The HRC election: Another U.N. farce
In response to reprobate nations angling for seats this month on the United Nations' inglorious Human Rights Council, the Obama administration should relinquish its own council post and abandon any further pretense of trying to reform this rogues gallery of rights abusers.
The 47-member council provides nothing more than sanctuary for the world's most abusive nations. It has turned a blind eye to outrageous degradations, such as the persecution of Christians and gays in some Muslim nations this year. Yet it demonizes Israel at every opportunity.
Among rights “defenders” vying for new terms in Tuesday's election are China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Members undergo a so-called Universal Periodic Review, which amounts to little more than mutual admiration.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, says U.S. involvement with the council has led to some positive, albeit limited, action, such as investigations of Iran and North Korea. But “the vast majority of the world's worse abusers continue to get a free pass,” including Moscow and Havana, which are “untouchable,” Neuer writes.
And for four years now, the U.S. has been a complicit participant in this ongoing U.N. farce, most notably remaining silent when Libya's late Moammar Gadhafi was elected to the council in 2010.
For each year it remains a member, the Obama administration perpetuates the mockery of the U.N.'s human-rights-abusing council.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.