U.N. divided over gay rights declaration

[GabonX]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.

Diplomats said a joint statement initiated by France and the Netherlands gathered 66 signatures in the 192-nation assembly after it was read out by Argentina at a plenary session. A rival statement, read out by Syria, gathered some 60.

The two statements remained open for further signatures, the diplomats said. No resolution was drafted on the issue and there was no voting, they added.

The division in the General Assembly reflected conflicting laws in the world at large. According to sponsors of the Franco-Dutch text, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.

The European Union-backed document, noting that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was marked this month, said those rights applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

It urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."

But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."

"We note with concern the attempts to create 'new rights' or 'new standards,' by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership," it added.

This, it said, could "seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework."

Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality.

U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.

But Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters it was a "very special day at the U.N."

"For the first time in history a large group of member states speaks out in the General Assembly against discrimination based on sexual orientation," he said. "With today's statement, this is no longer a taboo within the U.N."

Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told reporters sponsors of the statement had "cornered" other members by springing the declaration on them.

The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is how terrible the United States is for the world. The UN is inept and incredible.

[Grooveman2007]

The UN is inept and incredible.

And how is this news?

[Napoleon Ier]

Can anyone name a single thing the UN has done which has in any way contributed to the bettering of the human race? I bet I can shoot down any nominations.

[OnlyAmbrose]

The creation of Israel and thus a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East?

Oh wait... bettering the human race.

[Napoleon Ier]

The creation of Israel and thus a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East?

Oh wait... bettering the human race.

You...can't...say that! That's outrageous!

Oh dear... the UN. I swear if they put some reasonably intelligent schoolkids' Model UN group in charge of the actual UN, the world would be such a better place.

[luns101]

Can anyone name a single thing the UN has done which has in any way contributed to the bettering of the human race? I bet I can shoot down any nominations.

I'll try

They employ a lot of translators

[nagerous]

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... &Cr1=leone

[got tonkaed]

I think a fair number of things that the UN has done in terms of the human rights declaration, UNICEF and a whole lot of other needs based programs havent been real misses. I also think they do a fair amount of important work in terms of getting information together (not that this isnt done through other avenues of course).

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah, but imagine how much better off we'd be if they actually delegated those tasks to competent people? I mean, sure, the UN may have gotten a few of the billions of dollars lavished on them each year to the right place. But then, billions of monkeys at typewriters will eventually write up the Complete Works of Shakespeare given enough time, so...

[got tonkaed]

Yeah, but imagine how much better off we'd be if they actually delegated those tasks to competent people? I mean, sure, the UN may have gotten a few of the billions of dollars lavished on them each year to the right place. But then, billions of monkeys at typewriters will eventually write up the Complete Works of Shakespeare given enough time, so...

Well i dont really see a viable alternative in there. To assume that type of delegation requires more size and better usage of the organization that you claim is working now. If not delegated properly you dont get it off the ground to begin with and you deal with another layer of corruption.

I find the UN while certainly not perfect to be rather reliable in a few areas. I dont really forsee a better mechanism for those things. Are those things what they were intended for, well in all probability no, but i dont like to overstretch my reactions based on things i dont necessarily like so much.

I find a bit of a corollary between this train of thought and the one in the other thread. Theres a mechanism that has some failures involved, but the alternatives do not seem to imply a better alternative and presuppose that the current one could be reformed in a way that seems unlikely given the flaws which are pointed out within.

[spurgistan]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.

Diplomats said a joint statement initiated by France and the Netherlands gathered 66 signatures in the 192-nation assembly after it was read out by Argentina at a plenary session. A rival statement, read out by Syria, gathered some 60.

The two statements remained open for further signatures, the diplomats said. No resolution was drafted on the issue and there was no voting, they added.

The division in the General Assembly reflected conflicting laws in the world at large. According to sponsors of the Franco-Dutch text, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.

The European Union-backed document, noting that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was marked this month, said those rights applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

It urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."

But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."

"We note with concern the attempts to create 'new rights' or 'new standards,' by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership," it added.

This, it said, could "seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework."

Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality.

U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.

But Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters it was a "very special day at the U.N."

"For the first time in history a large group of member states speaks out in the General Assembly against discrimination based on sexual orientation," he said. "With today's statement, this is no longer a taboo within the U.N."

Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told reporters sponsors of the statement had "cornered" other members by springing the declaration on them.

The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is how terrible the United States is for the world. The UN is inept and incredible.

I'm not quite sure where the fact that countries that consider homosexuality a punishable offense are against a letter banning such practices is all that surprising or avoidable. How this is indicative of some sort of deep defect in the system... explain please? Should we (granted, by we I mean Europeans mostly, as we haven't signed onto either of these) impose our will on these countries, by force if necessary, or not care about the problems homosexuals face inthese countries?

[jonesthecurl]

Just let them take it like a man.

[Downey]

The Arabs hate it because it portrays man as a woman for liking a man. In Arab countries men are superior and they don't want girly men to be superior.

[GabonX]

The creation of Israel and thus a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East?

Oh wait... bettering the human race.

You...can't...say that! That's outrageous!

Oh dear... the UN. I swear if they put some reasonably intelligent schoolkids' Model UN group in charge of the actual UN, the world would be such a better place.

For the record the creation of Israel has led to conflict but the statement that Israel is a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East is false. The Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the multiple Syrian invasions of Lebanon, the Russo-Afghanistan war, the Rise of the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the conflicts between Pakistan and India among many other conflicts in the Middle East which I can't think of off the top of my head demonstrate that Israel is not the single destabalizing factor in the region. Israel is a contributing factor to some of the conflicts in the Middle East but even without it these people would and have found reasons to kill each other.

[got tonkaed]

Let me start by saying one has to be pretty pro-Israel to take your stance too far there. While you could be arguing from a strictly non-biased perspective, your post history suggests you are far from it in regards to this issue. While you certainly can cite the majority if not the overwhelming majority of the non-Israeli headed conflicts in the middle east since its creation its not exactly hard to put the opposing case together either.

Obviously if we dont count the 6 major wars since the creation (excluding more minor conflicts as they dont rate the relevance of the others both of us have mentioned) your point holds. But if we throw in those 6 conflicts in a 60 year history, include the fact that the Islamic revolution had a significant platform element that involved Israel, the more recent conflicts with terrorist groups (certainly not all or perhaps even mostly Israel's fault) or the general sentiment toward the country, i think it paints a far different picture.

I am not trying to say Israel shouldnt exist, or even that Israel is the bad guy in the middle east. Neither claim would be true and would be far too broadsweeping. But if your looking for the major contributor to conflict in the region, excluding non regional invading forces, it is clearly Israel which moves the mountains in terms of conflict.

[walnutwatson]

I like the UN. While it's true that they do often fail at tasks at least they try, unlike the majority of developed countries. The reasons for the many failures are also down, in the main part, to the fact that countries - specifically USA, France and Germany although many others also - usually agree to supply equipment, troops, money, etc. and then go back on their words. I've come to this conclusion from reading a few books and talking to a very politically knowledgable old schoolfriend who I visited in Brussels where he was working for the EU.
Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda by Romeo Dallaire is an excellent book in itself but also shows some of the inner workings of the UN and its constituent countries and their failure to keep to promises made in respect to preventing the genocide in Rwanda. Commander Dallaire was promised the troops and equipment by many countries, most of whom failed to supply them. The most depressing thing is that the UN were very close to stabilising the situation until various promises were broken - consider the fact that the violence in Congo is directly linked to the overwhelming amount of refugees from Rwanda and you start to see a horrible ripple effect.

So my conclusion is, yes, you're right the UN does f*ck things up quite a lot but the reasons for this lie with the countries that are supposed to support it and don't.

[OnlyAmbrose]

The creation of Israel and thus a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East?

Oh wait... bettering the human race.

You...can't...say that! That's outrageous!

Oh dear... the UN. I swear if they put some reasonably intelligent schoolkids' Model UN group in charge of the actual UN, the world would be such a better place.

For the record the creation of Israel has led to conflict but the statement that Israel is a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East is false. The Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the multiple Syrian invasions of Lebanon, the Russo-Afghanistan war, the Rise of the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the conflicts between Pakistan and India among many other conflicts in the Middle East which I can't think of off the top of my head demonstrate that Israel is not the single destabalizing factor in the region. Israel is a contributing factor to some of the conflicts in the Middle East but even without it these people would and have found reasons to kill each other.

Definitely not false. Israel has indeed been a contributing factor to nearly every conflict in the Middle East. The Iran-Iraq war is an exception, but Sadaam Hussein would not have received nearly as much Arab support as he did during the Gulf War if it wasn't for the fact that the US is Israel's key ally.

The Lebanese Civil War (the intervention of Syria is what I'm assuming you're referring to) was directly caused by (among other things) the influx of Palestinian refugees.

One of Osama bin Laden's major beefs with the US is our support of Zionism and Israel.

Those examples aside, as GT mentioned, there are obviously numerous wars which Israel has been the direct aggressor in.

In short, whether you're pro-Israel or anti-Israel, you'd be hard-pressed to make that case that Israel isn't the cause or at least a causing factor in most of the conflict in the Mid East.

[red bull]

The creation of Israel and thus a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East?

Oh wait... bettering the human race.

You...can't...say that! That's outrageous!

Oh dear... the UN. I swear if they put some reasonably intelligent schoolkids' Model UN group in charge of the actual UN, the world would be such a better place.

For the record the creation of Israel has led to conflict but the statement that Israel is a contributing factor to most of the major conflicts in the modern Middle East is false. The Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the multiple Syrian invasions of Lebanon, the Russo-Afghanistan war, the Rise of the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the conflicts between Pakistan and India among many other conflicts in the Middle East which I can't think of off the top of my head demonstrate that Israel is not the single destabalizing factor in the region. Israel is a contributing factor to some of the conflicts in the Middle East but even without it these people would and have found reasons to kill each other.

Definitely not false. Israel has indeed been a contributing factor to nearly every conflict in the Middle East. The Iran-Iraq war is an exception, but Sadaam Hussein would not have received nearly as much Arab support as he did during the Gulf War if it wasn't for the fact that the US is Israel's key ally.

The Lebanese Civil War (the intervention of Syria is what I'm assuming you're referring to) was directly caused by (among other things) the influx of Palestinian refugees.

One of Osama bin Laden's major beefs with the US is our support of Zionism and Israel.

Those examples aside, as GT mentioned, there are obviously numerous wars which Israel has been the direct aggressor in.

In short, whether you're pro-Israel or anti-Israel, you'd be hard-pressed to make that case that Israel isn't the cause or at least a causing factor in most of the conflict in the Mid East.

off the top of your head can you name these wars that have been started by israel? just asking

and also i think that most of israel's problems and confilcts are in house as in the conflicts between palestine and isreal, as with Israel being the aggresive one, BUT since that is what mostly is on t.v. its seen as the biggest problem in the middle east.

[b.k. barunt]

This i gotta hear. Israel doesn't need to start any wars - they have a multitude of raghead wogs standing in line to start one with them.

[Napoleon Ier]

This i gotta hear. Israel doesn't need to start any wars - they have a multitude of raghead wogs standing in line to start one with them.

I think that's rather the original point, in all fairness.

[got tonkaed]

at the absolute minimum, you could make the argument in terms of recent conflict they lost a fair amount of weight to the moral argument in 2006. Im certainly not saying they wont be justified in doing something militarily in Gaza if something doesnt change very soon (which regrettably it doesnt look like it will), but i think it requires a fairly closed perspective on their 60 year history to pass the blame off on all others.

[Napoleon Ier]

at the absolute minimum, you could make the argument in terms of recent conflict they lost a fair amount of weight to the moral argument in 2006. Im certainly not saying they wont be justified in doing something militarily in Gaza if something doesnt change very soon (which regrettably it doesnt look like it will), but i think it requires a fairly closed perspective on their 60 year history to pass the blame off on all others.

Yeah, I have to agree, I think Israel is doing stuff that qualifies as pretty outrageous to be perfectly frank, but then consider, so was Soviet Russia in WWII and we had no choice but to support them. We're locked in conflict with these people and so sadly we need to sometimes as a measure of pragmatism overlook some of Israel's more unsavoury deeds. It may not be particularly moral, but it's realpolitik.

That said, there's a lot of truth in saying that creating Israel in the first place wasn't the smartest thing ever done.

[got tonkaed]

I wont disagree that the approach you outline isnt a reasonable one. I mean if you look at the US, it more or less is the approach. At least from the perspective of the US, which is currently the state i do most of my thinking from, im of the opinion its the wrong approach. Simply because of the amount of aid that goes there in the manner in which it does. Certainly the US and perhaps some European nations have some type of obligation to the state, but blank checks are no more than a 12 month christmas gift. Especially when you consider that the 2006 debacle hurt US foreign policy interests, which isnt the first time its happened.

I can respect the live and let live approach, the US does it all the time. But until our ally stops centering its foreign policy around measures that undermine the US's, ill tell anyone who brings up Israel that we need to seriously reconsider our aid. Granted at times they try, but this business in Gaza seems to suggest that Nethanyu will only gain from it, and hes not my top pick in terms of the next guy. Not that any of them are necessarily brillant from the US perspective.

[Napoleon Ier]

Mmm. You're probably right to point out that especially with Iran being the threat it is now, the US is ideally placed to twist a few arms and get Israel to clean up it's act a little.

[got tonkaed]

Mmm. You're probably right to point out that especially with Iran being the threat it is now, the US is ideally placed to twist a few arms and get Israel to clean up it's act a little.

Will be incredibly hard to change the status quo though. The Israeli lobby is fascinating and incredibly effective. Im not sure where its considered amongst the top 3 or 4 but between that and the general populaces lack of information/already favorable stances toward Israel, it doesnt matter how many flubs Obama or anyone else in his administration makes in terms of sound bites. But it would do the US middle east foreign policy wonders to at least do a honest evaluation of what we are getting out of the current terms, the numbers and oversight are pretty absurd.