13 Feb The (U.S.) Consensus on Reforming the U.N. Human Rights Commission
Speaking of the semi-ridiculous U.N. Human Rights Commission, I somehow missed this statement last week from the U.S. criticizing the existing proposal to reform the Commission. Talk about an easy position to develop. The U.S. is holding out for a new Human Rights Council that will have human rights standards for nations sitting on the new council. That appears to be too much for the delegates so far. The whole thing will be voted on by May so this is the crucial negotiating time.
Curiously, conservatives like the folks at National Review are very interested in the outcome of this battle, even though they often deride the U.N. as useless. This suggests, contrary to typical thinking about U.S. politics, that the U.S. conservatives are not anti-U.N. They are just against this particular version of the U.N. And with respect to the Human Rights Commission, there seems to be no serious division between liberals and conservatives, between Human Rights Watch and National Review. So that’s something, at least.
Prof. Ku says that showing interest for a multilateral institution means you don’t consider such institution useless. Non sequitur. Obviously, it depends on what your *interest* is. The present Administration’s interest is having a multilateral institution that will only do what it says is right (I decide who is a tyrant, I decide who can be punished), or it will exercise its veto power (or skip what the multilateral institution has decided, or has been enacted by Congress, and kidnap, torture, spy, invade … you name it). Now THAT is useless, unless you believe in returning to the good ol’ colonial times.
And by the way, if you’re going to try to make a logic argument, at least cite a source that isn’t an extremist advocate of one side. National Review, give me a break; that’s as good as quoting Michael Moore.