I think it’s fair to say that the United Nations Human Rights Council has definitely jumped the shark. In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal Aaron Rhodes remarks:
China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Uzbekistan—all notorious for abusing human rights—were among the 14 states elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Oct. 13, bringing the proportion of nondemocratic states on the world’s top human rights-promoting body to 60%. Cuba received 170 votes, or 88%, in the secret-ballot General Assembly vote.
But the Human Rights Council’s problem isn’t simply the presence of bad actors. The real issue is the intrinsic moral relativism embedded in any all-inclusive, multilateral human-rights system.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Has Russia ever signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I don’t believe it has. Its predecessor, the Soviet Union, definitely did not. How in the world can the Council possibly accomplish anything when there is no basis for agreement.
That, by the way, is my problem with world government. For world government to succeed there must be some level of consensus and that simply does not exist.
‘For world government to succeed there must be some level of consensus and that simply does not exist.’
You think the PRC is interested in government by consensus? I don’t either.
I also think the internationalists/globalists/jet setters whateveryouwanttocallthem who still believe in one world (for whatever reason, idealism or greed or who knows) have abandoned trying to achieve global government by consensus because they no longer believe that the ignorant stupid benighted populace will accept their misrule without protest. Coercion is now necessary to ‘convince’ the people to accept rule by their self-anointed betters.
I don’t think the PRC is interested in world government unless it’s run by them but I also believe that they aren’t above exploiting existing institutions to their own advantage.