Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another shinign moment for the UN

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/human-rights-abuser-syria-set-join-uns-human-rights-council/

Democracy in action.

Good, about time someone who know how to handle a sticky situation got involved.

Kilkrazy wrote:Hypocrisy in action.

Fixed it for you

It's not like all of the other members are paragons of virtue....

Stuff like that annoys me

US: You can't have nukes!
Arab country: But you have them!
US: They're for defence!
Arab country : But you last used them in a war!

It's still done by a vote.

This is an excellent way to ensure no-one takes the UN seriously.

So, when does Mugabe take over as chairman?

I vote for Silvio Berlusconi to chair the Women's and Minor's rights commitees, guaranteed that he will have very "good" deputies and assistants!

Kilkrazy wrote:It's still done by a vote.

I have a feeling that the "vote" is based more on personal relationships between the various delegates than the actual substantive issue of human rights.

You mean like most votes?

sexiest_hero wrote:You mean like most votes?

Exactly like most votes.

Democracy doesn't mean you have to be competent, just popular.

Yep. There is always Communism my Comrade.

sexiest_hero wrote:Yep. There is always Communism my Comrade.

Minimize government to limit the harm that elected officials can cause. Let the private sector handle the rest.

If someone in the private sector is popular but incompetent, they lose.

biccat wrote:
If someone in the private sector is popular but incompetent, they lose.

Orly? What private sector do you work in?

biccat wrote:
I have a feeling that the "vote" is based more on personal relationships between the various delegates than the actual substantive issue of human rights.

No, its based on the fact that "human rights" is a concept that is far from settled in a global sense.

As I always say in these conversations, the UN is not the United States, or even the West, its the United Nations. It represents interests that extend far beyond what the developed world wants, or even thinks is good. The fact that Syria can be elected to the UN doesn't indicate that the UN works poorly, it indicates that its doing precisely what its supposed.

Also, you're pretending these delegates have more autonomy than they do, they're arms of the state, not independent actors.

Ketara wrote:This is an excellent way to ensure no-one takes the UN seriously.

So, when does Mugabe take over as chairman?

You realize that being taken seriously involves more than just appealing to the West, right?

When you cut 90% of the world out of the conversation, you miss the point of the UN.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If someone in the private sector is popular but incompetent, they lose.

Orly? What private sector do you work in?

The real world. You should take a trip outside of academia sometime.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I have a feeling that the "vote" is based more on personal relationships between the various delegates than the actual substantive issue of human rights.

No, its based on the fact that "human rights" is a concept that is far from settled in a global sense.

Yes, you're right. And when the "global sense" of human rights goes against our values, shouldn't we be able to mock those so-called "Human Rights" organisations?

Tolerating a different concept of human rights doesn't mean we have to accept it.

dogma wrote:As I always say in these conversations, the UN is not the United States, or even the West, its the United Nations. It represents interests that extend far beyond what the developed world wants, or even thinks is good. The fact that Syria can be elected to the UN doesn't indicate that the UN works poorly, it indicates that its doing precisely what its supposed.

How is giving one of the worst human rights abusing nations a vote on human rights a good thing for the UN? The intent of the HRC (as far as I understand it) is to express international condemnation of abusive practices in foreign countries. If you give one of those countries a vote, you're lessening the impact of the HRC.

dogma wrote:Also, you're pretending these delegates have more autonomy than they do, they're arms of the state, not independent actors.

Actually I think the Syrian delegate to the UN:HRC lost his citizenship. He has opposed these crackdowns, and the leadership in Damascus wasn't too happy about it.

Further, I'm not sure I ascribed any autonomy to the delegates. I just said that it's a popularity contest, unrelated to the activities or values of their respective states. Also, isn't the fact that the delegates are arms of their respective states more reason to prevent Syria from having a delegate on the Human Rights Commission?

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:This is an excellent way to ensure no-one takes the UN seriously.

So, when does Mugabe take over as chairman?

You realize that being taken seriously involves more than just appealing to the West, right?

When you cut 90% of the world out of the conversation, you miss the point of the UN.

Appealing to the West? Sir, you jump to conclusions. How unusual. Late night?

Electing someone who breaches human rights to a council on promoting human rights is highly ironic. Western appeals or morals are irrelevant to that.

The analogy works because electing someone who is so anti-other nations as Mugabe, who regularly shouts about how everything wrong in his country is everyone else's fault (especially Tony Blairs), or made up, to the highest position in an organization called the 'United' Nations, would be equally ironic.

This irony results in nobody taking the UN seriously.

biccat wrote:
The real world. You should take a trip outside of academia sometime.

I managed the largest health club in Chicago for two and a half years , and worked in the private throughout high school and college. Competence is only one variable affecting promotion, just like its only one variable affecting popularity.

biccat wrote:
Yes, you're right. And when the "global sense" of human rights goes against our values, shouldn't we be able to mock those so-called "Human Rights" organisations?

Not if you want to sound sensible. If a multinational organization promoting human rights is promoting a multinational conception of human rights, then you're basically mocking that organization for being something it isn't intended to be, which makes you sound foolish.

Its like saying "Look at that cat! Its not a dog! Stupid cat why aren't you a dog!"

biccat wrote:
Tolerating a different concept of human rights doesn't mean we have to accept it.

You're not mocking Syrian human rights though, or even the UN conception of human rights, you're mocking the body for doing something that is within the auspices of its design.

biccat wrote:
How is giving one of the worst human rights abusing nations a vote on human rights a good thing for the UN? The intent of the HRC (as far as I understand it) is to express international condemnation of abusive practices in foreign countries. If you give one of those countries a vote, you're lessening the impact of the HRC.

Again, you're assuming a Western perspective. The UN does not have this luxury. Many governments, and many people, in the world would not agree that Syria is a significant abuser of human rights. Putting a nation like Syria on the HRC is good for the UN because it shows that the UN, at least outside the SC, is not necessarily dominated by Western interests.

biccat wrote:
Actually I think the Syrian delegate to the UN:HRC lost his citizenship. He has opposed these crackdowns, and the leadership in Damascus wasn't too happy about it.

That isn't possible ,as they are not on the HRC yet. The vote is May 20th.

biccat wrote:
Further, I'm not sure I ascribed any autonomy to the delegates. I just said that it's a popularity contest, unrelated to the activities or values of their respective states.

You said it had to do primarily with the personal relationship among delegates, implying that they were more significant than the states involved.

biccat wrote:
Also, isn't the fact that the delegates are arms of their respective states more reason to prevent Syria from having a delegate on the Human Rights Commission?

For the US, yes. For everyone else, maybe not. Since the UN isn't just the US, this is an important distinction.

dogma wrote:Again, you're assuming a Western perspective. The UN does not have this luxury. Many governments, and many people, in the world would not agree that Syria is a significant abuser of human rights. Putting a nation like Syria on the HRC is good for the UN because it shows that the UN, at least outside the SC, is not necessarily dominated by Western interests.

So putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a good thing because it shows that the farmer isn't dominated by pro-hen interests?

The rest of your post seems to be in a similar vein, responded to this point to keep it concise.

Ketara wrote:
Appealing to the West? Sir, you jump to conclusions. How unusual. Late night?

Electing someone who breaches human rights to a council on promoting human rights is highly ironic. Western appeals or morals are irrelevant to that.

It was a late night, but I didn't jump to conclusions, and you're illustrating that point even better now. Human rights are central to questions of morality, and claiming that they aren't is indicative of a perspective that is fundamentally blind to dissent. Remember, we can argue that human rights, if they exist, are extant within all humans, but we can also argue that they either do not exist, or that the nature of those rights is not what others believe it to be.

Ketara wrote:
The analogy works because electing someone who is so anti-other nations as Mugabe, who regularly shouts about how everything wrong in his country is everyone else's fault (especially Tony Blairs), or made up, to the highest position in an organization called the 'United' Nations, would be equally ironic.

I don't see why. Mugabe runs, sort of now, a nation-state and nation-states are the foundation of the United Nations. United doesn't imply a common purpose, or even agreement, it simply implies gathering together in a single place.

The problem is that many people, in the West especially, see the UN as something that it isn't, and they desperately want it to be something else. In my opinion its a symptom of denial resulting from the growing relevance of previously peripheral states, but I have no research to prove that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
So putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a good thing because it shows that the farmer isn't dominated by pro-hen interests?

The rest of your post seems to be in a similar vein, responded to this point to keep it concise.

That analogy is terrible.

By using the hen to represent both the West and humans in general you're simply displaying an inability to look at the issue from a perspective which neutral with respect to the interests of humans in general.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
So putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a good thing because it shows that the farmer isn't dominated by pro-hen interests?

The rest of your post seems to be in a similar vein, responded to this point to keep it concise.

That analogy is terrible.

By using the hen to represent both the West and humans in general you're simply displaying an inability to look at the issue from a perspective which neutral with respect to the interests of humans in general.

I don't have an inability to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. I understand that Syria and others have a view of human rights that is vastly different from those understood in Western democracies. I simply think that the West has a superior definition of human rights, and giving a platform to countries with worse beliefs will weaken the standing of the HRC as a whole.

Further, the history of Syria's human rights violations, as recognized by the HRC and which are ongoing, shows that they are well out of the mainstream under even the UN's milquetoast definitions.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
So putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a good thing because it shows that the farmer isn't dominated by pro-hen interests?

The rest of your post seems to be in a similar vein, responded to this point to keep it concise.

That analogy is terrible.

By using the hen to represent both the West and humans in general you're simply displaying an inability to look at the issue from a perspective which neutral with respect to the interests of humans in general.

I don't have an inability to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. I understand that Syria and others have a view of human rights that is vastly different from those understood in Western democracies. I simply think that the West has a superior definition of human rights, and giving a platform to countries with worse beliefs will weaken the standing of the HRC as a whole.

Further, the history of Syria's human rights violations, as recognized by the HRC and which are ongoing, shows that they are well out of the mainstream under even the UN's milquetoast definitions.

Further, if the argument that the US and West are somehow out of step with the rest of the world in wanting more human rights then wouldn't it behoove us to not belong to such an organization that so utterly fails represent our interest? You just made the argument we should be leaving UN entities that do such (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Appealing to the West? Sir, you jump to conclusions. How unusual. Late night?

Electing someone who breaches human rights to a council on promoting human rights is highly ironic. Western appeals or morals are irrelevant to that.

It was a late night, but I didn't jump to conclusions, and you're illustrating that point even better now. Human rights are central to questions of morality, and claiming that they aren't is indicative of a perspective that is fundamentally blind to dissent. Remember, we can argue that human rights, if they exist, are extant within all humans, but we can also argue that they either do not exist, or that the nature of those rights is not what others believe it to be.

Ketara wrote:
The analogy works because electing someone who is so anti-other nations as Mugabe, who regularly shouts about how everything wrong in his country is everyone else's fault (especially Tony Blairs), or made up, to the highest position in an organization called the 'United' Nations, would be equally ironic.

I don't see why. Mugabe runs, sort of now, a nation-state and nation-states are the foundation of the United Nations. United doesn't imply a common purpose, or even agreement, it simply implies gathering together in a single place.

The problem is that many people, in the West especially, see the UN as something that it isn't, and they desperately want it to be something else. In my opinion its a symptom of denial resulting from the growing relevance of previously peripheral states, but I have no research to prove that.

To quote their own website, 'The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the UN system made up of 47 States responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 with the main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them'.

You're running off on an irrelevant tangent. The point I made was that I made a comment that this was ironic. Why? Because they are allowing to someone to join them, who breaches the statement given above. This is akin to allowing the Soviet Union to join a Council avowed to destroying international communism.

Your point that I think the UN must represent everyone in the world, dictators and child molesters alike is irrelevant. It's not what I believe. I personally have no illusions that the UN is some massively Pro-Western tree hugging community with Western morals and views. To imply I do is putting words and views in my mouth, and damaging whatever argument you may have had to bergin with.

The fact is, allowing someone that indulges in certain behaviour to join an organisation that supposedly intends on stamping out/rectifying that behaviour, is deliciously ironic.

And a similar irony, would be allowing a dictator, who is famous for his own attempts to not engage with the international community (from publicly insulting most other nations, to prohibiting journalists from visiting, to imposing a 100% value import tax on everything, to ignoring pretty much anything anyone internationally says), to become chairman of a organisation dedicated to fostering ties between nations, allowing them settle disputes between them, engaging in mutually beneficial activities, and so on.

In other words, both situations, are Ironic.

And as a result of this irony, people do not take the organisations avowal of their commitment to their espoused causes/purposes (see statement above) seriously.

Case in point. I seriously find it difficult to see what you're trying to argue with here.

Frazzled wrote:Further, if the argument that the US and West are somehow out of step with the rest of the world in wanting more human rights then wouldn't it behoove us to not belong to such an organization that so utterly fails represent our interest? You just made the argument we should be leaving UN entities that do such (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

Well, yeah, we used to do that, back when we had a evil Republican President.

biccat wrote:
I don't have an inability to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. I understand that Syria and others have a view of human rights that is vastly different from those understood in Western democracies. I simply think that the West has a superior definition of human rights, and giving a platform to countries with worse beliefs will weaken the standing of the HRC as a whole.

You're not making a coherent argument. You're determining the affect of a decision made by a political institution according to your belief regarding the quality of the moral subject of that decision, not by the quality of the decision relative to the interests of the body as a whole; which has far more to do with global agreement than it does with any conception of qualitative superiority.

If you simply said that you didn't like the fact that Syria might be elected to the HRC because you think their conception of human rights is bad, and that it didn't further your own desire to see your conception of human rights exported, then you would have made a reasonable point. But that isn't what you said.

biccat wrote:
Further, the history of Syria's human rights violations, as recognized by the HRC and which are ongoing, shows that they are well out of the mainstream under even the UN's milquetoast definitions.

No, not necessarily, it shows they wee out of the majority at the time of the resolutions passed, or that the nation itself was simply unpopular for any alternative reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Further, if the argument that the US and West are somehow out of step with the rest of the world in wanting more human rights then wouldn't it behoove us to not belong to such an organization that so utterly fails represent our interest? You just made the argument we should be leaving UN entities that do such (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

No, that's nonsense.

If we're talking about the UN specifically, then the fact that the UN has veto power trumps any argument from alternative values.

If we're talking about such organizations in general, then it behooves us to be at the table in order to have our perspective represented, even if the body as a whole is not entirely sympathetic to us. Having some say, and the US has more than some say, is better than having no say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

To quote their own website, 'The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the UN system made up of 47 States responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 with the main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them'.

You're not even addressing my argument. You're treating human rights as though they are something that everyone agrees upon, which is utter nonsense.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, because you clearly didn't bother to consider mine.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I don't have an inability to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. I understand that Syria and others have a view of human rights that is vastly different from those understood in Western democracies. I simply think that the West has a superior definition of human rights, and giving a platform to countries with worse beliefs will weaken the standing of the HRC as a whole.

You're not making a coherent argument. You're determining the affect of a decision made by a political institution according to your belief regarding the quality of the moral subject of that decision, not by the quality of the decision relative to the interests of the body as a whole; which has far more to do with global agreement than it does with any conception of qualitative superiority.

If you simply said that you didn't like the fact that Syria might be elected to the HRC because you think their conception of human rights is bad, and that it didn't further your own desire to see your conception of human rights exported, then you would have made a reasonable point. But that isn't what you said.

Let me be clear.
1) Putting Syria on the HRC is hypocritical. They are giving one of the worst offending nations a vote on subjects that they will be the subject of.
2) Putting Syria on the HRC weakens the UN's mandate as an agent to improve human rights. They have shown that Syria is a serial violator, yet now makes them a member to help establish the future direction of human rights.
3) Putting Syria on the HRC will weaken the international concept of human rights. The HRC will have to compromise with Syria on at least some issues, and given Syria's less stringent view of human rights, such a compromise will weaken human rights in general.
4) Putting Syria on the HRC shows that adherence to human rights standards is not necessary. Rewarding Syria with a position on the HRC, in effect giving them the ability to shape the standards by which they are judged, is showing that human rights are not as important as adherence to standards of human rights.

All of these are reasons why putting Syria on the human rights council is a bad idea, both internally and externally.

dogma wrote:No, not necessarily, it shows they wee out of the majority at the time of the resolutions passed, or that the nation itself was simply unpopular for any alternative reason.

Countries don't get resolutions passed against them because they're a "were out of the mainstream at the time of the resolutions" (I assume this is what you mean, that part doesn't make much sense if it's "wee"). They get resolutions passed against them because there are specific abuses that are well outside of the mainstream concept of human rights. Or they're Israel, which would probably fit into the "unpopular" category.

biccat wrote:
1) Putting Syria on the HRC is hypocritical. They are giving one of the worst offending nations a vote on subjects that they will be the subject of.

That isn't hypocrisy even if you're assuming a Western conception of human rights. Saying that human rights should be advocated is not saying that human rights offenders should not be included on a council dedicated to such.

biccat wrote:
2) Putting Syria on the HRC weakens the UN's mandate as an agent to improve human rights. They have shown that Syria is a serial violator, yet now makes them a member to help establish the future direction of human rights.

Again, you're assuming a singular definition of human rights, which is poor given the scope of the UN. Most nations, not even the US, agree on the breadth of the universal declaration.

biccat wrote:
3) Putting Syria on the HRC will weaken the international concept of human rights. The HRC will have to compromise with Syria on at least some issues, and given Syria's less stringent view of human rights, such a compromise will weaken human rights in general.

It will weaken the influence of your conception of human rights, yes.

biccat wrote:
4) Putting Syria on the HRC shows that adherence to human rights standards is not necessary. Rewarding Syria with a position on the HRC, in effect giving them the ability to shape the standards by which they are judged, is showing that human rights are not as important as adherence to standards of human rights.

No, its showing that it isn't necessary to adhere to your human rights standards. And yes, it gives them influence over the standard by which they are judged, people and bodies generally want that, and it generally confers legitimacy to the judging party. In fact, every democracy in the world has that.

biccat wrote:
All of these are reasons why putting Syria on the human rights council is a bad idea, both internally and externally.

No, only internally. You're equivocating.

biccat wrote:
Countries don't get resolutions passed against them because they're a "were out of the mainstream at the time of the resolutions" (I assume this is what you mean, that part doesn't make much sense if it's "wee"). They get resolutions passed against them because there are specific abuses that are well outside of the mainstream concept of human rights. Or they're Israel, which would probably fit into the "unpopular" category.

Yeah, that's what I meant, I need to buy a new keyboard.

That's nonsense, and your example of Israel explains exactly why its nonsense. Rest assured that they aren't the only state the receives such treatment, Malaysia, the United States, Nicaragua, and even India have received similar treatment despite not committing particular actions that were especialyl distinct from their previous behavior.

Maybe I'm mistaken as to its purpose Dogma, but This?

And last I checked, even UN officials, including Ban Ki Moon (spelling?) have pointed fingers at the UNHRC for behavior that is counter to its goals, namely that nations that are big human rights violators (as human rights are defined by the UDoHR), according to the composition of the committee, are able to vote as a bloc and protect one another.

dogma wrote:You're not even addressing my argument. You're treating human rights as though they are something that everyone agrees upon, which is utter nonsense.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, because you clearly didn't bother to consider mine.

That's because it was irrelevant. I completely understand the point you're trying to get across, that maybe for human rights, the west and syria have completely different conceptions of them! *shock horror*

And therefore, Syrias view on human rights is just as valid!

*shock, horror*

And therefore, even if they're violating what would be western standards, they're not violating their own! Therefore they have equal rights to be on the council!

*shock horror*

I understand the point you're trying to make. And not only is it irrelevant, its just plain wrong. Why?

Because the UN issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In regard to the UN, what is or isn't Human Rights is not up for debate. It states such things as:

bill of human rights wrote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And so on. Therefore the UN itself is not a neutral organisation in that regard. It upholds those human rights stated there. Therefore what Syria might think are human rights are irrelevant. What the West thinks are human rights are equally irrelevant. The rights that the UN espouses are the ones given in the UN's declaration of Human Rights. Its as simple as that.

Therefore, including someone who does not agree with those stated tenets of human rights, on the Council for those aforementioned human rights, is ironic.

LordofHats wrote:Maybe I'm mistaken as to its purpose Dogma, but This?

And last I checked, even UN officials, including Ban Ki Moon (spelling?) have pointed fingers at the UNHRC for behavior that is counter to its goals, namely that nations that are big human rights violators, according to the composition of the committee, are able to vote as a bloc and protect one another.

Sure, its a democratic institution, people will disagree.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Maybe I'm mistaken as to its purpose Dogma, but This?

And last I checked, even UN officials, including Ban Ki Moon (spelling?) have pointed fingers at the UNHRC for behavior that is counter to its goals, namely that nations that are big human rights violators, according to the composition of the committee, are able to vote as a bloc and protect one another.

Sure, its a democratic institution, people will disagree.

I guess I just don't see how someone who mocks the UN for (potentially?) putting Syria on a human rights committee (aren't they violently oppressing protestors right now anyway?) are being unreasonable. It seems pretty silly to me if we are to take the UDoHR's as a definition of human rights by which the HRC operates. Didn't we have this same issue before when they put Libya I think it was on the council?

Ketara wrote:
That's because it was irrelevant. I completely understand the point you're trying to get across, that maybe for human rights, the west and syria have completely different conceptions of them! *shock horror*

And therefore, Syrias view on human rights is just as valid!

Again, its irrelevant to you. It isn't irrelevant to the UN.

This isn't difficult, its literally just appreciating that a collective body based on international perspective is not the same as people sitting in England and the United States.

Ketara wrote:
I understand the point you're trying to make. And not only is it irrelevant, its just plain wrong. Why?

Because the UN issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In regard to the UN, what is or isn't Human Rights is not up for debate. It states such things as:

bill of human rights wrote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And so on.

You agree to these?

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (lots of US law doesn't)

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (US law doesn't)

The list goes on. The Universal Declaration is meaningless because it reflects the diverse interests of many nations, indicating a lack of agreement to any standard of human rights.

LordofHats wrote:
I guess I just don't see how someone who mocks the UN for (potentially?) putting Syria on a human rights committee (aren't they violently oppressing protestors right now anyway?) are being unreasonable. It seems pretty silly to me if we are to take the UDoHR's as a definition of human rights by which the HRC operates. Didn't we have this same issue before when they put Libya I think it was on the council?

Yeah, we did, but as I illustrated even the US doesn't agree to many of the tenants of the UDHR, so its hardly a constitutive document.

The whole conversation boils down to "Lol, country X does things I don't like, so they shouldn't be part of the HRC". Which is fine, but no one ever just comes out and says that.