Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Here a quote from a pressing briefing by the UN envoy. found in UN
web page.
Asked if the United Nations was the right venue for dealing with
human rights issues in Myanmar, [b]he said that isolation and
sanctions had not worked so far, and the Security Council
resolution might not have worked, but that did not mean that
Security Council action might not be helpful. The
Secretary-General had a role under the mandate from the General
Assembly to find ways of building international support for his
action, so that the authorities would address the issues he had
mentioned. Those efforts should be given a chance, because those
countries that had voted against a resolution of the
Security Council, while recognizing that there were problems in
Myanmar, did not think that the Security Council was the
appropriate forum to act on them. They had mentioned the
Human Rights Council, in that regard. Under those circumstances,
the Secretary-Generals good offices should be used as a means to
get the results required.
Asked about the role of the Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN), he said that a recent meeting of ASEAN Ministers
had agreed in principle to establish a human rights mechanism. That
was an important step, because Myanmar had gone along with that,
fully aware that once that mechanism was established, it
would look at human rights records of ASEAN Member States. He hoped
all ASEAN countries would cooperate in the work of such a
mechanism.
How do you bring about change in the attitude of a regime? he
asked in that connection. You can either change the regime, which
is not an option available to us, or achieve change
by allowing
international forces, particularly those that have influence on the
regime, to bring it to be, and we have decided to take the
second option.[quote]
1) sanction and isolation have not yield desirable outcome to
easing HR and political changes.
2) countries vote against a resolution signal a split in the
council on Myanmar. (no secret). general assembly it seemed the
secretary general is still trying to gather international support.
Thus you can said yes the general assembly could overight the
council but seemed like still has a distance.
3) It seemed that UN is at this moment watching and trying to let
Asean Human Right mechanism work itself out. I doubt there are any
political will but will see his report after he return to NY.
It will be a show case of EU and most western country up held their
HR standard by wanting a tough statement but most likely minimum
action so that they look good. It will be interesting to see how SG
or Asean is going to defined Human Right Charter, and to what
standard does Asean lived by.
[/b]
Ever heard of something called lip service? Or are you immuned
from it?
When Christopher Hill expresses faith in the DPRK's commitment to
nuclear disarmament, is that merely a front the US would like to
put on to signal progress in the six-party talks or is there
something tangible in his words? Perhaps, it's worth wondering why
Hill is still talking about his faith in a deal instead of his
achievements more than 2 years after his appointment as the US
representative to the six-party talks. Apparently, you seem to live
in a world fit for kids where you literally take everyone's word at
face value.
Anyway, back to your points :
1. Sanctions and isolation may not have yielded the outcome in
terms of having a complete overhaul of the regime, but evidently
there is nothing to suggest it hasn't worked. On the
contrary, there is nothing to suggest anything else works better,
which clearly explains the international community's knack in
resorting to such measures whenever the junta steps out of
line. As a matter of fact, that regime has a knack of
backing down when placed under pressure from the international
community through sanctions and isolation. You may wish to analyse
in detail the sanctions and subsequent backing down by the regime
whenever Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest is extended.
2. What the hell are you talking about? Who ever said you'd get a
resolution passed easily at the Security Council? Your intellect
seems no more agile than a toddler going by your senseless
diatribes. Did the Security Council reach any effective consensus
in the Balkan crisis in the 1990's or Iraq before Bush sent his
troops in? As a matter of fact, this particular instance
isn't so much an issue of a resolution not having the support of
the majority as is the issue with the fact China chooses to
exercise its veto as a permanent member which complicates
things.
3. If the UN were prepared to sit by and let the ASEAN Human Rights
charter kick in, why would they bother sending Gambari there to
begin with? For a holiday or tea session with Tan Shwe? If ASEAN
could be relied upon to resolve issue, would there even be a need
for this matter to be referred to the Security Council to begin
with? As with anything, Gambari's merely doing everything
diplomatically possible by exhausting all avenues to advance his
cause - and that's by no means an endorsement on his, or the UN's,
part of the ability of ASEAN to resolve this issue.
