UN condemns Syria, Iran, and North Korea for rights abuses

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/un-condemns-syria-iran-and-north-korea-for-rights-abuses.premium-1.486251

The UN General Assembly condemned human rights violations in Syria, Iran and North Korea on Thursday and demanded an immediate halt to actions ranging from attacks on civilians to torture and restrictions on freedom of movement.

The 193-member world body voted 135-12 with 36 abstentions in favor of a resolution demanding an immediate end to "widespread and systematic" gross human rights violations by Syrian authorities. It approved a resolution calling for an end to Iran's continuing use of torture, the death penalty and execution of minors by a vote of 86-32 with 65 abstentions.

We all know that the UN is regularly criticized for not acting expeditiously on some matters, but I am sure we can all agree that it is doing it job here and working towards a resolution on the conflict in Syria. Democracy is not always easy when the world body comes together, and the language on resolutions have to develop.

The important thing to remember is that the UN has spoken on this matter to end human rights violations by Syria of its own population. Whenever rouge nations anywhere threaten the peace of a region or a population the UN should speak to safeguard that human rights are maintained, that all rogue nations answer for their human rights violations by acknowledging these resolutions and that the world needs to act to ensure these resolutions are enforced.

[leveymg]

1. If the charge is torture, death penalty and executions, the US should head that list of abusers.

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

As for Syria, the opposition -- particularly the Saudi and Gulf Arab state funded opposition fighters, now recognized as the gov't by the US and the other "Friends" -- must be equally condemned.

These selective US-supported pronouncements of humanitarian concern at the UN are getting rather old at this point, and carry zero weight because of their misuse to justify invasions and regime change. Susan Rice never met a war in the ME she didn't like.

[King_David]

2. a vote of 86-32 with 65 abstentions.

WOW!

[sabbat hunter]

3. I would like to know

what countries voted against the resolution, and which ones abstained.

[King_David]

4. If you count them up,

More countries did not vote for the resolution than those that did.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. WOW, indeed.

Do you believe that Syria should follow the advice of the UN on this matter?

[King_David]

6. Syrian government should disband and surrender to democracy,

UN resolution was not exactly resounding.

[azurnoir]

7. few UN resolutions get a resounding response

the situation in Syria is dire to put it mildly however there is still some question if Assad steps down which he should IMO who will fill the void and that is not clear some of the players in the opposition are actually worse some have links to Al Qaeda from what I've read albeit it seems the West is starting to back one particular group which is hopeful

[King_David]

10. Agreed nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. So you don't believe that the UN should pass any resulotions or that Syria shouldn't

base their actions on UN resolutions?

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The vote passed to form a resolution. That should at least be seen by proponents of peace as a step in the right direction.

[King_David]

9. If anything the vote emboldened the government

They think they have support.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. So do you believe that UN votes actually work to the contrary of their intended purpose? n/t

[King_David]

12. With this resolution?

Sadly , yes.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. So a resolution condemning Syria is actualy supporting Syria?

That doesn't make any sense. Despite the loud and incorrect claims of some folk who have a hatred of the UN and anything multilateral, the UN has in fact condemned Syria. Im not sure how a resolution condemning Syria could be translated as being something that supports and encourages Syria...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. Do you believe that all or most UN votes embolden bad behavior?

Could you be a little more specific?

[King_David]

13. This is not IP btw,

You should post it in The Middle East Group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1253

[Violet_Crumble]

15. It addresses the constant made in this group that the UN never condemns Syria...

Plus, this very recent OP had even less to do with I/P and I didn't see anyone complaining

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113426131

[oberliner]

17. Nothing written by you in that post is true

It does not address that claim, nor is that claim actually made.

That other OP was ignored because no one knew or cared what it was talking about.

This one is trying and failing to score some cheap points in a silly game.

The UN has paid much less attention to the much more serious issues going on in Syria than it should.

Any sane progressive ought to agree with that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. "This one is trying and failing to score some cheap points in a silly game."

No. Not true. I am very sorry that you come believe that.

I did re-post it in the mid east forum though.

"The UN has paid much less attention to the much more serious issues going on in Syria than it should."

This article should counter that claim by showing that the UN did indeed vote to pass a resolution against Syria, but if you wish to continue this conversation you may do so in mid east discussion.

[oberliner]

19. The article does not counter that claim in any respect

And I will be happy to discuss the content of the post in that other forum, which is where it actually belongs (I thank you for posting it there).