3 ms·
In the case of human rights though, those countries are the ones that need it the most. Even if it has as much as a tiny positive effect on the human rights of
by codetrotter 6y ago
In the case of human rights though, those countries are the ones that need it the most. Even if it has as much as a tiny positive effect on the human rights of the people of those countries, that’s a win. What good would a committee on human rights be if they did not concern themselves with the ones that need it the most?
- ultrablack 6y agoI disagree. HR council is a lost opportunity. The countries on it are the worst offenders, only there to ensure nothing happens. Couldnt have been worse.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The countries on it are the worst offenders The HRC is about 1/4 the size of the UN itself in seats, and countries are elected to by regional allocation in staggered 3-year terms for a maximum of two consecutive terms. “The worst offenders” is not a fair description of the current membership [0], or even a dominant faction of the membership, of the Council. There’ve been a couple times in history where the 15 or so countries elected in a single year have included several notably bad actors, and where people have mistaken that group for the whole council rather than about 1/3 of it, but that;s not reality. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.a...
- fakedang 6y agoSo you're saying that because China or Saudi Arabia needs human rights, they need to send a government lackey to represent them on the global stage, and that will result in even a tiny positive effect? I would be happy to do so if the representatives were Loujain al Hathloul and Rushan Abbas, not the jokers that these countries send to sit on the council. And I know we all will be dead before that ever happens.