Human rights mean nothing amid un wrongs

By Susan Martinuk
December 12, 2008
The Calgary Herald
Original Source: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=5c7441e3-7d0d-41d9-addd-5ab062a84609
Sixty years ago this week, the United Nations did something right.
It adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in response to the atrocities of the Second World War. The proclamation (first drafted by Canadian John Humphrey) enshrined core principles that should be common to all of humanity, such as the equality and dignity of all, as well as basic rights (of assembly, speech, religion, etc.) and freedoms (from slavery, etc.).
Canadians have long taken such rights for granted, but many around the world have yet to experience them--and that won't change as long as the UN is responsible for the global policing of human rights.
The declaration marks man-kind's most noble intentions, but after 60 years it has become a feckless piece of paper that is openly violated because the UN refuses to defend the very rights and freedoms it promotes. The UN lost all credibility in the realm of human rights when it allowed its Human Rights Council to be governed by corrupt nations more interested in making backroom deals to protect abusers than upholding the Declaration.
The HRC is dominated by an alliance of repressive regimes (such as China, Russia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia) that deliberately undermine the human rights protections that exist and support impunity for the systemic abusers of those rights. Votes that determine whether a nation's actions are right or wrong are determined by backroom deals where abusers gain support against critical resolutions by offering weaker nations economic or political support for their votes.
As a result, 34 of the HRC's 47 member nations consistently cast ballots against the basic principles of human rights and in support of actions by repressive governments. That leaves a minority of 12 nations (including Canada) to defend human rights. Basic math dictates the protection of human rights will lose every time--and it has.
The HRC said and did nothing when China's government dispersed, jailed or killed thousands of Tibetan monks and protesters in 2008. It has taken no action against Saudi Arabia, even though it is widely known for its systematic repression of women and non-Muslims, torture and political prisoners. Saudi women who have been raped or commit adultery can be sentenced to death. I doubt any of them would care to celebrate the anniversary of the UN's empty promises.
Russia is another HRC member that has escaped censure even though it committed massive violations of international humanitarian and human rights law invading Georgia. It's also well-known for its abuse of political opponents (polonium cocktail anyone?) and journalists (Anna Politkovskaya)who report such abuses. Yet the HRC does nothing.
Instead, the dictators running the HRC have protected their friends like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. They've largely ignored the killing and raping campaigns in Somalia and the Congo, and the genocide in Sudan. One resolution mentioned (but failed to condemn) government actions in Somalia. Several have acknowledged (but not condemned) the problem in Sudan, while praising the country for its co-operation with the UN. Too bad the regime isn't as willing to co-operate with the people of Darfur.
In fact, the only nation the HRC actively and continually censures for human rights violations is Israel and, in 2006- 2007, it was the only nation censured. The rest of the world stood by as a majority of nondemocratic, Arabic and rogue nations systematically used the UN body to undermine Israel's credibility and very existence.
Obviously, repressive regimes can't be allowed to police themselves. If governments don't uphold basic human rights at home, they can't be trusted to judge others.
Beyond the absurdity of HRC governance, the significance of the Declaration is increasingly threatened by a new philosophy that human rights are not universal, but are national or cultural in origin. In other words, killing a woman for adultery isn't a violation of human rights if it's a cultural belief. Incredibly, rather than counter these claims, the UN has actively supported them.
Under the questionable leadership of Canadian Louise Arbour, the UN acknowledged a resolution by rogue states (Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe) and a Charter by Arab countries calling on the UN to respect cultural diversity in human rights and allow them to define rights within their own cultural framework.
Until the UN stops this silliness, it's a mockery of human rights to celebrate this anniversary.
Susan Martinuk is a freelance writer. Her column appears every Friday.