UKC

China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia are on the UN Human Rights Council. China occupies Tibet. Cuba represses political dissent. Saudi Arabia executes children. Russia outlaws GLBTs.
What do you think?

In reply to MikeTS: I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll bite.

The Un is a very funny organisation. The veto, the power blocks, the self interest all combine to make it all a bit looking glass. BUT, we haven't got a better alternative.

So no, I'd be unhappy about Saudi Arabia lecturing me on human rights, but I'm glad they are at least engaging with the subject. and I also don't think that an exemplary HR record is a pre-requisite for identifying failures in other regimes, otherwise no country could be a member

In reply to toad: presume you are referring to this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24922058

and maybe this?

"UN Watch made a broader criticism of the Human Rights Council, accusing it of repeatedly criticising Israel while failing to adopt a resolution that has been critical of China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. "

In reply to MikeTS: I think people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

In reply to toad:

Yes, I was trying to find out why Israel seems to be condemned all out of proportion

In reply to MikeTS:


leaving aside the fact I am not convinced they are. Perhaps it would be because more is expected from democracies?

In reply to MikeTS:

But I wanted to keep to the principals of rights, (rather than shake the mat and see the Israel haters crawl out).

According to Freedom House (out of 7, where 7 is worst, Political Rights first, then Civil Rights

Algeria 6,5
Cuba 7,6
China 7,6
Russia 6,5
Saudi 6,5
Vietnam 7,7

How can you engage with human rights issues worldwide when you deny them to your own citizens?

In reply to dissonance:


I would argue that it is disproportionate.

Israel is the only country listed on the Human Rights Council’s permanent agenda. Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006 - the Council had almost more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined. Also Israel is the only UN Member not eligible for election to the Council, since members are elected by regional groupings, and the Middle Eastern UN region does not allow Israel to join its group.

I agree that Israel's performance outside Israel (its performance inside is as good as any Western Democracy) is not good, but again it is fighting a war against entities intending to destroy it. Israel is clearly not the worst human rights abuser in a world that has concentration camps in North Korea or a leader wanted by the International Criminal Court for genocide as in Sudan or a leader like Assad massacring his people.

And this is my final post about Israel on this thread, to allow anyone interested to keep to the topic of why human rights abusers are elected to the council.

In reply to MikeTS:

Yet another potentially interesting ukc thread that started out being about Absolutely Anything Other Than Israel and after very few posts is All About Israel.

In reply to toad:


'UN Watch'. Interesting website. Hardly non-partisan I would have thought?

In reply to MikeTS:

Sorry. 'Should UN Human Rights Council members believe in rights?'

Yes.

In reply to andyathome:

But what they say hits the mark, don't you think?
The best reason of course if you are a nasty regime to get on the Council is, of course, to ensure you don't get condemned. And the evidence is that it works.

In reply to MikeTS:


Any of those involved actually taking action? Since that would be worth a certain weighting.



As a rule if you are using North Korea as a comparison you are doing something wrong. Also all three of those countries have active sanctions etc in place. Which is a tad more effective than just a resolution without teeth.


Because its the UN and its an imperfect world.

In reply to MikeTS:
>Russia outlaws GLBTs.

F*cking Ivans! That's my favourite sandwich!

In reply to MikeTS:

It almost seems like the nicer regimes/countries say that it's better to engage with the countries which have progress to make to do with human rights, while the nastier regimes see it as a way of spreading their influence and trade, while keeping themselves from being too overtly condemned because the nicer regimes are wanting to engage with them. Perhaps that's bleaker than it really is?

Yes to the original question.

In reply to MikeTS:

List of Treaties the US still hasn't ratified:


Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance
Mine Ban Treaty
Convention on Cluster Munitions
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

In reply to MikeTS:
>.

Nah. Not for me. Their agenda is so blatant. Like when they spend a lot of their bandwith vilifying a Jewish woman who wrote an anti Israel article in her University newspaper (or suchlike - I really can't be arsed to go back and check). A neutral observer of the UN? Not.

In reply to andyathome: Teh wiki says almost entirely funded by US govt, so I'd imagine what they say farly closely mirrors State Department thinking.

In reply to MikeTS: Perhaps the issue will rise to the fore in the Syrian Peace negoatiations. If Russia is to join the world stage and have credibility on the UN { which it is trying to secure- it also wants to sell to the world} it will also have to show committment to common goals on human rights. This is the leverage the UN may possess in the Syrian talks, thus ultimately leaving it up to Russia to remove Assad { an appalling transgressor} in order for Russia to have credibilty. This is how progression is made politically through the UN, drawing countries into common goals which in a sense justifies including countries which have initially poor human rights records. I hope it works for Syria.Its all we've got.

In reply to Removed User:

Except is was all about Isreal, by the OPs own admission.

In reply to MikeTS:


And Israelis occupy Palestine but still feel justified in lecturing the world on human rights. Funny old world.

In reply to Removed User:


Unavoidable given that Mike is the ukc permanent spokesperson for Israel, he lives there. For an Israeli to have the cheek to lecture others on human rights is quite something!

In reply to dissonance:



Actually you are agreeing with me. My issue was about how out of line the UN HRC is with 'regular' diplomacy

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I said I would not talk about Israel on this thread, so I am not doing so and would appreciate you not taking advantage of this.

In reply to The New NickB:



No, I said I was looking into why the UN HRC was acting so disproportionately, and what I found was that the members do not have to show any respect for human rights themselves, and that in fact the UN HRC protects violators of human rights by the UN regional bodies electing such countries.

In reply to MikeTS:

Put it another way that UKCers might relate to. Suppose you have a crag that is designated as trad. Then you find that is being bolted and chipped. And you find it is being administered by a committee that is rigged to have a majority of sports climbers and dry toolers.

In reply to MikeTS:

The Economist had a rather unpleasant article on the impact of three-strikes-out mandatory life terms in the US. They apply even for non-violent crimes, with plenty of people banged up for life without parole even for minor drugs offences.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/criminal-justice

Could be argued you could thus add the US to your list of nations.

In reply to MikeTS:

In response to the OP though, if the Human Rights Council is consistent and applies the rules expected of them (the wheels no doubt turn slowly), it could be a very effective tool in embarrassing these nations to more closely examine their own records.

It would certainly be difficult for the likes of China to go waving the stick of human rights at others while turning a blind eye to their own behaviours.

As always though, human rights abuses can always be excused on "national security" or "terrorism" grounds.

In reply to MikeTS:


eh? Its perfectly in line. With each country looking after its own interests.
Problem is for the HR commission is you cant set the standard to high or you would end up with Norway, San Marino and Canada sitting in a room feeling a tad lonely.

In reply to David Martin:




I read it and others similar. One example was a Texas mother in her 20s who was caught up in a drugs raid but had no drugs. Others caught implicated her. So she was found guilty. Then, under mandatory sentencing laws, she was given life (literally) in prison. Also, capital punishments and imprisonment that clearly are against blacks.
So I would agree with you. Curiously, USA is given a 1,1 freedom rating.

In reply to dissonance:

But maybe that would be better than a system that shields violators and, more importantly, takes UN resources (our taxes) away from protecting/helping victims of human rights abuse

In reply to MikeTS:


Not quite, you were trying ask why Israel gets so much criticism, whether it is disproportionate is a different issue, that people won't agree on, but your thread was very much about Israel, to claim otherwise, is dishonest.

In reply to MikeTS:


With things like phosphorous being using in civilian areas and things? Off the top of my head, that is.

I guess if countries which don't do so well are a part of the UN, if they have a change of leadership, the ground is already laid for them to become more 'a part of the group'?

In reply to David Martin:


But who judges? In what way is China's behaviour over the last half century any worse than USA's, or Israel's and yet here we have a poster from one of these countries posting as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth... both the countries I cite have an atrocious human rights record by any standards, they practice extra-judicial execution as if it was their god given right to give an example in advance of being asked to justify... Then taking into account France's atrocities in its wars of decolonisation in Vietnam and Algeria, that's them off the jury... and many would argue that Britain hasn't exactly got a clean nose. Who would be left? Germany? Well ok if you have a cut off on memory starting in 1945 I suppose.

In reply to MikeTS:

Your notion is admirable but its not how un councils work. They are not world police.
These countries have representatives on the council as part of an international attempt to deal with the issue. They represent that nations position, not police it.
Its a format for addressing issues with input from all who choose to. Its not a prosecuting body, tho it may refer to one (there are several investagative commissions and courts for that, which function not as councils).

When abuses are raised the council becomes the avenue of dialogue. Cutting nasty countries means investigation is massively harder, see NK, myanmar and syria for what happens when council access is stonewalled. Councils are the connection, not the administration.

The body i think you refer to is the collection of high commissions on human rights, which is made up of investagative teams without seats for nations. Its task groups. The people are From all over, but mostly nations with big universities that run post grad degrees in relative subjects, which tends to not include saudi, china etc.

In reply to ice.solo:

oddly this came up today in a conversation and it appears some of my info is out of date.
the high commission morphed into the current council in the Great Reshuffle of 06-07 with the taskings of the commission sectioned off into other parts of the UN (as happened with several departments).

the council as it now stands (being once mainly the forum element of a larger role) appears somewhat more impotent and disjointed, with investigation and prosecution now taking place mostly outside the department. can only imagine the f*ckery that entails.

In reply to ice.solo:

Looking further into the structure of the UN and its ability to forward human rights, the power of the veto is an issue. How much weight proportionately should a veto have? I cite an example of perhaps the disproportionate power of the veto in the case of Syria two years ago when a veto by Russia effectively gave the green light to Assad. You could say the veto was too powerful in that case but in other situatuions it could be just right, and does it give incentive for all countries to participate in the UN the way the veto stands at the moment? Any thoughts?

In reply to MargieB:


As I understand it, the Council sets 'international law'. The General Assembly is a debating house, can pass motions that have no enforcement power. So the Human Rights Council (part of GA) also does not set formal standards, though the GA and its committees have a very public arena.
So, the question is the same. Should democracies support the UN to be structured/rerestructured along democratic lines (vetos, votes, debates etc) and also contain members that oppose such democratic procedures in their own countries?

In reply to MikeTS:

If the UN forms resolutions that effect world opinion, the ability to get those resolutions through is dependent on the veto, so the power of that veto is relevant in advancing or stalling the advancement of world opinion on what constitutes human rights. We can include none democratic countries in the debate and formation of resoltuions but the proportionate power of the veto is important. Somehow, I think the proportionate power of the veto in effecting resolutions needs to be reformed but I don't know how. It seems the veto is too weighty in its effects.

In reply to MikeTS:

My point is not to defend Israel HR record (but since some insist on raising the point it is 1,2 in the Freedom House ratings, slightly worse than the UK but the same as Japan)

I am mentioning Israel only in the context of the question as to the harm done by the UN HRC and the GA by diverting attention from civil rights issues in other parts of the world.

Abba Eban, once said 'If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.'

So far this year, the UN general assembly has passed 21 resolutions condemning Israel. Four resolutions have been passed against all countries in the rest of the world combined. Do the sums.

About 4 million Palestinians. About one resolution per 200,000 people.
7 billion non-Palestinians. About one resolution per 1,750,000,000 people.
That's saying that a Palestinian is victimised about 8,000 more often than a non-Palestinian. In a world with China, Cuba, Vietnam etc!

Even the Israel haters on UKC would have problems with this number.

I'm glad to see the new Australian government seems to agree that the balance needs redressing.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/julie-bishop-says-a...

In reply to MikeTS:

Umm, can't you even imagine that if so many resolutions have been passed against Israel that this could be because so many people in the world think Israel is not being very nice? Sometimes you come across as incapable of realising this, and yet it is hardly difficult to understand.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



As you say, it is perception.
You, for example, are so blinded by your hatred of Israel that you do not admit the possibility of other source in the world of human rights violations

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

For example, this lists by name all 731 Tibetan political prisoners.

http://www.savetibet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICT_political_prisoner_...

Do you have any problems yet with China's occupation of Tibet?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

To make it easier for you, you can emote at the US. There are 164 detainees at Guantánamo Bay as of August 2013. They have been there 12 years without a trial.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Or maybe you could even look at Palestine?
There are about 120 “political prisoners” who have been held by the Palestinian Authority without charge or trial for more than one year, in addition to about 100 held for less than a year. The vast majority are suspected sympathisers with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Plus at least 250 prisoners who have been held without charge or trial for more than one year called “security prisoners” (those suspected of collaboration with Israel) held by the Palestinian Authority.

My original point again: does not the imbalance of condemnation about Human Rights by UN HRC and the GA protect violators and harm victims?

In reply to MikeTS:

Again you don't seem to even realise the special case that Israel is - a minority ethnic/religious group of the population, most of whom had arrived in the previous few decades, took over Palestine by plain and simple violence, killing or driving out huge numbers of the indigenous population. They continue this occupation to this day, regularly killing not only those Palestinians who resist but even thousands of totally innocent people, often children... the hundreds murdered in the raid on Gaza for example. More than this you have created a state with nuclear weapons and think you have the right to go beyond even your stolen borders to bomb neighbouring countries as in Iraq and Lebanon and more recently in Syria... Your threatening stance on Iran and the numerous covert acts against people who oppose you is hardly endearing either.

Despite all this you pretend not to understand why many people, myself included, condemn what you and your compatriots have done and are doing day after day, putting it all down to some imagined hatred we have for you! Look in the mirror, look at your history before accusing others of hatred.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Could you stop changing the topic please. I'm happy to challenge you on Israel, its history and morality in another thread. The lies that are in your post are so egregious that it would need a book to address them.
It would, of course , help in such a thread if you actually gave some evidence rather than just raved.

In reply to MikeTS:


For evidence one only has to take the facts that you are complaining about, ie. that there have been so many resolutions against Israel... Or do you think that all those countries and the millions of people they represent were "raving" too? You know when you start saying everybody else is mad except me there could be a simpler answer to the problem than all the others going to see a shrink.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

My issue, of course, is that it is not all those countries and their millions. It's a select group of undemocratic countries that get undemocratically elected to the UN HRC!