The UN Human Rights Council is a farcry from an arbiter of human rights.
New York, NY
UNHRC
M. Sun for Buzzfeed
Amidst a sea of shuffled footsteps and hushed whispers this weekend, there’s been a storm brewing (not so) quietly in the UN Human Rights Council.
There’s something about the council that leaves an observer with an uneasy sense of foreboding. Maybe it’s the manner in which allegations of torture are bandied about with the fling of casual banter, like talking about marshmallows over a campfire, or that the council’s delegates fluctuate wildly between moments of deathly silence and unadulterated chaos. Or perhaps still, the way that discussions about religious freedoms descend rapidly into hurried shouts of false sanctimony.
The representative for the United States in the HRC is sharply dressed and bespectacled. He’s quiet, and unassuming. He denies allegations of torture whilst simultaneously accusing Islamic countries of the same crime with practised ease, like he doesn’t want to acknowledge the human rights abuses that the US has been systematically committing against terror suspects for the past two decades.
The Saudi Arabian delegate is quick to jump on this hypocrisy — “Delegates are painting Saudi as the only country with torture,” she says, “when in reality these alternative measures are carried out for the benefit of national security all throughout the world.” And the US responds in the only way it knows how, with vague statements about protectionism laden with Islamophobic overtones.
In a rapidly developing political sphere, it’s no longer acceptable to hide behind the veneer of faith and religion as justifications for performing acts of inhumanity. We know this — we have seen this manifested in the outrage against female genital mutilation, or inter-marital abuse, or the myriad of practices that have been campaigned against by the Western world. But by the same token, it’s also no longer appropriate for American leaders to use terms like ‘national security’ as euphemisms for ‘detaining prisoners without due process’. We have the responsibility to hold our own to account as well.
When the United States issues rehearsed claims that “of course [they] respect other religions”, we must call them out on their image cleansing. When delegates from opposing sides of the Human Rights Council seem content with condoning torture on the grounds of extreme protectionism, we must question the values that belie the committee.
When the notion of eliminating torture is denounced as ‘idealistic’, we must reject the notion that idealism must always be equated with naiveté.
Perhaps only in idealism can we find resolution.
The Herald MUN 