S. Arabia to Head Human Rights Panel

[Ethereal]

U.S. State Department “Welcomes” News That Saudi Arabia Will Head U.N. Human Rights Panel

Last week’s announcement that Saudi Arabia — easily one of the world’s most brutally repressive regimes — was chosen to head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel provoked indignation around the world. That reaction was triggered for obvious reasons. Not only has Saudi Arabia executed more than 100 people already this year, mostly by beheading (a rate of 1 execution every two days), and not only is it serially flogging dissidents, but it is reaching new levels of tyrannical depravity as it is about to behead and then crucify the 21-year-old son of a prominent regime critic, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted at the age of 17 of engaging in demonstrations against the government.

Reprehensible, and the US government is just fine with it.

But if you ask them about the Syrian government and its President, Bashar al-Assad, then they are just so steamed at his human rights abuses and insist "he must go".

The international community outside the west is routinely astonished and blown away by the hypocrisy on display by the US government. This is just another glaring example of why the US government is arguably the most hated institution on the entire planet, even within its own country.

[Peter1469]

That is a joke. But it is a regular occurrence in the UN.

[Green Arrow]

I've said for awhile that the UN is a joke. Making Saudi Arabia of all nations the head of the UN Human Rights panel just serves to prove that conclusion.

[PolWatch]

No one wants to confront a nation with as much oil & money as SA. We witnessed that power when GWB was holding hands with the Saudi prince after the 9/11 attack. If the president of the US can ignore the fact that the terrorists were from SA and convince Americans that we needed to invade Iraq, it makes perfect sense that we would applaud SA heading the human rights panel of the UN.

[Mister D]

To be fair, universal human rights are also a joke in so far as such a concept is hardly universal. That much of the rest of the world sees "human rights" as an alibi for domination seems shocking to many westerners who, regardless of political affiliation or orientation, assume the universality of western ideas.

[Green Arrow]

To be fair, universal human rights are also a joke in so far as such a concept is hardly universal. That much of the rest of the world sees "human rights" as an alibi for domination seems shocking to many westerners who, regardless of political affiliation or orientation, assume the universality of western ideas.

I don't think they assume those values are universal, I think the problem is rather that they expect those values to be universal.

It's rather ironic, actually. They believe in peace and freedom and all that, but if you don't share their views on human rights, they'll make​ you share those views. Whether you like it or not.

[Mister D]

I don't think they assume those values are universal, I think the problem is rather that they expect those values to be universal.

It's rather ironic, actually. They believe in peace and freedom and all that, but if you don't share their views on human rights, they'll make​ you share those views. Whether you like it or not.

How can one expect something to be universal and not believe they are in fact universal?

The fact is that, yes, human beings agree that it is better to be free than enslaved, better to be safe than victimized etc. but different cultures have different perceptions of freedom and liberty mean. They have a different vision of the good life. The west is selling a one size fits all product to put it rather simply and plainly. We act as if those who won't accept our way of life are somehow backward or not modern enough. What exactly is the difference between the worldview of 19th Century European colonialists and contemporary western liberals? The underlying ethnocentris of their perceived mission to the world is exactly the same.

[TrueBlue]

Has anyone asked Boehner and McConnell what their thoughts are on this or are they the main ones for it?

[Mister D]

Has anyone asked Boehner and McConnell what their thoughts are on this or are they the main ones for it?

Have they asked the President?

[Green Arrow]

How can one expect something to be universal and not believe they are in fact universal?

I may have used the wrong word. I didn't mean expect in the sense of "this is universal," I mean expect in the sense of..."you better agree with this or we're going to have problems." Maybe demand would have been a better word.

The fact is that, yes, human beings agree that it is better to be free than enslaved, better to be safe than victimized etc. but different cultures have different perceptions of freedom and liberty mean. They have a different vision of the good life. The west is selling a one size fits all product to put it rather simply and plainly. We act as if those who won't accept our way of life are somehow backward or not modern enough. What exactly is the difference between the worldview of 19th Century European colonialists and contemporary western liberals? The underlying ethnocentris of their perceived mission to the world is exactly the same.

I agree with that completely.