----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: The Axis of Weasel
> At 21:58 3-2-2003 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > >But, lets look at what the world community is doing. It is relying on > >the US to do all the heavy lifting, as Gautam has pointed out. > > I think it is about time that people like you and Gautam make up their > minds about this. On one hand they complain about the military of other > (especially European) countries lacking the training and equipment to play > a role of any importance in international conflicts, on the other hand they > complain that those countries let the US do all the hard work. > > > >It has also refused to back its own commitments, outside of heavy US > >pressure. The worst example of this was the UN peacekeepers stepping > >out of the way and letting the Serbs slaughter people the UN promised > >to protect. > > <SIGH> > > Still haven't read the NIOD report on Srebrenica, have you? Actually, I've quoted it on list and discussed it at length with others months ago. IMHO, that's evidence that I read it. >As I have > pointed out to you before (on more than one occassion), the Dutchbat troops > did what they could; things went wrong because of the politicians, who sent > troops without bothering to first find out what they were sending them > into, wo sent them without providing them with proper training first, and > who sent them without providing them with adequate weapons. The wonder of committees is that no one is responsible. I have a different viewpoint than you on responsibility. When a promise is broken, everyone involved is responsible. I specifically stated on list that the responsibility was not just the troops, and not limited to the Dutch. The UN itself, the Dutch politicians, the troops, the UN peacekeeping leadership, are all responsible. BTW, how much of the report have you read? > > >It is also showing a total disregard for human rights by electing a > >strong opponent of human rights to chair the UN commission on human > >rights. > > IIRC, the country in question was not *elected* to chair the commission, it > was simply that country's turn to chair the commision -- just as it will > one day be America's turn to hold that position. From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030121/wl_oneworl d/1032_1043152489 we have: <begin quote> WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 21 (OW-US) - Independent human rights groups are denouncing Monday's election by members of the Geneva-based United Nations (news - web sites) Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) of Libya's ambassador to serve as the Commission's chair over the coming year. "The Commission has lots of problems to begin with, but I think this will paralyze its work for the next year," said Michael Posner, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR). "It's very disappointing that 33 countries in the world voted basically without considering who Libya is and what it's done over the past 50 years and to just follow a formula that calls for rotating the chairmanship." Human Rights Watch (HRW), also based in New York, echoed that view. "Repressive governments must not be allowed to hijack the UN human rights system," said HRW's Joanna Weschler before the vote. "Over the past three decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling." In a secret ballot, 33 countries of the 53-member Commission voted in favor of Libyan Ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji, while three countries, including the United States and Canada, voted against. Seventeen countries, presumed to be mostly from Europe and Latin America, abstained. <end quote> > America's whining whenever they don't get what they want is not exactly > making any positive contribution to America's reputation. I take it you approve of the election then, and consider any opposition whining? > Saying that other countries "show a total disregard for human rights" when > they simply follow UN procedure (the outcome of which the US just happens > to dislike), is nothing less than insulting. Not voting against Libya is disgusting. I have no problem with being accused of insulting those countries that either voted for Libya or abstained. > >Do you think its unreasonable for the US to fear that US soldiers will > >be subjected to political trials in a court that is appointed with the > >same wisdom and care for human rights as the election of the chair of > >the human rights commission? > > I think that it is indeed an unreasonable fear. It would only be a > reasonable fear if the dictators of the world would have control over the > court -- which they don't. Well, after the vote given above and after your statements on the US committing crimes against humanity for having a slightly different design than Europe for anti-tampering devices associated with tank mine, I think it is quite reasonable. > > I seriously doubt that *anyone* would be brought before the ICC for such an > accident. Contrary to what seems to be the sentiment in the US, the rest of > the world in general is not intent on making life as miserable as possible > for the US. No, but passive aggressive behavior is very common in people that deny responsibility for their own actions. > > >The US was looking for specific protections for this type of case. It > >is interesting that this gets portrayed as undercutting the world court. > > The purpose of the ICC is to have war criminals tried by the international > community; the US demanded that US citizens would be exempted. No, it requested that US soldiers which take part in peacekeeping be exempted. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
