The Death Knells of the UN?

[Anyael]

Besides being an almost entirely impotent organization with an intransigent Security Council, the UN has just made one more step into being a useless organization with no hope of accomplishing anything.

Cuba, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are now members of the Human Rights Council.

I shouldn't have to explain why none of those countries deserve to be on it. Here's a link.

http://www.genevasummit.org/dictatorfreehrc

What do you guys think? Is it time that the United States and our NATO allies begin to disregard the UN for the fraud that it is?

[Roveredo]

Considering the United States do the same shit or worse, I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Deleted]

The UN is a joke and has been for a long time, it is about time NATO and the UN were both scrapped.

[Morden]

Always seen the UN as a means to placate the masses, its more effective than the League of Nations, but that doesnt really mean much.

The only countries it really manages to bully into doing what it wants are the ones without enough power to ignore it, and quite frankly even without the UN the countries which want to do the bullying would find another way.

But its better to have people talking even if it is bullshit than for them not to be in communication.

[Anyael]

Considering the United States do the same shit or worse, I dont see anything wrong with that.

OK: wrong.

China annexed Tibet and Inner Mongolia in the 50s. Annexation. The worst we've done is Hawaii, which actually eventually asked us to annex them.

Cuba is admittedly just a repressive communist dictatorship, but that comes with all of the human rights abuses.

Saudi Arabia... besides the lack of woman's rights, gay rights, religious minority rights..... or even rights.... is on the Human Rights council.

Russia is currently occupying 20% of Georgia's territory. Occupying.

I shouldn't have had to say this.

[Roveredo]

OK: wrong.

China annexed Tibet and Inner Mongolia in the 50s. Annexation. The worst we've done is Hawaii, which actually eventually asked us to annex them.

Cuba is admittedly just a repressive communist dictatorship, but that comes with all of the human rights abuses.

Saudi Arabia... besides the lack of woman's rights, gay rights, religious minority rights..... or even rights.... is on the Human Rights council.

Russia is currently occupying 20% of Georgia's territory. Occupying.

I shouldn't have had to say this.

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp among others.

[Deleted]

russia and china dictatorships

my sides

[Anyael]

1. Out of those countries, only Saudi-Arabia is a dictatorship and they happen to be our bff's.
2. They have the same right to be on this council as the US.
3. Cuba has been on this since 2012; Russia since 2012; China since 2012 and Saudi-Arabia too. Why complain now?

But hey, let's put only countries on the council that I like and give them full power over the entire world.. That's how real democracy works!

1. Both China and Cuba are dictatorships, definitely. In Cuba you are allowed to vote but with threat of force and China holds elections for village council, while the majority of the power is consolidated in officials who are not elected. The legitimacy of Putin's elections are uncertain.

2. Absolutely not. The purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council is as follows: "The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe."
These nations do not promote or protect human rights within their own borders! Humans do not have rights within their borders!!!

3. If I wasn't complaining now I would be complaining never?

It's not about liking the country, it's about ensuring that the countries whose purpose is to protect and promote human rights are actually protecting and promoting human rights. Admittedly Russia's human right's violations are minimal in the face of the other three countries, but I don't understand the idea that we should compromise on global human rights in any way if that is the purpose of the council.

[Dezerte]

I don't see how.

[Anyael]

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp among others.

Believe me, I understand the wrongs committed by my own country. In part, because we are waging a war against a shadow opponent. Our legal system is still reeling over the change in warfare for the modern era now that civilians are the threat to security rather than militants. Hopefully the light that our media is allowed to shine on these issues (Big hint: you can't do that in any of these 4 countries) will make it change for the better.

[Dezerte]

2. Absolutely not. The purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council is as follows: "The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe."
These nations do not promote or protect human rights within their own borders! Humans do not have rights within their borders!!!

Like the LGBT in, oh the US. Guess we should kick the US out?

It's not about liking the country, it's about ensuring that the countries whose purpose is to protect and promote human rights are actually protecting and promoting human rights. Admittedly Russia's human right's violations are minimal in the face of the other three countries, but I don't understand the idea that we should compromise on global human rights in any way if that is the purpose of the council.

Tying in with my response above, inviting countries into the UN to partake and share in constructive discussions is one way of ensuring & expanding human rights to cover those countries too. The fact that these countries were interested at all in the UN shows that they are willing to talk, and I'd much rather prefer if we could solve these problems with discussion and not violence (or continued oppression of human rights).

[Anyael]

Like the LGBT in, oh the US. Guess we should kick the US out?

Tying in with my response above, inviting countries into the UN to partake and share in constructive discussions is one way of ensuring & expanding human rights to cover those countries too. The fact that these countries were interested at all in the UN shows that they are willing to talk, and I'd much rather prefer if we could solve these problems with discussion and not violence (or continued oppression of human rights).

I'm actually gay myself and see no problem with the current state of gay rights in the US. We are protected in the workplace, every state is federally required to recognize our marriages though they can only take place in certain states (only a matter of time). That is juxtaposed with Saudi Arabia, where they stone you to death when they find out you are gay. If you don't see a difference then...

If the only purpose the UN serves is the engage in 'constructive discussions' as you have put it, then it is defunct. Do you know what the League of Nations was? They did just that, sat most of the nations down and had a good ol' chat about everything that was happening. They sternly worded a reprimand at Japan after invading Manchuria and China, they scolded Mussolini for using chemical weapons in Ethiopia and in the end did nothing at all. This was the great failure of WWI, to not prevent WWII.

If all we are doing is talking, we have already given up on acting. And if we have given up on taking action, then this is just a slippery slope into WWIII.

[Masark]

1. Both China and Cuba are dictatorships, definitely. In Cuba you are allowed to vote but with threat of force and China holds elections for village council, while the majority of the power is consolidated in officials who are not elected. The legitimacy of Putin's elections are uncertain.

China is definitely authoritarian, but is not a dictatorship.

[Skroe]

Nope. It's important that the countries have a forum in the world where we can sit down, talk, and then ultimately ignore them.

[Tradewind]

Nope. It's important that the countries have a forum in the world where we can sit down, talk, and then ultimately ignore them.

The UN works just like my office's team meetings, neat!

[Dezerte]

I'm actually gay myself and see no problem with the current state of gay rights in the US. We are protected in the workplace, every state is federally required to recognize our marriages though they can only take place in certain states (only a matter of time). That is juxtaposed with Saudi Arabia, where they stone you to death when they find out you are gay. If you don't see a difference then...

I was merely joking, I don't think a single country in the UN is a perfect protector of human rights. About your anecdotal, see the bold.

If the only purpose the UN serves is the engage in 'constructive discussions' as you have put it, then it is defunct. Do you know what the League of Nations was? They did just that, sat most of the nations down and had a good ol' chat about everything that was happening. They sternly worded a reprimand at Japan after invading Manchuria and China, they scolded Mussolini for using chemical weapons in Ethiopia and in the end did nothing at all. This was the great failure of WWI, to not prevent WWII.

If all we are doing is talking, we have already given up on acting. And if we have given up on taking action, then this is just a slippery slope into WWIII.

Relying only on discussions may be defunct, I wasn't suggesting we should. Sometimes, violence may be an unfortunate but necessary move to stop human rights violations; but this is not the point of the UN.

Are you claiming that the League of Nations or UN was/is useless because they couldn't protect everyone, while ignoring all the good they did/do?

[Skroe]

The UN works just like my office's team meetings, neat!

It's important everyone has a forum to be heard. That doesn't mean they should be listened to!

[Tradewind]

It's important everyone has a forum to be heard. That doesn't mean they should be listened to!

You sound like the little devil on my boss' shoulder. "He's your IT manager...but clearly I know more about IT! Take away his budget!"

[diddle]

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp among others.

Not even comparable to those mentioned. Name "others".

[Anyael]

China is definitely authoritarian, but is not a dictatorship.

"Dictatorship: a government or country in which total power is held by a dictator or a small group" from Merriam-Webster
though Wikipedia also adds that in contemporary usage it may also refer to an authoritarian government unrestricted by a constitution or law.

Membership in the Chinese Communist Party: 82.6 million

So while it isn't really a small group, it is unrestricted by their own constitution. And I doubt many of those 82.6 million actually have power, at most it is the top 5% who have real control, being generous here. So let me do some math.

.05*82,600,000=4130000

4130000/1,350,000,000=0.00305925925

So around 1/3rd of 1% of China has power in the government.

I think by either definition it qualifies as a dictatorship.