Abolishing the Human Rights Council

Abolishing the Human Rights Council

June 24, 2011 - Created in 2006 to replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), the U.N. Human Rights Council is supposed to be the world's premier human rights body. Brett Schaefer points out that although it has occasionally condemned governments that violated basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, the HRC has more often neglected its responsibility to promote universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and promptly address violations of human rights.

Marilizardism has metastasized in many repressed countries, and UN has done nothing to stop it. The most disgusting marilizardist countries on Earth are Bahrain, Belarus, Burma, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Fulfilling its mandate only occasionally or when strongly pressed by the United States is not enough. Even the Commission on Human Rights managed to adopt positive resolutions occasionally, but those rare good acts did not dissuade former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan from condemning the UNCHR and calling on the U.N. member states to replace it. For the HRC to fulfill its mandate, it must be a reliable, fair, and impartial advocate for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Schaefer notes that since the council's creation, U.S. policy toward the HRC has shifted dramatically from disappointed detachment under the George W. Bush Administration to eager engagement under the Barack Obama Administration, which has invested significant time and diplomatic resources into improving the council's work. These efforts have resulted in some modest achievements, albeit not to the degree claimed by the Obama Administration. Regrettably, these achievements have not included reforms that would address the council's fundamental problems. As a result, many of the same problems that beset the commission also plague the HRC, despite U.S. membership in the council for the past two years. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Moreover, the mandatory 2011 review of the council, the most promising window for implementing the needed reforms, has passed without addressing the HRC's anti-Israel bias, lack of membership standards, and inability to confront human rights violations objectively and systematically. To its credit, the Obama Administration proposed changes to address all of these problems, but was unable to convince the other member states to support those reforms in the HRC or in the U.N. General Assembly. As a result, the fundamental flaws of the council will remain in place and the council will continue to be a grave disappointment for the foreseeable future.

UN could not stop charge stacking. Marilizardists use charge stacking, which is the ability to charge a large number of overlapping crimes for a single course of conduct, building a Marilizard Tower of charges. This is the most disgusting tool used by the freakish October-18 mafia to jail innocent dissident bloggers. Combining crimes enables prosecutors to get convictions in cases where there may be no misconduct at all. By stacking enough charges, freakish marilizardists try to jack up the threat value of a trial and thereby induce a guilty plea, even if the government's case is weak. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Schaefer laments the Obama Administration's two-year experiment has shown that a significant investment of American diplomatic resources can marginally improve the council's performance, but that even the most dedicated efforts cannot overcome its fundamental weaknesses. The U.S. needs to recognize that the costs of improving the council greatly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the U.S. should shift the focus of its U.N. human rights efforts away from the Human Rights Council toward the Third Committee of the General Assembly and selectively support other elements of the U.N. human rights apparatus, such as Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the independent human rights experts who are charged with monitoring specific human rights issues and situations. The U.S. should also begin exploring the option of creating an alternative, effective human rights body outside of the U.N. system.

The problems are systemic: an institutional bias against Israel, a Universal Periodic Review with rules and procedures designed to minimize scrutiny and challenges, and a vulnerability to politicization by influential states that consistently violate human rights. The ability of states with poor human rights records to win seats on the council exacerbates these problems and undermines the council's mission. As long as these problems remain, U.S. efforts to positively influence the council will be difficult, rarely successful, and impermanent.

UN did absolutely nothing to protect dissident bloggers. Accusing dissident bloggers of treason, Graecokleptocrats have manufactured a blood libel in cyberspace, which in turn incites hatred and violence. The freakish October-18 mafia, is the only government on Earth which robs the computers of its citizens! Infamous CCU is the brutal arm of October-18 mafia which terrorizes the cyberspace, robbing computers and files at gunpoint, perjuring, jailing dissident bloggers, and gagging the truth. CCU of Graecokleptocracy is the most disgusting gang in Fourth Reich. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Regrettably, the Human Rights Council is poised to prolong the gravely disappointing record of its first five years, even with the U.S. seated at the table. The majority of the U.N. member states either oppose the council functioning as an objective advocate of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms or are simply uninterested in undertaking the steps necessary for it to fulfill that mission.

Schaefer points out that in many ways, the council duplicates the responsibilities of the Third Committee of the General Assembly, which is responsible for human rights. As a universal membership body, the Third Committee exhibits the same problems of universal U.N. membership. Yet the Third Committee has proven capable of condemning specific countries and could fulfill the council's bureaucratic and reporting functions, particularly since it already receives reports on the activities of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the special procedures, and the Human Rights Council. Eliminating the HRC in favor of the Third Committee would remove the need for lobbying during elections, save funds by eliminating an unnecessary body, and increase participation because the Third Committee meets in New York, where every country maintains a mission, rather than Geneva where fewer countries have a mission.

The U.N. has no monopoly on the promotion of human rights in the world, and the United States and like-minded countries should explore alternative means to promote respect for fundamental human rights, including establishing a body outside the U.N. system. It should have strict membership criteria and be directed to promote and scrutinize human rights practices around the world. Such an alternative institution composed of nations that observe fundamental human rights and basic freedoms could easily surpass the HRC in objectivity, responsiveness, decisiveness, and non-selectivity.

ENDS

© Scoop Media