UN General Assembly human rights committee condemns Iran human right violations

The Saint

Yesterday the UN Gernal Assembly's human right committee condemned Irans human rights violations, particularly it's post election clampdown. The resolution passed by a margin of 74 in favour, 48 against with 59 abstentions. It will now be sent to the General Assembly where it is likely to gain a similar voting margin. Iran's ambassador condemned the resolution as politically motivated and the US ambassador stated that the resolution "demonstrates that the international community is deeply concerned over the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran and the government's failure to uphold its obligations under its own constitution and international human rights law."

I can't find the text of the resolution but hopefully it will be up on the UN site soon. It's good to see such violations being condemned especially a few days after Burma and North Korea recieved similar condemnations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8371801.stm
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3808285,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AJ3OZ20091120

Overheal

Well, that only took 30 years.

Fingers crossed, we may actually find them getting traction on more resolutions in the middle east.

The Saint

Apparently General Assembly resolutions concerning Iran's human rights are annual events actually. I think the reason this one has been more high profile is that it deals with the post election crackdown in the country.

Overheal wrote: »

Well, that only took 30 years.

Fingers crossed, we may actually find them getting traction on more resolutions in the middle east.

The Saint

Here is the text of the Resolution itself.

And here is the press release regarding the resolution.

It seems this is the 17th year of such resolutions being passed against Iran's human rights record.

Vote on Iran

The draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran (document A/C.3/64/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 74 in favour to 48 against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.

Absent: Bahrain, Chad, Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, Iraq, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Turkey.

Quite interesting when taken in the context of the Gaza report vote.

Manic Moran

I, for one, am thrilled that the Iranian human rights abuses have been acted upon... again.

I sit back and wait with baited breath for the next installment in this saga. Were I a betting man, I would wager that this installment will be the 2010 18th Annual Condemnation of Iranian Human Rights Abuses.

UN-watchers around the world will doubtless be hanging on every verb, analysing the deep impact of each adjective and just why they used 'disappointed' instead of 'concerned'. That would take UN dissatisfaction up at least 12.6%. Here's hoping.

NTM

The Saint

You forgot to put in the sarcastic smilie. :rolleyes:

This was one of the main news stories yesterday from the Middle East in much of the media so I thought it might be worth a thread especially since it deals with the post election period. It seems you disagree. Fair enough.

dlofnep

Iran is certainly not up to scratch when it comes to human rights. It does need political change in order for this to be a reality. I have a feeling that this will be acted on alot quicker than any actions against Israel for the recent Goldstone report. It's real coincidence that this co-incides with the ongoing nuclear dispute. I think it might be perhaps the first sign of the UN cracking down on Iran, with intent to show that it means business.

Manic Moran

The Saint wrote: »

You forgot to put in the sarcastic smilie. :rolleyes:

This was one of the main news stories yesterday from the Middle East in much of the media so I thought it might be worth a thread especially since it deals with the post election

Sorry. I'm a little underimpressed by UN pronouncements of such a nature.

NTM

walrusgumble

why does this remind of the scene in Team America were the German/Austrian sounding representative pays a visit to Kim Jong II's palace insistinting to inspect the whole area and the "threats" he makes if he does not get his way

What can the UN do, bar invading, sorry liberating the country?Economic sanctions will hardly get the locals on their side?

Is it not a bit interesting looking at the list of those who voted against, e.g. Zimbabwe (looks like mugabe still calls some shots, despite MDC being the majority party). Turkey might have being in a tricky spot if it made itself / was allowed to be present, considering EU aspiration and closeness to Iran, regardless of what way it voted.

wes

Well it is good to see this, and certainly interesting to see who voted for and against it.

RomanticIreland

It’s about time the UN took a stance not that anything will come of it
I'm afraid to say I've lost my naivety in relational to the power the UN welds in such matters

you might be interested in what the guardian are reporting on matters in Iran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran

Manic Moran

walrusgumble wrote: »

why does this remind of the scene in Team America were the German/Austrian sounding representative pays a visit to Kim Jong II's palace insistinting to inspect the whole area and the "threats" he makes if he does not get his way

You're a young'un, ain't you?

(I guess, today's 20-year-olds were 13-14 at the time, so maybe it's to be expected)

He's Swedish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

NTM

Nodin

Reminds me of the time I referenced 'Steve Austin' to a selection of blank, blank faces....The years creep up on ye.

RedPlanet

what, Honduras in favor?
Bloody hypocrites!

meditraitor

See I read this differently_

A minority condemns and its news, the minority of little hitlers and its hanger ons.
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Maybe 2 billion people for

And the majority is against condemnation

Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

At least 3 billion against


And about 1.5 abstain

Clearly not condemnation by majority, just by greedy ignorant capitalist power/resourse hungry tyrants who couldnt give a fuck whether Iran is commiting human rights violations, which it is , but less than some other countries I could mention who can do as they please because the same countries who voted for this condemnation allow it to happen.....

US/UK and its little hanger ons are pushing this one, Does anyone think these countries deserve respect? If you want to delve into human rights violations then look no further than these two and its minnions(customers). There are bigger fish to fry

Fratton Fred

Is Iran a bigger violator of Human rights than Iraq was in 2002?

Would the UN be right in forcing regime change in Iran? would a united UN, as opposed to one where two key members of the security council come out and publicly announce they would veto military action, be able to force regime change, or at least a change in the regime's human right policy, without the need for military intervention?

Manic Moran

Is Iran a bigger violator of Human rights than Iraq was in 2002?

I don't think so. Or if they are, they're doing a pretty reasonable job of hiding it. OK, I think the death penalty for organising protests is a little harsh, and having fashion police is a little over the top, but on the other hand, the country doesn't, to my knowledge, torture its athletes who fail to win, or have government officials who have been known to kidnap women who caught their eye, have their way with them, and then kill them.

It's an interesting contrast. Iraq in 2002 seems to have been a little greater on individual moral freedoms (Internet access, alcohol, womens' rights etc) by and large, but heaven (Allah?) help you if you or your village happened to attract the attention of the Iraqi government for any particular reason.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think so. Or if they are, they're doing a pretty reasonable job of hiding it. OK, I think the death penalty for organising protests is a little harsh, and having fashion police is a little over the top, but on the other hand, the country doesn't, to my knowledge, torture its athletes who fail to win, or have government officials who have been known to kidnap women who caught their eye, have their way with them, and then kill them.

It's an interesting contrast. Iraq in 2002 seems to have been a little greater on individual moral freedoms (Internet access, alcohol, womens' rights etc) by and large, but heaven (Allah?) help you if you or your village happened to attract the attention of the Iraqi government for any particular reason.

NTM

So considering the amount of toys thrown out of prams over Iraq, I guess Iran can carry on with zero chance of the UN actually doing anything about it, unless of course the US goes it alone, or Germany and France find themselves a pair of balls.

Manic Moran

Nodin wrote: »

Reminds me of the time I referenced 'Steve Austin' to a selection of blank, blank faces....The years creep up on ye.

Depends on who you mean. My initial thought upon reading that name was 'The Six Million Dollar Man.' If you meant the wrestler, I guess I'm a tad older than you.

NTM

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would the UN be right in forcing regime change in Iran?

Nope.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on who you mean. My initial thought upon reading that name was 'The Six Million Dollar Man.' If you meant the wrestler, I guess I'm a tad older than you.

NTM

Six million dollar man....

jonny72

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So considering the amount of toys thrown out of prams over Iraq, I guess Iran can carry on with zero chance of the UN actually doing anything about it, unless of course the US goes it alone, or Germany and France find themselves a pair of balls.

Post fraud election Iran had a slim chance of internal change - but the leadership showed its true spots and crushed that dissent very effectively a la Burma/Zimbabwe

There has always been a ridiculous subtle media dehumanisation of the Iranians over the years but this was shattered as we received coverage of the opposition rallies, etc.. firmly cementing world opinion on the side of the Iranian people and of course alienating and isolating the Iranian leadership further. Couple this with the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan and it very much looks like viewers of foxnews won't get the sort of US unilateral or allied military intervention they have been slavering for, so.. not looking good for the whole US/Germany/France thingy..

However, there is hope for you, in the most surprising of places.. strongly worded letters and fingerwagging from the UN. Incredibly, if the UN take a tougher line on Iran, that should isolate the regime even further. An isolated regime is much more likely to scapegoat foreign powers, bang the wardrums and rachet up nuke production.

Once the Iranians get less talky and more nukey.. then the Israelis will come. After that, its anyone's guess..

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Nope.

then what is the point of the UN? why not just scrap it, save the world a whole load of money and let charities feed the poor.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then what is the point of the UN? why not just scrap it, save the world a whole load of money and let charities feed the poor.

.....because it provides at least some semblance of an international framework for co-operation and legislation & negotiation.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

.....because it provides at least some semblance of an international framework for co-operation and legislation & negotiation.

the threat of military action must always be there though, as a final resort. This is my gripe with France and Germany over Iraq. they seemed to withdraw this option as a very early stage, giving Saddam the impression that the UN would not act.

Buffy the bitch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the threat of military action must always be there though, as a final resort. This is my gripe with France and Germany over Iraq. they seemed to withdraw this option as a very early stage, giving Saddam the impression that the UN would not act.

So you want to go to war with Iran because the UN condemned them?

So you'd love to go to war with China?

then what is the point of the UN? why not just scrap it, save the world a whole load of money and let charities feed the poor.

Great idea to be honest. The UN is useless. It was setup to try and stop wars but it never seems to work.

Fratton Fred

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

So you want to go to war with Iran because the UN condemned them?

So you'd love to go to war with China?



Great idea to be honest. The UN is useless. It was setup to try and stop wars but it never seems to work.

No, I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of the UN.

"Iran is naughty, they must stop what they are doing"
"Ok, lets kick their heads in then and force a regime change"
"No, lets pass a motion condeming then. that'll work, just like it did in Israel."

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the threat of military action must always be there though, as a final resort. This is my gripe with France and Germany over Iraq. they seemed to withdraw this option as a very early stage, giving Saddam the impression that the UN would not act.

As is being shown in stark detail at the moment, there was no need for a war in that specific case. In addition, one might wonder at the seemingly simultaneous rise to power of a more aggressive faction in Iran, with the arrival of the Americans & British next door.

Buffy the bitch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of the UN.

"Iran is naughty, they must stop what they are doing"
"Ok, lets kick their heads in then and force a regime change"
"No, lets pass a motion condeming then. that'll work, just like it did in Israel."

But you can't force regime change. Just look at Iraq.

By the way trying to enforce regime change is terrorism but hey it's the west doing it so it's ok.

prinz

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

By the way trying to enforce regime change is terrorism but hey it's the west doing it so it's ok.

Could you provide a link for that definition?