Iran:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc. htm

This would be true if we had ever formally declared war on them. We are not at war with them, never have been.

Hahaha. Man, oh, man. I personally lost two family members in the Korean war, so its hard for me to take your statement that we have never been at war seriously.

http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=7

The percentage of urban population in the USA is _higher_ than Germany or Japan. So there goes that theory.

Saddam still wasn't cooperating with the UN after Bush took over.

The official reports of the UN inspectors do not appear to agree with that statement.

No, the UN inspectors had already been in and had found that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it", and they issued this 175-page Unresolved Disarmament Issues Report in March 2003.

No, the UN inspectors had already been in and had found that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it", and they issued this 175-page Unresolved Disarmament Issues Report in March 2003.

We didn't claim to invade for weapons he had in the 1980s

Please, stop trying to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.

Form to UN

Please write your comments here :
(maximum of 30 words) :

ADODB.Connection.1 error '80004005'

SQLState: 01000
Native Error Code: 3621
SQLState: 22001
Native Error Code: 8152
[MERANT][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]String or binary data would be truncated.
[MERANT][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The statement has been terminated.

/forms/feedback/english.asp, line 90

Yes, they may have a right to claim the territory according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.

This is actually the start of a new landgrab (or should I say seagrab) made possible because of a change in international law. I think most nations around the north pole are investigating the geology these years to see if they can make claims. Russia is just the first nation to actually try to claim territory according to the new rules. Such claims have to be made no later than 10 years after ratifying the treaty, and Russia ratified in 1997, so they have to make the claim this year, or they will have lost the right to claim the territory.

My own country is also investigating the territory north of Greenland to see if we can claim territory. We may also claim the north pole (pdf in danish, with a map on page three showing the territories we may want to claim). We are planning to make claims before 2014 (we ratified in 2004), but the russian claims may accelerate our claims.

The neighbors, overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic, were at first suspicious of a passel of Anglo kids in hippie clothes. But as they saw the Bowery Houston Community Farm Garden take shape, local teens pitched in. Within a few months, they were taking home armloads of tomatoes and cucumbers.

[...]

At the height of the movement, in the late 1980s, the city hosted more than 800 of the homegrown gardens. A survey by Green Thumb found the gardeners were growing over $1 million worth of produce each year.

The answer is simply that those big-farm advantages are always calculated on the basis of how much of one crop the land will yield per acre. The greater productivity of a smaller, more complex farm, however, is calculated on the basis of how much food overall is produced per acre. The smaller farm can grow several crops utilizing different root depths, plant heights, or nutrients on the same piece of land simultaneously. It is this "polyculture" that offers the small farm's productivity advantage.

The United Nations was formed to regulate business? That's news to them!

Also, advocating the slaughter of millions of human beings to support your worldview certainly illustrates what kind of worldview you hold.

It mentions foreign travelers inbound to the US, not US citizens outbound elsewhere. US Citizens travelling abroad (or internally, or etc) are obviously not affected by this. Also, it's not as if we'd be the first to implement such a plan in either case.

Oh! Foreigners! Well, that's all right, then!

I guess we won't be needing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then. Silly thing says all humans are created equal. And Article 13, the part about freedom of movement, is clearly a quaint antique, a relic of a bygone era when Americans actually cared about others.

Also, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that American laws are the moral optimum ?

Filtering IP addresses is hardly the cutting edge of technology. Which companies are you referring to?

He's probably referring to Cisco and such. What, do you think the Chinese gov't designed and built their network and censor infrastructure themselves? Of course not, they had US companies who value dollars over human rights (specifically Article 19) to build it for them.

Can you please cite any policy from ANY company ANYWHERE that says "baby-fucking is ok since it increases shareholder value"?

When you take someone's point and extend it by "lets just go all the way and see" you've basically lost the arguement

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

It's hard to say... international programs like this are generally rife with corrupt (can we say "oil-for-food"?).

It's funny that you mention "oil-for-food" scandal, which involved top to bottom corruption at the UN. Now who, again, will administer a international carbon credits program?

Here's a particularly disgusting one: "carbon financing will be used to fight poverty," the wealth transfer policy is the environmental policy -- like all carbon trading schemes are, just this one is more upfront about it.

"My religion requires, as a sacrament, the mocking of prophets. We deem the very idea of a human prophet to be blasphemous to God. The same for so called "holy" books, and "holy" men."

You are free to practice whatever you wish. Mocking other peoples religion will get you into trouble with those whom you mock. For example if you were to follow an african american around call them "nigger". You more than likely are going to invoke some kind of reaction. A reaction that YOU provoked. We are not just living in YOUR world.

"So, I assume you support my right to practice my religion, as my basic human right, correct?"

Absolutely. But if your religion is based on verbally/artisticly attacking other individuals YOU are the initator of the conflict and you will have to deal with the repercussions

"So if I put a bumper sticker on my car with a picture of the prophet of your religion being made fun of in some way, you'd be fully supportive of me, right?"

I would be supportive of your freedom of expression, however once again you are initiating confrontation, and ridiculing others because of there belief. Once again it is not just YOUR world.

"Or if, maybe, I dunno, some Danish guy made some cartoons or something...?"

Political Cartoons have been around for a long time, however the difference here is that this political cartoon involves a religious figure. This in effect wasn't a politcal commentary, but one on a specific religious group.
That evoked a response from that group.

I completely understand the point you are trying to make however it is important to realize that you are blurring lines of free speech and freedom of religion to include free speech that invokes ridicule on ones freedom of religion by protection of your own freedom of religion. A completely ridiculous example, and unrealistic to site. but I played along anyway.

Now as to those basic human rights everyone deserves those are easy.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Its definitely a good read. And as you go down the list ask if they apply to the Palestinians. You'll find that they don't have very few of them.

That'd be Article 25. Time you read it:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Wow, and you didn't even mean that ironically. There's your poster-child for American arrogance right there.

There is no need for any part of the U.S. constitution to be applied to citizens of the world when we've had a perfectly good Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 1948. Article 19 reads:

That's pretty unambiguous. Unfortunately, like most things the U.N. does, it's toothless and not taken very seriously even by its member nations. But it's still a visible, noble standard for any nation with a conscience to hold itself to.

Personally I think Saddam was a horrible dictator, but that for all his evil ways he had been pretty much neutralized in 2001 from the international point of view. His worst deeds, again from the international PoV was to encourage Palestinian terrorism by offerring rewards to families of suicide bombers.

Actually Saddm was a bigger threat then anyone wants to admit. To this date there are hundreds of tons of sarin and VX nerve gas missing. Some have been found but vast quantities are gone. Here is a clip from the abstract to the of the report giving to the UN security counsol by the UNMOVIC qich over saw he inspections They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The few rockets were Chemical warhead rockets that Iraq until this discovery claimed had been destroyed and were found in a bunker built after the gulf war in the early 90's.

Now what is to say non of those chemical agents or missiles made it out of the country and what is to say none of them didn't arrive in other terrorists hands? And I wouldn't say that we knew because we were watching, there were several countries and companies who were getting oil out and bring weapons and such into Iraq against the UN sanctions. And these countries were high level members of the security council. The inspection reports from june 5th 2003 says While we are all aware of the large amounts of proscribed items, which still remain unaccounted for, we should perhaps take note of the fact that for many years neither UNSCOM nor UNMOVIC made significant finds of weapons. The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities or else because they were effectively concealed by them. and we have the Iraqi general and the Russian spy who says they were carted off to other countries.

Saddam hadn't been neutralized at all, from an international point of view or we wouldn't have still had inspectors looking for the weapons that didn't exist and we wouldn't have been finding them.

Now in Iraqi affairs he was just as horrible as ever, but my opinion on this is that the American approach has pretty much made things as bad as they could. The international community should have supported an internal resistance movement rather than invading. Democracy and peace is not something you can impose easily.

Things in Iraq haven't gone very well lately. But this wasn't always the case in relative terms. In the beginning of post war Iraq is was slow moving but progress was being made. Then when it start looking good, we had Al Qeada start influencing things as well as some factions of the internal resistance getting funding and orders from Iran and Syria. Maybe not from the governments themselves but we do know for certain that Ex-Iraqi military and political officers are residing in those countries who are financing and supplying arms to post war insurrections. What you have is differing factions of Iraq being fed by outside influences and the idea of them fighting in the first place is being sparked by terrorist.

Politicians on the left relegate this down to a civil war. This is only true in the essence that an outside force can incite a portion of the people to cause the civil war. I don't think this is a valid civil war or do I think these fights cannot be solved by peaceful means. This is part of the confusion surounding Iraq that is being fueled by the political left. All the American troop have to do over there is stop the violence long enough to bring the two sides together to negotiate terms they both can be happy with. It isn't enforcing democracy or anything of the sort. Iraq could change to a popularly elected dictatorship tomorrow if they wanted, the Idea of democracy was to make sure that if th

Unfortunately the confusion comes from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Jurors asked for a definition of WMD'S and the judge instructed them that airplanes used as missiles are considered weapons of mass destruction. This obviously flies in the face of more traditional definitions which excluded conventional explosives unless they were used to dissipate chemical, biological or radiological agents. I think that people would be best served by using the more realistic UN or Office of Technological Assessment definitions instead.

Stop applying our standards to those in the rest of the world.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.

I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.

Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.

To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.

No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces.

I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force:

10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq...so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;

I can't speak to you personally, but supporters of your position refer to them as "multinational" forces because of the propaganda effect - it gives the US actions the appearance of world support and international legitimacy. What is the standard for "multinational"? Does one representative from any other government satisfy this word or does it actually require the active involvement and cooperation of multiple nations?

Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.

But you already won.

I tend to agree with people like Amir Taheri and the book by Ali Allawi that I am currently reading, that the war has been won, and now we need to "preserve" the victory.

I really can't figure out if you guys are being intentionally disingenuous about these claims linked back to the Deulfer report or if you really just don't get it.

Disingenuous, huh? I think it is disingenuous to ignore these facts:

• Resolution 687 "decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; "
• There were a dozen other security council resolutions between 1992-2002 deploring Iraq's lack of compliance and subterfuge regarding this disarmament
• Resolution 1441, which recalled that the cease-fire was "based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions" in 687, declares that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach" of that resolution
• Hans Blix come before the Security Council 2 months after 1441 was passed and stated that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it"
• UNMOVIC released a

Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.

I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.

Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.

To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.

No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces.

I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force:

10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq...so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;

I can't speak to you personally, but supporters of your position refer to them as "multinational" forces because of the propaganda effect - it gives the US actions the appearance of world support and international legitimacy. What is the standard for "multinational"? Does one representative from any other government satisfy this word or does it actually require the active involvement and cooperation of multiple nations?

Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.

But you already won.

I tend to agree with people like Amir Taheri and the book by Ali Allawi that I am currently reading, that the war has been won, and now we need to "preserve" the victory.

I really can't figure out if you guys are being intentionally disingenuous about these claims linked back to the Deulfer report or if you really just don't get it.

Disingenuous, huh? I think it is disingenuous to ignore these facts:

• Resolution 687 "decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; "
• There were a dozen other security council resolutions between 1992-2002 deploring Iraq's lack of compliance and subterfuge regarding this disarmament
• Resolution 1441, which recalled that the cease-fire was "based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions" in 687, declares that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach" of that resolution
• Hans Blix come before the Security Council 2 months after 1441 was passed and stated that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it"
• UNMOVIC released a

The question you quoted was of course asked in a sarcastic manner, but the point itself was quite valid and absolutely not a straw-man. You want the US invasion of Iraq to be justified because of stock language in a resolution passed nearly 17 years ago - a resolution that authorized force to put Saddam back into Iraq and that was no longer applicable thanks to a cease-fire in Resolution 687.

This is not some crackpot theory that I came up with in isolation. This is the official stance of many governments and institutions across the world. Resolution 678 clearly authorizes the use of force to enforce 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area. Then the Security Council came along with Resolution 687, which is subsequent and explicitly relevant to 678 (in paragraph 1), that clearly defines what Iraq must do to restore international peace and security. After 12 years, Iraq was in violation of this mandate, and with that the basis for the cease-fire was destroyed.

What is the appropriate window of opportunity for the new government to meet this standard before the UN must again take military action?

I can't believe that you don't see the straw-man here. The UN has already authorized the presence of the multinational force in Iraq because of this standard.

I also note that you love to use "multinational" to describe the US forces.

It fascinates me that you seem so intent on these types of semantic games. I refer to it as the "multinational force" because that is what both the Security Council (in 1546) and the Iraqi government call it. I guess I can't stop you if you want to read more into it than that.

What can happen is much different than what would happen.

The Security Council has made it clear that our presence there is "essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq". This is based on their recognition of what would most likely happen if troops were withdrawn prematurely.

There is a chance that the legitimate government would not allow the US to occupy the country as they can do now.

Your language is betraying you. The current government is legitimate in every sense of the word, and was installed by over 12 million Iraqis in a popular vote.

No, the US has not made it clear that they have no long term ambitions there. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. The US has taken over many of Saddam's former palaces and continue to occupy them. The US refuses to set any time line for withdrawal or even define objective milestones

The Bush Administrations refusal to agree to an artificial timetable is based on the hard realities of warfare rather than the political ambitions of President Bush's opponents. How would an artificial timetable bring us any closer to a victory in Iraq? Answer- it wouldn't. In fact, it pretty much guarantees defeat. An artificial timetable makes it a lot less likely that the key parties and neighboring states will try to support or sustain the elected government, which will result in the government collapsing.

We are in Iraq with the most heavily armored, best equipped, and best trained military that has ever existed. We are not going to lose militarily unless we give up. The real battle has always been right here in the United States, and I am sad to say that we are losing on that front. How are the Iraqi people to take any promise of continued support by the Americans seriously when the Senate Majority leader is on TV claiming that war is already "lost" while he sponsors legislation to force us to leave?

Any chance that you have links to support this or could refer me to specific sections of the Deulfer report? I've seen zero support for any of your claims (harboring dozens of terrorist organi

On item (2), I guess some other UN country will need to invade again and kick the US out, unless you are willing to claim that international peace and security to the area has improved. Surely that's not a limb you're willing to crawl out on.

The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).

And, while I said I wouldn't repeat myself, I feel I must again point out the fallacy in your overall argument here. Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire and reserved the right for the Security Council to take further measures as necessary. Therefore, 660, 678, and 687 are pointless in this argument. Further, Resolution 1441 does not authorize force.

That is an accurate summary of how opponents of the invasion interpret the relevant international law. Suffice it to say that not only do I disagree with that interpretation, but so do the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, former Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, and the governments of countries like the UK, Australia, Japan, and Italy (to name a few). When it comes to matters of international law, there is no final arbiter on how the laws are interpreted (like the Supreme Court does for domestic law). I hope you can appreciate this.

More recently, the '98 bombings by the US and UK were roundly condemned in the international community.

I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.

And, it is worth noting that the US didn't use 660, 678, or 687 to justify those attacks. This was about the no-fly zones that were setup from the Safwan Accords and often linked to Resolution 688.

This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:

Following Iraq's repeated, flagrant and material breaches of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1154 (1998), 1194 (1998), 1205 (1998) and others, in addition to its failure to fulfil its own commitments, the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for Member States to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area. Any Iraqi attempt to attack coalition forces or to initiate aggressive action against a neighbouring State will be met with a swift response by the coalition.

The reasoning he gave here should sound a little familiar by now, and it had nothing to do with the no-fly zones.

Then why weren't those facts used to support the war?

Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability,

Very good point

Check http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Where to begin??? Guantánamo Bay

USA is in violation of (at least):
Article 7.
            All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
            Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
            No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
            Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Good points. And, I must correct an earlier post. I did a search and forcibly displacing a peoples IS indeed a crime against humanity. This link explains what are considered to be crimes against humanity. It also explains the difference between "genocide" and "displacement".

Now, what does that mean for Kosovo? In the UN's defense, they have set up the UNMIK to help administer the region. They even set up a court system that is staffed by international judges. One of the goals in using international judges is to try an limit the claims of ethnic bias.

Will that resolve the issues? Will that make all Serbians happy given their claims against the Albanians? Probably not. But, at least the UN is trying to do something about it. It isn't a perfect solution, but it's better than NOT doing anything. The UN will be in Kosovo for years, hopefully, they will bring justice when justice is required.

Not widely published? Did you ever actually search on the subject? I count 31 references in the Wikipedia article alone. I imagine a Google search would pull up thousands of articles.

Not to disrespect your family, but I will not accept "My brother's term paper" as a valid source for the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Maybe we could all start by reading some of the references in the Wikipedia article I linked to above. On top of that, considering that international law is such a convoluted subject, it's a miracle the Milosevic was ever extradited.

As for your worries about the Serbs and the Kosovo problems, now maybe the Serbians will understand what happened when their proxies (the Bosnian Serbs) performed "ethnic cleansing" on Bosnian Muslims. In other words, the Serbs ended up receiving the same treatment they had been giving everyone else in the Balkans.

If the Serbs want respect, maybe they should have been respectful of others.

If you read this(and it is filled with diplomatic language), you will see that the UN Security Council is at least trying to say something. Considering how slow diplomacy is, this might be the strongest language you will see on the subject. Also, the UN has this organization involved. The African Union is also at least attempting to do something. I think ALL of these organizations need to do more, but exactly what and how much more, I can't say. Nation-building is a treacherous exercise (just ask George W. Bush).

The genocide itself and the war crimes prosecution are two seperate things. It wasn't the UN that failed Rwanda in 1994, it was the whole world, especially those nations who could help but didn't. Both the UN and the US have apologized for their inaction.

As for fighting aids, I believe UNAIDS does what it can against gag rules (hello USA) and other religious insanity holding them back.

Find me a warzone or refugee camp where abuse doesn't happen. If it invalidates a whole organization and campaign, the US should've been out of Iraq a long time ago due to what american soldiers have done. Both the UN and the US deal with their rotten apples.

Hmm, starve to death or risk getting shot at by a warlord now and then? It wouldn't be a tough choice even if it was as common as you make it sound.

It doesn't matter what you think, the UN peace keepign missions are going along as nicely as can be expected for such work. If you disagree, who else is doing a better job? Who can take over?

Like I wrote, The Oil For Food Program didn't fail. It provided Iraqis with food exceptionally well. As for the smuggling, the UN didn't have the resources or the authority to stop it. That job fell squarely on the nations upholding the embargo - the US and the UK. They did nothing about UN warnings about corruption and smuggling, which began years before the OFFP. The indenpendent inquiry comittee invesigating the matter has said so in their final reports. Maybe you should try reading them.

Blind UN bashing is a joke. Putting Syria on the human rights council is also a joke, but so is the self-righteous criticism from the nation running the Guantanamo camp. Who can do it better? Who has a viable alternative? Noone, only a lot of political whining.

Note/Disclaimer: This post should not be interpreted as a defense of the UN, as I, too, am ignorant of most operations of the UN. I wrote this post solely to refute the parent.

I think the U.N. is one of the worst things to happen because it has no requirements that the member nations have decency.

Charter of the United Nations (See Art. 2, 5, and 6), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Your argument has potential, but you completely ignore the social and political environment that created the United Nations in 1945. Note in particular that it was created to maintain peace and promote a humanitarian agenda. From the Preamble of the UN charter:

• 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,

Note the focus on peace, human rights, and freedom, and that in no place is governmental structure actually mentioned. One may ask, "Why is this so?" Another may answer, "Because to force your method of governance on another is tantamount to cultural imperialism." Some peoples of this world need and/or want a totalitarian government (e.g. Venezuela), why should we judge them for that? That said, one of the tenants of the Universal Declaration of Human rights promotes democracy and self-determination. However, the declaration itself serves as a "standard of achievement", not formal UN policy:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

As far as Sudan, et. al. are concerned: the UN recently replaced the Commission on Human Rights with a new body, the Human Rights Council. Neither Sudan nor Syria have been granted access to the council, due to their disrespect of human rights.

In a related note, the 'powers that be' of the UN (i.e. the Security Council) have a great deal of control over the policies and agenda of the organization as a whole. Many of those nations see the UN as a means to further their intergovernmental powers rather than as an independent supranational government. Thus, they are constantly brokering for power, in vain of the stated mission of the UN. When one considers this state of affairs, it becomes apparent why the UN does "so little" for the world--the member states are too busy bickering.

The role of the UN as an intergovernmental or supranational body is well beyond the scope of this post. However, if you insist on vilifying the United Nations, at least understand the underlying issues it faces.

Note/Disclaimer: This post should not be interpreted as a defense of the UN, as I, too, am ignorant of most operations of the UN. I wrote this post solely to refute the parent.

I think the U.N. is one of the worst things to happen because it has no requirements that the member nations have decency.

Charter of the United Nations (See Art. 2, 5, and 6), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Your argument has potential, but you completely ignore the social and political environment that created the United Nations in 1945. Note in particular that it was created to maintain peace and promote a humanitarian agenda. From the Preamble of the UN charter:

• 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,

Note the focus on peace, human rights, and freedom, and that in no place is governmental structure actually mentioned. One may ask, "Why is this so?" Another may answer, "Because to force your method of governance on another is tantamount to cultural imperialism." Some peoples of this world need and/or want a totalitarian government (e.g. Venezuela), why should we judge them for that? That said, one of the tenants of the Universal Declaration of Human rights promotes democracy and self-determination. However, the declaration itself serves as a "standard of achievement", not formal UN policy:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

As far as Sudan, et. al. are concerned: the UN recently replaced the Commission on Human Rights with a new body, the Human Rights Council. Neither Sudan nor Syria have been granted access to the council, due to their disrespect of human rights.

In a related note, the 'powers that be' of the UN (i.e. the Security Council) have a great deal of control over the policies and agenda of the organization as a whole. Many of those nations see the UN as a means to further their intergovernmental powers rather than as an independent supranational government. Thus, they are constantly brokering for power, in vain of the stated mission of the UN. When one considers this state of affairs, it becomes apparent why the UN does "so little" for the world--the member states are too busy bickering.

The role of the UN as an intergovernmental or supranational body is well beyond the scope of this post. However, if you insist on vilifying the United Nations, at least understand the underlying issues it faces.

You can find a list of UN achievements here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm The UN is not perfect by any means but its achievements are not small. For those interested in the UN commentaries such as this one http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3417 will be more credible than the kind of wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth guff that is all too often heard from people 1. without passports 2. who have never traveled in the developing world 3. who left school early 4. who believe the UN is a cover for the "illuminati" and who subscribe to other paranoid, millenialist nonsense (world govt. conspiracy theories etc.) 5. who come from countries that think they can dispense with the rule of international law 6. who have ludicrous fantasies about the cost of the UN compared with the cost of war or who have fantasies about their own nation's generosity In terms of per capita contributions to international development the US is the meanest rich country in the world, by a large margin. You should be aware that Iraq was sucessfully disarmed by the UN and that it was completely unnecessary for the United States govt to lie to the American people about links with Al Qaeda, about weapons of mass destruction and to invade that country. As has been pointed out, your attack on the UN has nothing to do with scientific question of whether climate change is real or not. Have you considered flaming the US Supreme Court? Either way, your style is unattractive, even though I agree with the proposition that climate change presents a challenge and opportunity for social justice. We all have to live with the consequences of deforestation, conflict and competition for resources.

Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years.

I could quote areas where UN has suceeded (as I said, the UN works with more than peacekeeping issues), but it would just divert the issue and attract anti-UN trolls. Let me come up with a counter example: the UN is not the only player who has failed in the countries you mentioned. So has NATO, the US, the African Union, the EU... Should we discredit everything these agencies say? No, because they work with many other things too. The people working on the peacekeeping missions are NOT the same people working with The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. So again, what you are doing is ad-hominem.

Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur.

Or that if we burn things that emit greenhouse gasses, the planet gets warmer...

Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion

Oh, the Ozone "hole" is still there, it is just not mentioned often in the media these days. Ozone depletion didn't turn out quite as bad as some people warmed, BECAUSE WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Even some politicans, like Margaret Thatcher (who has a Chemistry degree from Oxford University), realised the dangers and helped drive through the Montrol agreement which caused a gradual reduction of manmade ozone destroying gases. The thinning is still there, but it is finally stabilizing and may slowly heal over decades. If you think the ozone whole was a myth, ask people in Australia about increased rates of skin cancer the last decades.

, global cooling

Myth, it was the popular press talking about it for a while, you did not have anything near the scientific conscencus we have on global warming today.

Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.

No, it is not.

Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?

Why is it such a far fetched idea that gases that trap heat locally (a process known to science since the 19th centruy), if released in sufficient quantities globally might have the same effect globally?

Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. They are not the people presenting the data, it is scientists.

and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)

Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process.

Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).

I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.

Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.

More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.

Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how

i'm a radical humanist

for me, the UN charter is as important as the bible or the quran is to a religious fundamentalist

my religion is the love of humanity, the good, the bad, and the ugly. i have great faith in my fellow man

mankind is god to me, my god is my fellow man

my creed is the strivings and yearnings of civilization, it's goals and ideals for itself

what man has wrought on this earth, in glory, and in shame, is my concern. what he makes of his future is my obsession

my greatest enemy are cynics and nihilists, those who have lost faith in mankind. those who see what man has wrought and only seen the misery, and none of the progress

join me. love humanity for what it is, and what it can be if more believe in humanity's history and it's future

let us defeat blind nationalists, religious fascists (including the empty radical atheists, by the way), and cynical nihilists

these three classes of belief (or lack thereof, in the case of cynics and nihilists) are our stumbling blocks as humanity

While I think the management of the war in Iraq has been pretty poor...I think we pretty much had full UN authority to go into Iraq...due to resolutions like this .

Our 'knock' on the their door was the Serious Consequence mentioned in this and other resolutions.

Not to mention, that Saddam never fully complied with the terms of surrender from Gulf War I...so, technically, we were still at war with him.

I think this has been totally mismanaged, but, not unjustified...if he'd have complied fully, he's still be breathing and torturing people in Iraq to this day.

It took me a while to find it again: here is the link

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8 525607d00581829/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309!O penDocument

A quote from the article:

  The reports of the two Sub-Committees were presented to the Ad Hoc Committee on 24 November 1947 in a highly charged atmosphere. The report of Sub-Committee 2 (voted on before the report of Sub-Committee 1) detailed the arguments for a unified Palestine, addressing the legal question of the competence of the United Nations to partition the country:

"A study of Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter leaves no room for doubt that ... neither the General Assembly nor any other organ of the United Nations is competent to entertain, still less to recommend or enforce, any solution with regard to a mandated territory ...

"... the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine ...

"To sum up, the dissolution of the League of Nations, and the consequent removal of the legal basis for the Mandate, and the more recent declarations by the Mandatory of its intention to withdraw from Palestine, open the way for the establishment of an independent government in Palestine by the people of the country, without the intervention either of the United Nations or of any other party ...

"The above conclusion is by no means vitiated by the provisions for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. It was not, and could not have been the intention of the framers of the Mandate that the Jewish immigration to Palestine should result in breaking up the political, geographic, and administrative economy of the country. Any other interpretation would amount to a violation of the principles of the Covenant and would nullify one of the main objectives of the Mandate ...

"Moreover, partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine. The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ..." 51/

The report's first resolution, questioning the legal power of the General Assembly to partition Palestine was rejected. The second, recommending international co-operation to deal with the Jewish refugee problem was rejected too, but the Ad Hoc Committee decided to include the recommendation in its report to the General Assembly. The third, calling for the establishment of an independent unified Palestine was also rejected.

And this is direct from the UN. The overall Web site is UNISPAL - the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Overall, the Web site has a pretty complete history of the whole Palestinian question going way back.

Aaaiiiiiggghghh! The point is: not your facts, but the opinions they support. So other countries don't want Iran to have nuclear power. Fine.

The reason isn't because other countries "don't want Iran to have nuclear power." It's because any nucelar production capability could someday be applied to weapons. No, not now. Not tomorrow. And in Iran's case, not for several years. Their uranium enrichment at 5%, 85% lower than where it needs to be for weapons production. Also, the amount of uranium they have is sufficient only for research.

It's not as if other nations just don't want Iran to have nuclear power for the hell of it, and the US is off on its own saying Iran will make nuclear weapons. ALL of the nations involved in the UN Security Coucil resolution don't want Iran to continue refining uranium because they fear Iran may someday develop weapons. The road to nuclear weapons development is a long one, and that's the reason the UN and other nations in agreement with the UN want to stop Iran now. There's no disconnect between the reasons the international community wants Iran to stop refinement and the reasons the US does: no one wants a nuclear-armed Iran.

What other countries aren't doing is spreading lies about how Iran intends to build nucular weapons. Iran has never expressed an interest in making weapons.

Again, all of the other nations opposed to Iran's continued refinement aren't doing it because they want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They don't want Iran to continue to enhance its scientific and industrial capabilities with regard to nuclear materials and processes so they won't get to the point where they can be used to develop weaponry. You might think even that is wrong, but that's what the UN has said - not just the US.

And regardless of what the US does or doesn't say, the fact that plenty of other nations don't want a nuclear armed Iran still stands, and that's the reason they want to halt Iran's refinement. I repeat: they DO NOT simply want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They want Iran to stop refinement because of future weapons concerns. That's one of the reasons that a binding Chapter VII Security Council resolution demanding Iran to halt enrichment was unanimously adopted.

Even if they do want to, they probably wouldn't get the capability for ten years. Ten years.

That's kind of why the goal is to stop them now, not after they've already done it, or are well on the way there.

Get it?

With absolutely no evidence that they intend to do so. So, your facts support more White House lies

So let me get this straight - the facts that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment supports the lie that -- and let me see if I understand this -- that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment? That's...interesting.

It's clear you don't agree with the action on Iraq, but it's far, far, far more complex than you think it is. I know that "Bush lied, people died" is catchy and rhymes and everything, but the situation is a tad more complicated than that. And definitely not as black and white as you seem to think it is.

And here's all the references, too, for anyone who doubts there is significant opposition in Europe and worry in other parts of the world with regard to Iran's continued nuclear refinement operations, as well as unanimous acknowledgment that Iran is in fact in violation of a binding UN security council resolution (1737) ordering it to stop, as verified by the IAEA:

UN Security Council

SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)

Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment an

Uh, the US *isn't* alone on condemning Iran.

I didn't cherry pick those sources. They're official international reaction from various nations. There are two articles posted. One is a compilation of official international reaction to the fact that Iran hadn't stopped refining, as verified by the IAEA, and the other was an AFP article also speaking to that fact.

Are you actually serious that you think the US is the only nation condemning Iran for continued uranium refinement? Where do you think UNSEC 1737 came from?

SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)

What's even more hilarious is that you call statements made by foreign governments condemning Iran's continued enrichment "White House talking points," when I didn't even speak about US reaction at all (which is why the post was titled, "Here, let's look at international reaction," and then you act is if it's opinion!

I didn't think you could be more childish or ignorant, but you proved me wrong on both counts. Good show.

...

No, that's pretty much "certain".

Also, the semantics of saying "viable weapons program" is subtle, but a great move on your part. Having a "viable weapons program" doesn't imply you have current production capacity for nuclear weapons. It means you have a weapons program. They're still refining uranium at below 5%, which is a far cry from the over 90% they'd need for weapons production. But not being there now doesn't mean they won't get there, and the key is to prevent that from happening.

Thus, the recent unanimously approved Chapter VII UNSEC resolution with regard to Iran.

It's not just the US.

This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.

You might want to read this. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.

International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07

IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)

On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report

This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.

IRAN

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:

"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report

"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report

Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:

"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report

MIDDLE EAST

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:

It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report

RUSSIA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:

The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report

EUROPE

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:

"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:

"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:

"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:

Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report

ASIA

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxi

That's why interpretations of the Geneva convention suggest that it's a violation to use lasers.

The fact that Britain abandoned the island now known as Sealand made it, under Internitional Maritime Law. Although Sealand is not officially recognized by any State, there have been many instances of de facto recognition, including in British Court, meaning that technically, it is a legal country, at least until someone successfully challenges it.

That has to be the funniest comment I've read this week.

a) the United Nations does not manage the ITU. They are two similar but distinct organization, both from a legal and practical standpoint. What goes on at the UNHCHR has very little bearing on what goes on at ITU (except when countries try to score point in one forum to use in the other).

b) the ITU is very much a political organization. You woudn't believe how much frequency allocation, development money, licences-to-print-money-through-standards and having yet another forum to do battle on will do to generate political interest.

c) as for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, they were elected as chair of on the Human Rights Commission in 2003. The Commission no longer exists. It has been replaced by the Human Rights Council, against the creation of which the US voted, and on which the US is not represented as it did not present a candidature. Check out the current list: http://www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc/ . Each of those were elected by 50% of all the 191 Member States (at the time) of the UN (even though each region has a reserved number of seats). You may not like the list but it was established in a way that's pretty much as democratic as it goes.

d) My personal opinion is that most despots don't really care about the control of the DNS for their own censorship purposes. They can control their local IPS just fine and it suits their needs. What most countries (yes, despots icluded) do seem concerned about is the ability of third-parties (the US in this case) to control (as in having a finger on the on-off switch) what is quickly becoming a critical economic infrastructure. I don't know what the solution is to that concern, but blaming the UN won't help.

Article 29:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.