anyone going to london on thursday to protest against George W.?

can't really see any that are particularly ridiculous or one-sided. strikes me that they are just matters of upholding human rights for Palestinians.

so how is that not one-sided?
i would also add that the material in the resolution document is more than a two-sentence summary. any line of that document could have meant a veto.

human rights are inalienabble. that is the point. if you do not accept that and believe that to uphold them or seek to uphold them in any case is somehow representative of a particular interest or interest group, then you question the whole concept of inalienable rights of human beings.

but unfortunately, that is exactly the case with the UN. expressing your point through a Syrian-backed UN resolution in the time of hostility is not the way.

i agree

wouldn't matter, if the US was honest in its pursuit to uphold human rights. resolutions such as this, calling on states to observe human rights as found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, would not be part of a political game. One need only look to Central America to see that America does not seek to universalize human rights but instead uses them cynically to employ when convenient. if the US did not have this attitude, it would be in a much better position to back any UN resolution upholding human rights without worrying about the possible interpretations of such action - it would strike most then as being consistent and correct.

firstly, you need to see the document fully to judge on whether it merely called for upholding human rights. that i have no problem with, but because of the ineffectiveness such a resolution would bring, certain specific demands and objections are raised to give the resolution 'practicality' and purpose.

the fact is that, ideally yes, what you propose would be perfect. but looking back over the past 50 years, specific threats and concerns to US national interest and the democratic world, has had to mean the support of regimes and people that do not uphold what the UN may lay down. my point of view is, that because the UN is such an abstract and in reality cumbersome body, it cannot and has not had been able to realise and put into practice what it threatens. be it because of the european nations, the middle east or the security council. i dont believe it is fair to say that had the US been objective throughout the cold war period or even recently, they would now have any differing support from the UN. ie. every country still voting for its own interests. what makes the US any more fallible in that sense?

i accept your point in the first instance. there are practical issues concerning the exact terms of the resolution, these would need top be looked at.

but in answer to the question what makes the us any more fallible my answer is this. the US presents itself as a nation set on "universalising" human rights. Bill Clinton for example labelled "human rights" "the soul of our foreign policy", they are not and they never have been. it is this illusion i have a problem with, an illusion the US deliberately seeks to hide through corporate propaganda and words like the ones just quoted. this sort of deceit does much damage to the concept of human rights that i believ to be the fundamental tenets of fully functioning liberal democracy.

i can understand that, and im not particuarly happy with the guantanamo bay situation. purely on a human rights basis as opposed to, 'do us a favour because we are British'. the so-called 'British' captives should be treated like all the rest.

one other thing, alot of this deceit comes from the fact that america had to keep the moral high ground but politically had to realise its objectives and thus a double standard arose. with the vacuum left since the cold war this suddenly became more apparent not only to the rest of the world but to the americans who couldnt polarise themselves. what i sincerely believe now is, that institutionally and politically, the US has had a shock and its attitudes from present day onwards will be fundamentally different from those we saw throughout the 80s and even in the clinton era. ie. realising the value in being even handed. as much as it sounds like hot air, i genuinely believe that Bush for a number of reasons has realised that they not only have to take the moral high ground but practice it.

as much as it sounds like hot air, i genuinely believe that Bush for a number of reasons has realised that they not only have to take the moral high ground but practice it.