You advocate limiting their roles until they behave up to a standard. One with which I concur they should at the least do so.
Specifically, I would prefer if they weren’t on the human rights council while they were executing political prisoners.
Agreed. This latest crackdown is far from Cuba's only human rights violation.
I think Fidel's getting a little nervous about what happened in Iraq, and trying to get rid of anyone who might lend a hand in getting rid of him.
I'm just positing a motivation, not an excuse, btw.
C'mon, the US doesn't want to be dictated to by UN, what makes you think that tactic will be effective with Cuba?
You have a point; I doubt Cuba would stop executing political prisoners just to curry favour with the UN.
I dunno. You’re right that voting them out might make it harder to dialogue with them. But I think it hurts the UN’s credibility a little bit more every time something like this happens.
This is, I believe, one of those lovely political situations where the moral thing to do and the wise thing to do are diametrically opposed.
Those are so much fun.
Agreed. On the other hand, I do doubt that Cuba's presence on the HR council will make anybody think Uncle Fidel's seen the light, so to speak. And keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, as they say.
Diplomacy is not for the faint of heart, by any means. Progess is not made in leaps and bounds generally, but in tiny, incremental inches up the hill.
And that boulder's always threatening to roll right back down the hill over you, too.
When I hear people say the UN's useless, (and yes, I know that's not precisely what you said, Rov) I find myself feeling much like I feel about representative democracy.
It's the worst kind of government, subject to lobbying and money.
It's messy, and smelly, and things would work much faster if everybody would just do what I say.
Barring that development, however, it's also better than any of the currently available alternatives.
Edited by Ro-Astarte, 30 April 2003 - 11:14 PM.