U.N. Proposes Human Rights Council
As part of a package of reforms unveiled last month, the secretary-general proposed a human rights council to replace the present commission. The new council would be a permanent body, possibly on a par with the Security Council.
As a standing organ of the United Nations, the body would meet when necessary, addressing human rights violations as they arise. At present, the commission can only address issues during its annual six-week session.
I think Kofi Annan is himself a “standing organ”. And the fact that hundreds of thousands of people being murdered merits no more than six weeks out of their year shows exactly where the U.N. stands. Any more time devoted to it, and it may start to interfere with their oil-for-food-for-U.N-bribes work.
Council members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority and fulfill specific human rights criteria, according to the proposed reforms.
And I’m sure that the members would consist of Libya, Sudan, Cuba and China. Noted human rights abusers such as the USA, the U.K. or Australia would not even be able to apply (I was going to include Canada there, but the psychological abuse of their citizens by the Canadian government would put them in the former group).
Last year, the commission voted 50-1, with 2 abstentions, to express concern about the situation in Darfur, but stopped short of formal condemnation of Sudan. Even formal censure by the commission involves no penalties but draws attention to a country's record.
Well, at least they voted to “express concern”. Now if they’d just vote to give them a “stern look”, the situation would be resolved! But that would probably be taking it too far.
Tell me again: why are we paying for this joke?