r/worldnews Oct 06 '22 Are You Serious? 1 Silver 2 Helpful 2 Wholesome 2 Take My Energy 3 Table Slap 2

U.N. body, in rare move, rejects debate on China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/crime-pmn/u-n-body-in-rare-move-rejects-debate-on-chinas-treatment-of-uyghur-muslims
41.4k Upvotes

695

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

Vote Yes

  • CZECHIA
  • FINLAND
  • FRANCE
  • GERMANY
  • HONDURAS
  • JAPAN
  • LITHUANIA
  • LUXEMBOURG
  • MARSHALL ISLANDS
  • MONTENEGRO
  • NETHERLANDS
  • PARAGUAY
  • POLAND
  • REPUBLIC OF KOREA
  • SOMALIA
  • UNITED KINGDOM
  • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vote No

  • BOLIVIA
  • CAMEROON
  • CHINA
  • COTE d'IVOIRE
  • CUBA
  • ERITREA
  • GABON
  • INDONESIA
  • KAZAKHSTAN
  • MAURITANIA
  • NAMIBIA
  • NEPAL
  • PAKISTAN
  • QATAR
  • SENEGAL
  • SUDAN
  • UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
  • UZBEKISTAN
  • VENEZUELA

Abstain

  • ARGENTINA
  • ARMENIA
  • BENIN
  • BRAZIL
  • GAMBIA
  • INDIA
  • LIBYA
  • MALAWI
  • MALAYSIA
  • MEXICO
  • UKRAINE

https://hrcmeetings.ohchr.org/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/51/DL_Resolutions/A_HRC_51_L.6/Voting%20Results.pdf

284

u/In_My_Depression_Era Oct 06 '22

Asking out of ignorance, how does UN function? Arent there like over a hundred countries out there? What happens to countries that neither vote nor abstain? Do they just not attend at all? Shouldnt they be listed as abstained?

357

u/Steven_Bunkmate Oct 06 '22

This vote was done by the UN human rights council which every three years elects 47 members based on regional groups. Those 47 members are the ones who voted or abstained the rest of the UN countries were not involved.

57

u/In_My_Depression_Era Oct 06 '22

Ohhh I understand now, thank you!

→ More replies
→ More replies

194

u/SilverstoneOne Oct 06 '22

Indonesia voted No?!? Don't they have the largest Muslim population of any country?

81

u/parasitesdisgustme Oct 07 '22

I wasn't sure I was reading this right. Here's a breakdown of a lot of countries that voted "no" and their Muslim population %.

Cameroon (30%), Cote d'Ivoire (42.9%), Eritrea (40-50%), Indonesia (87%), Kazakhstan (70%), Mauritania (99.9%), Pakistan (97%), Qatar (76%), Senegal (97%), Sudan (96%), United Arab Emirates (72%), Uzbekistan (89%)

(Source: Wikipedia)

10

u/khournos Oct 07 '22

The muslim portion of Qatar is surprisingly low for how all encompassing Islams grip on society is.

19

u/m0ei Oct 07 '22

Qatar is similar to UAE in a way, lots of foreign workers.

→ More replies
→ More replies

191

u/Lostillini Oct 06 '22

If you want your mind blown about humans rights abuses by Indonesia, look up the Papua Conflict.

One day, we might stop making each other suffer. We’re centuries away from such a day.

→ More replies

27

u/theantiyeti Oct 07 '22

Focusing on the Islam aspect is missing the point. The Uighur genocide is against a Turkic ethnicity that so happens to be Muslim (and against whom their religion, as well as other aspects of their ethnicity is weaponised).

Other, especially non ethnically Turkic, Muslim groups don't see it as anti-muslim action but anti-Turkic action, and a lot of them probably buy China's propaganda about this being anti terrorism action as certain Uighur groups have in the past had close links to the Taliban including training freedom fighters in Afghanistan that even the Americans assisted in teaching China how to perform airstrikes in the late 2000s.

This situation is very similar in fact to asking why Turkey would bomb and repress Kurds if "they're all Muslims at the end of the day".

→ More replies

8

u/zipzoupzwoop Oct 07 '22

Don't expect different denominations of religions to care about each other.

→ More replies
→ More replies

73

u/Ok_Introduction1776 Oct 06 '22

Funny that Ukraine abstained....

113

u/asidbern123 Oct 06 '22

China seems to be on the fence with supporting Russia, I don’t think Ukraine would want to rock that particular boat

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6.5k

u/Brett-the-charmer Oct 06 '22

“We will never give up but we are really disappointed by the reaction of Muslim countries,” he added. Qatar, Indonesia and Pakistan all rejected the motion.

4.9k

u/DissonantNeuron Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22 Helpful

Those who voted against:

Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

Don't forget.

2.0k

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

284

u/LewisLightning Oct 06 '22

Seeing this makes me think there should be an ethics committee that needs to approve members to the Human Rights Council. Some of these places still employ slaves for Pete's sake

68

u/AMagicalKittyCat Oct 07 '22

Ok who picks the members of the ethics committee? And how do you ensure the UN doesn't break down when these countries don't feel like they have any say and are just being bossed around by the richer and more powerful ones?

→ More replies

90

u/lovelyouniverse Oct 07 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

i totally agree, i mean, the Human Rights Council doesn't stand up for human rights, which was the whole point of having a council like such. and obviously, a lot of these countries in the Human Rights Council violate human rights every single day too.

22

u/MegaKetaWook Oct 07 '22

Nah, its a status quo for countries committing human rights abuses to punish though they deem as particularly heinous human rights abuses, or at least posture that they disagree. Realistically, it's only there to avoid another world war.

16

u/Pristine_Solipsism Oct 07 '22

If you wanted to limit the UN Human rights council to countries that haven't committed human rights violations then you would only have microstates like Andorra and Luxembourg on the council, and not even all of them, the Vatican has committed far more human rights abuses than most nations

6

u/MegaKetaWook Oct 07 '22

Great point

→ More replies

5

u/Baremegigjen Oct 07 '22

Isn’t this the council the last administration withdrew the US from and we rejoined under Biden? Ed: fixed to say council

5

u/lovelyouniverse Oct 07 '22

yep, you're correct. it happened in the beginning of the biden admin, around february

13

u/PlanetValmar Oct 07 '22 Take My Energy

You mean like prison labor? Which we have in the US for Pete’s sake

→ More replies

13

u/ElementalIce Oct 07 '22

The United States also still employs slaves, so if this happens, they should go under review as well.

→ More replies

203

u/food59 Oct 06 '22

Because rhey know they don't treat people well. They say they zre muslim but their government is full of sins

51

u/m1rrari Oct 06 '22

It’s really that precedent threat… a non-zero number of those have a horrible track record with Muslim women and non-Muslims.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/lllrk Oct 06 '22

When was the last time any of these countries voted against a resolution condemning Israel?

→ More replies

11

u/EremiticFerret Oct 07 '22

Supposedly one or more Islamic rights groups went there and decided it wasn't an issue. Several of these countries have said previously they have no objection to what China was doing, suggesting it was an effort on the part of CCP to de-militarize radicals and not a racial issue.

Others are just skeptical of what they see as Western interference that has a bad track record in their eyes.

→ More replies

1.2k

u/Jo_Floss Oct 06 '22

None of these are surprising.

876

u/PresumedSapient Oct 06 '22

Nepal is, a bit. But maybe not since they need to keep China friendly.

852

u/asamulya Oct 06 '22

Nepal has borders with China. They had no option

116

u/l_am_wildthing Oct 06 '22

The border is 100 miles of himilayas then desert. Theyre basically almost 500 miles from any major town in china. Much more reliant on india

174

u/asamulya Oct 06 '22

And yet India and China keep getting into skirmishes in those mountains

66

u/MadNhater Oct 06 '22

I’d hate to be mountain brigade in either army.

27

u/Historical-Meal-5525 Oct 06 '22

Yeah that's a lot of climbing to work

4

u/leivanz Oct 06 '22

Death is a slippery slope

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/evanlufc2000 Oct 07 '22

I’d hate to be whatever poor guy is opposite a Ghurka…

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

204

u/BenderDeLorean Oct 06 '22

Nepal into Nato

281

u/TheyCallMeMrMaybe Oct 06 '22

And thus, NATO+ begins.

178

u/ThandiGhandi Oct 06 '22

Nah there are too many streaming services already

47

u/ma2016 Oct 06 '22

NATO Premium

27

u/ThandiGhandi Oct 06 '22

If it comes with no commercials and a western self propelled artillery piece you have a deal

→ More replies

20

u/SnowyBox Oct 06 '22

Introducing the new alliance, North Atlantic And Also South West Asia, Eastern Europe, And Oceania Treaty Organization - or NAAASWAEEOTO for short.

9

u/SuperSMT Oct 06 '22

"It's the UN but without russia or china"

5

u/SnowyBox Oct 06 '22

South America isn't included, not for any nefarious reason, just because the treaty isn't meant to cover that region.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

34

u/mindsc2 Oct 06 '22

You might wanna read about WWI.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

54

u/Its_apparent Oct 06 '22

Same for Kazakhstan. They've been pushing Russia away, so they need China.

→ More replies

162

u/Major_Pomegranate Oct 06 '22

Nepal's government are so deep in China's pocket that they turn a blind eye to china expanding their borders into Nepal. It's not suprising at all really

→ More replies
→ More replies

84

u/2rio2 Oct 06 '22

Uzbekistan is! They are basically neighbors to the Uighurs.

190

u/Valdrax Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (and Pakistan) are members of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, which is a military security / trade bloc that has agreements to "oppose intervention in other countries' internal affairs on the pretexts of 'humanitarianism' and 'protecting human rights;' and support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability."

It's essentially an anti-Western intervention alliance. Some other members include India and Russia, if you've been wondering why India and China have been very neutral on the war in Ukraine.

Speaking of which, it's pretty disappointing that Ukraine abstained.

100

u/ohemgereally Oct 06 '22

My guess is that Ukraine is avoiding any conflict with China, lest they more actively start helping Russia.

4

u/Contagious_Cure Oct 07 '22

More that Ukraine had very good trade relations with China prior to the war and don't want to cut off that large source of revenue when the war is over given the ever increasing bill for its rebuild. China's first aircraft carrier was purchased from Ukraine and Ukraine was also the manufacturing base for a number of China's jet engines (both commercial and military). And this is on top of the usual agricultural stuff that Ukraine sells to everyone.

→ More replies

35

u/oby100 Oct 06 '22

India and China have a very complicated relationship. Mostly adversarial. That said, the relative peace they currently have is shaky and there’s simply no world in which India can entertain the idea of risking the peace for humanitarian reasons.

→ More replies

71

u/FlatulistMaster Oct 06 '22

Ukraine can’t rock any boats right now. They have enough on their plate, no?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/DrDerpberg Oct 06 '22

Kind of confirms that part of Kazakhstan standing up to Russia is accepting that it's entirely within China's sphere of influence.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/DialZforZebra Oct 06 '22

Fucking Qatar violate human rights on a daily basis. They killed 6,000 people building a stadium, so no wonder they don't want to be investigated.

294

u/cloud_t Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

I count 7 African countries. I guess all that investment in African debt is panning out great for China.

125

u/two_wugs Oct 06 '22

Well, it's not like these countries would benefit from "shortcuts" into reviews of human rights violations, either.

→ More replies
→ More replies

137

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

50

u/SomeCensoredGuy Oct 06 '22

People just don't know here we are taught about different things but not the Uyghurs. Pakistan Studies really teaches us that China is pro Pakistani. We are taught all the bad things India does but not the ones China does.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

319

u/Cipher32 Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

Unfortunately that large bloc of Pakistanis that are loud to point of zealousness about Palestine are generally silent on Uyghurs.

There is definitely a racial hierarchy within the Islamic world that doesn't get talked about enough. Coming from the community growing up I have found Pakistani Muslims to be incredibly picky about which human rights they want to support.

101

u/darealcubs Oct 06 '22

I mean absolutely none of this is at all unique to Pakistanis. I would wager one of the main reasons many pakistanis are loud on Palestine is that the religious and national motivations align there. Im sure plenty are aware of their country's dependence on China.

The racial hierarchy, while not supposed to be a thing at all within the religion, is something I've experienced a bit firsthand and it's sad. But there's more nuance to this than just uyghurs not being arab.

→ More replies

48

u/loiteraries Oct 06 '22

Pakistanis are not zealous for Palestinian human rights; they are zealous by their hostility towards a Jewish state which is driven by religious fanaticism like in many Muslim countries. If Palestine had border disputes with Syria or Lebanon, it would be an irrelevant local conflict like many bloody conflicts in Muslim world that no one in the world would put so much attention to.

4

u/curiousstrider Oct 07 '22

They literally have passports printed with "Not recognized in Israel" - literally recognizing Israel by printing. Even India did not get this honor.

32

u/time_flask Oct 06 '22

It's a pretty easy sell though. They had those representatives from Islamic countries visit and acknowledge that there were Islamist terrorist attacks in Xinjiang. China then just tells them look, we're educating these people and sending them away, you've seen on yoir countries that it's unemployed men that get involved on terrorism so we stopped that. And then they just ask these countries how many Muslim refugees they've had to accept that have had their families killed by the US for control of oil. And that's all you need, a narrative that has echoes of truth but paints the US as a constantly evil invading force that is pushing their ideology on Muslims worldwide. And the rhetoric from people like Trump made it extremely easy to show that Muslim countries are being shunned by the west. He was honestly the best propaganda for China to use im so many situations

→ More replies

4

u/quaranteenn Oct 07 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

While I may agree with you a little bit, think of it like this. The Palestinian conflict has been ‘advertised’ in Pakistan a lott over the years. People keep talking about it in intervals so it keeps the zealousness alive. And also because Israel is a Jewish state.

On the other hand, since we’re heavily indebted to China, the media, digital and otherwise, has been pretty silent about it or downplaying it. This could be the reason why not a lot of people are aware of the scale of this issue.

Lastly, Pakistan’s foreign policy hardly ever aligns with that of the common people. Most people wouldn’t even know we voted against this motion. There’s no way in hell the govt would go against China especially since we are heavily dependent on them.

→ More replies

47

u/GavrielBA Oct 06 '22

Many people don't realise but most countries when they try to appear pro-Palestine they are actually just anti-Israel and they couldn't care less about the actual well being of Palestinians.

→ More replies
→ More replies

598

u/GreatSpaghettLord Oct 06 '22

Muslim countries don't care about their people, why would anyone expect them to care about Muslim in an other country ?

222

u/Superbunzil Oct 06 '22

they often make a big stink about it against the Euros since they dont cut them as big a check like China

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

25.1k

u/Darklots1 Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22 Silver Gold Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote Take My Energy Starry

China’s ambassador had warned shortly before the vote that the motion would create a “dangerous shortcut” for examining other countries’ human rights records.

Good, we need to start examining human rights abuses everywhere and put a stop to it all. I don't care what country is investigated.

Edit: RIP inbox

4.0k

u/Kiboune Oct 06 '22

And politicians don't care what is happening in other countries as long as it doesn't go beyond borders. Russia is an example.

2.0k

u/crooks4hire Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

I'm 100% ok with this on a country-leadership level. You can't police the world.

That opinion changes at a table like the UN. That's like, the whole purpose for its existence...

Edit: Some of yall need to turn the volume down a bit. I said that opinion changes...that doesn't mean I expect the UN to raw dog any nation who doesn't play by its rules.

373

u/this_dudeagain Oct 06 '22

It exists to stop another world war. So far it has done just that.

207

u/GWJYonder Oct 06 '22

In fact, while morally correct and the right thing to do, empowering other nations to step in to another countries borders and interfere/escalate an internal matter is sort of at cross purposes to acting as a deescalator and mediator.

But that's it's founding purpose, it's entirely reasonable for that purpose to change, if we decide that the greatest risk going forward isn't another world war, but instead internal human rights violations, which I personally think it's probably the case.

183

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[deleted]

39

u/zylstrar Oct 06 '22

It has not failed. Presumably it has saved some people (obviously not all though, but the charter does not state "all") of succeeding generations from the scourge of war, etc.

→ More replies

43

u/drvelo Oct 06 '22

But it's helped make it harder to commit such crimes, and not including the countless wars from regional to global from happening, and helping to start international aid for disasters and diseases.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/DancesWithBadgers Oct 06 '22

We have to yank the choke chain of countries invading other countries first. Only when that's sorted can we start trying to sort out within-border shenanigans. Obviously, everybody that voted against has something to hide.

Problem with internal naughtiness is that you only have sanctions and the threat of war to work with. And external naughtiness needs to be dealt with first; because turning the whole planet into a glass sculpture is more important that a few million here or there.

→ More replies

35

u/zylstrar Oct 06 '22

That ...and protect human rights:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble

→ More replies

23

u/Sufficient-Object-89 Oct 06 '22

Yeah it's the UN not the threat of nuclear annihilation that has stopped WW3...

→ More replies

9

u/neozuki Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

Even though someone has pointed out that's not the purpose of the UN, even with things like the ICC, it's still subject to influence and power imbalance. The International Court, naturally, can only imprison someone if they're able to detain them. The ICC can't get Americans. It can't go after many war crimes simply because the winners (all the big players, esp. those with seats) were the ones who committed the atrocities. So you have a lot of criminals from the global south being found guilty. People in privileged countries see "neutral" coalitions much differently than people that don't have powerful governments to protect them.

Edit: for example, consider American interventionism, China's treatment of Uyghurs, Russia's invasion, and then someone like Gaddafi. Only the weak tend get their just desserts.

→ More replies

803

u/MediumProcedure Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

You can police the world. Our trade agreements should be heavily based around another countries human rights and environmental record.

Want to sit at the big boys table? Start acting like one.

Added bonus it would give smaller nations some power to speak out against established powers abuses collectively by implementing the same system which implements trade penalties automatically without them needing to say anything publicly, or individually. Basically removing the burden of having to call our a more powerful nation, that nation calls itself against the trade agreement and then needs to accept the penalties, or fix their behaviour.

15

u/Srsly_dang Oct 06 '22

That's the problem. What's more "big boy" than exploiting your fellow human for profit and potential gain.

Too many people are okay with stepping on someone so long as they might get ahead. Not even a guarantee.

493

u/neozuki Oct 06 '22

That does happen. Countries can get loans from international banks which in turn require policy changes and reform. I think it was Bolivia that was forced to "modernize" their infrastructure in return for loans. That meant privatizing their water and letting Nestle et al come in and take over. It's a very cynical system that's used for profit more than progressive reform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization_in_Bolivia Sorta tangential but you can see how policing the world is partly just profiting off the world.

276

u/IndicaBurner Oct 06 '22

Obligatory r/FuckNestle

16

u/kahmos Oct 06 '22

Wish they had a way to go out of business

7

u/Scarletfapper Oct 06 '22

You could erase chocolate from the work tonite and they’d still be impossible to put down.

8

u/TheNuttyIrishman Oct 06 '22

Gotta get rid of bottled water and chocolate to even get nestle to notice

14

u/Scarletfapper Oct 06 '22

“Water is not a human right”

Fuck those absolute slimey parasites.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

97

u/thoreau_away_acct Oct 06 '22

Confessions of an economic hitman was a book written about this (with a little over the top flourish). IMF gives out big loans to poor countries and leverages the risk of default into having the poor countries behave in the way they want and/or bring in contractors from wealthy countries to execute the infrastructure, health, safety projects (mostly), thereby funneling the money back to wealthy countries.

10

u/TheBirdsFlySouth Oct 06 '22

Such a good book

4

u/AndreTheShadow Oct 07 '22

Great read, but fuck was I mad by the time I was done

5

u/EventAccomplished976 Oct 07 '22

Wait that almost sounds like some sort of… debt… trap…

→ More replies
→ More replies

69

u/Miserable_Unusual_98 Oct 06 '22

I think Bolivia's situation was not about "modernizing" but outright exploiting their natural resources and infrastructure

76

u/djdubd Oct 06 '22

You understand. They say communism has killed 100 million, meanwhile capitalism on its way past 1 billion.

→ More replies

34

u/djdubd Oct 06 '22

The only time it happens is when it threatens profits of oligarchs in member states. Money talks and none of these actors cares about human rights, it is just a welcome euphemism.

25

u/Coarse_Air Oct 06 '22

Yeah same thing happened in Indonesia, America sent in the CIA to overthrow the government and implant one which would agree to its absurd conditionalities in exchange for “foreign aid”, on the agreement that government could then serve as the scapegoat when all those funds go missing and national resources get plundered… and the resulting palm oil fiasco remains one of the greatest extant threats to biodiversity and life while the country is subjected to astronomical levels of debt.

8

u/BlueHueNew Oct 07 '22

Don't forget where America also supported them genociding 1 million ethnic minorities in Indonesia

→ More replies

124

u/memetic_memer Oct 06 '22

The big boys that don't respect human rights and environmental protections are the ones with the most power.

→ More replies

7

u/fablastic Oct 06 '22

This happens some, but consider that Russia provides massive raw materials such are essential for the change to green energy, but has a terrible record on both human rights and environment

48

u/Khutuck Oct 06 '22

We don’t even police our own countries based on environment, let alone China. If we did, we wouldn’t have a climate crisis today.

5

u/Killersea07 Oct 06 '22

The big countries are the ones who act the least like "big boys".

The US has been criticized for it's treatment of BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ communities and it's treatment of women in general. China for Uyghurs, repression of cultural/religious expression, population control methods in general. Russia for their anti-LGBT stances, Ukrainian interactions, etc.

Since I'm American I can give explicit examples if you'd like too of American human rights violations. The other countries I just know more broadly.

15

u/JosephusMillerTime Oct 06 '22

Who gets to police it though? Who will refuse to recognise their own abuses?

The US who won't recognise the international criminal court? Who's black people are still treated like absolute shit? Who for some reason have 20% of all the world's prisoners?

Australia with some of the cruellest refugee policies and who can't sort out their indigenous population?

France? who set off nukes on the other side of the world just before the turn of the century? Despite the protests of those actually living there.

The Dutch who still say Zwarte Piet is just a good natured fairy tale instead of insulting black face?

Random examples, but you catch my drift.

96

u/QuestGiver Oct 06 '22

What does this even mean? Big boys commit the human rights abuses and get away with it.

Why do countries trade with the US when we have literally destabilized entire countries (Iran, Chile, Bolivia, to a lesser extent Vietnam just to name a few). We also invaded Iraq for seemingly no reason in retrospect.

→ More replies
→ More replies

35

u/ImSpartacus811 Oct 06 '22

That opinion changes at a table like the UN. That's like, the whole purpose for its existence...

That's just not accurate.

The UN was created by the victors of WW2 to maintain the status quo of the post-WW2 world.

That means:

It's not fair. It's not about policing the world. It's about perpetuating the post-WW2 world.

→ More replies

163

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Oct 06 '22

Once again someone completely fails to understand the purpose of the UN.

They are not cops. It's a forum for discussion. That's all.

4

u/Noir_Amnesiac Oct 06 '22

How do people not understand that an organization where everyone is a member is not going to go to war with one of it’s members, they’re diplomats and humanitarians. You just can’t explain this to a disturbing amount of people. I actually thought a lot less of a Zelenskyy for saying some of that shit, it was really ignorant and nonsensical.

→ More replies
→ More replies

95

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

362

u/Davidoff1983 Oct 06 '22

Right but ... The opposite of that happened .

337

u/boot2skull Oct 06 '22

China: “ignore our bad and you can keep doing bad”

UN: “cheers m8”

→ More replies

68

u/LittleBirdyLover Oct 06 '22

The P5 will never let themselves be investigated.

The last time it was tried the ICC was sanctioned and threatened with invasion by one particular P5 member.

65

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

I mean, don’t we still have a law in the U.S.C. that would allow us to invade The Hague if they attempted to bring our soldiers or politicians up on war crimes?

Edit: yup.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7427

41

u/CoderDispose Oct 06 '22

Yeah, as it turns out, laws are only as effective as their enforcers, and aint nobody gonna be able to enforce the US to send over people for trial.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

Yeah. Nation states essentially live in a state of nature in a war of all against all.

Our normal conception of law doesn’t really apply at that level since there’s no meta state above them all that is able to enforce international “law”.

No right without a remedy and all that.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/green_flash Oct 06 '22

Also, the ICC officials responsible were sanctioned by the US:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527

On 2 September 2020, Bensouda was named a "specially designated national" by the United States government under the Trump administration, forbidding all U.S. persons and companies from doing business with her

→ More replies

184

u/Josiah55 Oct 06 '22

Exactly what I thought. It's like, "okay, and?" Shouldn't every nation on the planet be held accountable for human rights abuses?

61

u/moeburn Oct 06 '22

Shouldn't every nation on the planet be held accountable for human rights abuses?

Yes and none of their representatives at the UN want that to happen.

26

u/LordHussyPants Oct 07 '22

that's not strictly speaking what happened here, going by the wording of this article.

what it sounds like is this:

  1. the west raises a motion to debate human rights abuses in china
  2. china tells members of the human rights council that legitimising a debate on china opens the door for debates on other non-west countries
  3. non-west countries know that the usa, britain, and the west don't get investigated for this
  4. non-west countries also know that china backs them financially as a power play
  5. non-west countries weight it up and decide that it's not worth voting to be investigated when there will never be reciprocal investigations against the west

and you know, it's not the worst idea from those countries. if we want a better world where human rights are protected for everyone, we need to get to a point where the big players of the west can be pulled in front of the hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity. but that'll never happen while america refuses to co-operate.

→ More replies

66

u/Fresh-Cantaloupe-968 Oct 06 '22

Yes, but none of them actually want to, and conveniently those same countries are the most powerful because it includes every major EU country, UK, USA, Russia, China, and even plenty of smaller countries.

So everyone with the power to make it happen has basically done a handshake to not talk about it, and the only reason China comes up so often is because they're not friends with the cool kids.

→ More replies

39

u/icameron Oct 06 '22

Sure, but in practice every nation is happy to have the human rights abuses of itself and its allies ignored, and those of its enemies pointed out. So to take the perspective of the US establishment, what Israel and Saudi Arabia get up to is fine and good (not to mention what the US itself does directly), but Russian, China and Iran need to get sanctioned to oblivion for their crimes. Which is to say they don't actually give a shit about human rights, only when it's convenient to them, same as basically any major power.

→ More replies

21

u/Additional_Avocado77 Oct 06 '22

I think by "shortcut" they're implying that the "human rights abuses" that get tried might not be real human rights abuses.

→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/sweetcuppingcakes Oct 06 '22

Wait… so they basically said “A lot of you guys do this shit to, you really want to put yourselves under a microscope?” and the UN was like “shit good point”

→ More replies

7

u/Paulupoliveira Oct 06 '22

Most people in the west would be surprised of how hypocritical their governments are in their readiness to criticize others while at the same time in their own backyard they commit serious crimes and human rights violations against their citizens... Now if China suddenly decided to do the same inquiry in western countries, I wonder what kind of violations would they find...

I am from Portugal by the way...

87

u/Tristain7 Oct 06 '22

China calls accountability and transparency "dangerous", implying it would force nations to confront their own human rights abuses, and the rest of the UN fucking AGREED WITH THEM!

We are, globally, beholden to a fucking cult of power that is adamant about murdering as many humans as they can to retain power, and we're running out of time to do something about it.

10

u/Few_Responsibility35 Oct 07 '22

You never read history, do you ? That's just how empires throughout history worked, murdering a bunch of people to achieve their interest is Tuesday for great powers and superpowers. Take the Roman empire, when you're talking about how great they are remember how many people they oppressed and massacred. There is nothing to be done about it, on the global stage, what matters is stability not justice, afterall what's the point of fighting for justice of certain group if it leads to war that consume millions of souls. The UN is specifically created for this very purpose.

→ More replies

37

u/LordHussyPants Oct 07 '22

it wasn't the rest of the UN, it was the members of the human rights council.

and china was right, it is dangerous, because this power would be used against china and those members.

when was the last time you saw an american leader prosecuted for war crimes or human rights violations? like guantanamo for example.

→ More replies

47

u/lionbryce Oct 06 '22

If you need to describe the process of examining human rights violations as dangerous... you probably know you're doing something wrong

→ More replies
→ More replies

5.3k

u/duhitpt Oct 06 '22

What a shame.....its really be your own people that voted against it too...

5.8k

u/Strongbow85 Oct 06 '22 Wholesome

Some Muslim majority countries that violate human rights are worried about the precedent the debate would set, as well as their economic relationship with China. Just another case of profit over people at the UN.

2.9k

u/bauboish Oct 06 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

For people at the top, religion is more a political tool than actual belief anyways. I mean basically all the politicians spouting Christian values here in the US don't actually live by those values themselves.

631

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

130

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

90

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

32

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

163

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

104

u/theassassintherapist Oct 06 '22

And plenty more see it as nothing more than a geopolitical theater. According to the article:

There was a rare burst of applause after the result was announced in the packed Geneva-based council room.

It would take more than just economic incentive to get those ambassadors from those countries all cheering.

→ More replies

12

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

11

u/StrongTxWoman Oct 06 '22

Not to mention, "debating" doesn't do a thing. They can debate all they want and nothing will be changed.

→ More replies

58

u/Few_Responsibility35 Oct 06 '22

Things are complex, some country such as Indonesia might have other consideration other than the fate of the Uyghur, such as their political stance of neutral non block non interventionist, their economic interdependence with China, and the fact they are also dealing with a separatist movement of their own.

Indonesia may not agree with what China is doing, but if they support this resolution, what to say if they get slapped with this same resolution when they are trying to fight Papuan separatist. We already saw this kind of this things happening before with Timor Timor (now Timor Leste), separatist movement supported by foreign power and idealistic dream of the future only to end up worse off than before and exploited by that same foreign power that backed them. Simply put, countries have larger interest and purpose and trumps over the interest of individual or groups especially those beyond it's border.

→ More replies

211

u/Arkane-Light Oct 06 '22

Here are those who voted against:

Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

They are not the most "respectful of human rights" countries, they voted against because THE CCP REGIME has money, loads of money.

→ More replies

114

u/sho666 Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

its really be your own people

yes, because if we know anything about the leading big muslim countries is they all get along, agree on everything and work as one big block, saudi and iran love each other dontcha know, saudi and yemmen, match made in heaven, iraq iran in the 80's, besties

"your own people" as if this is soley about their religion, and even if it was, like they deeply care about other muslims over other things like the stability of their own countries/geopol

US is currentley in syria, syria has a large christian population and the US largley claims to be a cristian country, WhY aRe tHeY aTtAcKiNg tHeiR oWn PeOpLe?!!? russians are largeley christian as are ukranians and americans, WhY aRe tHeY aTtAcKiNg tHeiR oWn PeOpLe?!!?

probably gone a bit too hard out the gate, but you get the point, dumbing things down to "oh theyre muslim so they must feel and act this way" is just dumb

(cue the downvotes!)

39

u/Kraz_I Oct 06 '22

Even if "your own people" is completely based on religion, then this still makes no sense. Sunni and Shia Islam is much more different than Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church of Russia and Eastern Europe, yet they don't see each other as "the same people". Then there's fundamentalist protestant sects, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, and the bible thumping Pentecostals. They might as well be space aliens to Catholics.

Muslims are no different.

7

u/sho666 Oct 06 '22

yeah, kinda my point

→ More replies

11

u/TennisShoulder Oct 06 '22

What you said is true but you’re also missing some context. Islamic states like Pakistan often consider themselves the vanguard and protectors of Muslim people and culture worldwide.

There aren’t many states that consider themselves Christian, and the ones that do don’t profess any sort of Pan-Christianity. America has many Christian people but is not a Christian state; additionally their actions in Syria are not intended to harm Christians

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.9k

u/h4ppidais Oct 06 '22

“Today China is targeted. Tomorrow any other developing country will be targeted,”

What a pathetic defensive statement

507

u/-Allot- Oct 06 '22

Poor countries being targeted for their crimes against humanity. This must be discrimination!

300

u/TrumpDesWillens Oct 06 '22

It won't be discrimination if rich countries are targeted for their crimes too. Let me know when the George W bush is in the Hague.

→ More replies

117

u/Morgn_Ladimore Oct 06 '22

Well, it is in a sense. How many western countries have been 'targeted' for atrocities they committed? Not just the US, other western countries did heinous shit in places like Afghanistan. Australia for example was caught torturing and executing POWs, which are flatout war crimes. Somehow those actions tend to slip under the radar. International courts tend to go for "easier" targets.

That's not to say China isn't full of it. They deserve every form of condemnation they get for their genocide.

38

u/LeYellowFellow Oct 06 '22

There’s modern day slavery in the UAE. Who doesn’t love crimes against humanity

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

610

u/sigmaluckynine Oct 06 '22 Bless Up

They're not wrong which is the problem. We use human rights as a weapon way too often and they know. If we want to put our money where our mouths at we need to first handle Israel before we have any credibility in this issue

163

u/CompetitiveTraining9 Oct 06 '22 Take My Energy

Yup. As much as people want to believe otherwise, human rights is used primarily as a political tool in international relations. Want make another country look bad? "You got no human rights!"

It's a shame people have been falling for this "human rights" sham for so many years. The American government doesn't care about Muslims. Let alone Chinese, so why would it care about Chinese Muslims? It attacks China's Uyghur policy solely for its own geopolitical gains. Not out of a real concern for Uyghurs.

50

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

If you want a clear cut picture of who doesn’t care about human rights you can ask what is the single country consistently defending Israel’s racist apartheid regime against otherwise unanimous votes from the entire global community.

The US.

Until they stop defending those very clear atrocities, which they’ve done for decades, they look like the absolute height of hypocrisy. For shame.

→ More replies

365

u/monopanda Oct 06 '22 Take My Energy

Not even just Israel, we have our own prison industrial complex to deal with.

154

u/Silurio1 Oct 06 '22

And the Guatemalan Genocide that the US knowingly caused. And the Hague Invasion law. And the children in cages. And the constant wars. Etc.

15

u/SplitPerspective Oct 06 '22

And the indefinite opening of Guantanamo bay, which for some reason Americans all of a sudden don’t think about anymore…torture is ok, as long as we do it, but not on American lands, but only if we don’t see it, or hear about it, or don’t even know about it…

54

u/Fidel_Chadstro Oct 06 '22

We don’t have to go back to the Guatemalan genocide for this kind of comparison, the US is doing a genocide right now in Yemen.

14

u/zeejay11 Oct 06 '22

Angola prison in LA and Alabama prisoner strikes in Alabama happening right now if that is not human rights issue then Im not sure what is.

→ More replies

53

u/sigmaluckynine Oct 06 '22

Yeah I agree with that - that needs to be reformed but probably won't. Mind you, I can't say we because I'm Canadian but I wish you guys all the best

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.1k

u/actually-aloof Oct 06 '22

"if we look at China's record of abuse, they might look at ours."

This is the reason it didn't pass. What a shame. We should encourage ALL abuses being curtailed. Not allowing others to abuse, just so we can too. God damn, UN. What do you even accomplish?

18

u/funicode Oct 06 '22

The purpose of the UN is to safeguard the political order established following WW2. In cynical terms, the security council in particular is where the winners of that war divide the spoils and gatekeep the club.

The most important function is for the big guys to resolve their disputes through verbal insults rather than physical wars, and to establish rules for when they bully the small guys.

While it is idealistic to expand the scope of the UN to hold the major players accountable, attempting to do so would only spell the death of the organization just like the League of Nations.

It may be falling far short of what it ostensibly supposed to be, the UN is still much better than nothing.

→ More replies

393

u/arbutus1440 Oct 06 '22 Wholesome

What do you even accomplish?

A lot, actually. Not that redditors can be bothered to do the bare minimum of reading about an org before pronouncing it "useless."

The UN Security Council often hits deadlocks like this, yes. It also has dozens of resolutions every year to take effective steps, like sanctions, travel bans, and peacekeeping forces that do get deployed. But it mostly happens in Africa and other parts of the world struggling with internal strife that the average redditor couldn't care less about. And as others have pointed out, it's been pretty effective at keeping countries at the table and talking. It's a more modest goal, and sure, we all wish there was less corruption, but I don't think people realize how much worse things would be without the UN.

Aside from the Security Council, there's the Secretariat, International Court of Justice, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, and 15 special agencies for agriculture, telecoms, aviation, meteorology, and other things. There are billions of dollars spent on programs no one on this ignorant fucking thread has any clue about.

Just read something. Anything.

35

u/MonsieurA Oct 06 '22

This response is 5 years old, but I'm going to keep recycling it:

Seriously, for all the edgelords in this thread crowing about how ineffective the UN is, do you guys have the slightest clue of what you're talking about? No one is denying that the UN has issues but none of you fucktards realize the enormous work that UN and its agencies do every single year to save millions of lives around the world. But lets not get facts in the way of a lol-fest between you ignorant baboons.

1) It has run almost 80 peacekeeping operations in the last 30 years, including 16 current ones. These aren't perfect, but short of a standing army, the UN peacekeeping troops are often the only reason there aren't a couple more widespread wars going on in Central and Western Africa right now. Except for the US, not a SINGLE other country in the world deploys more military personnel abroad.

2) The UN provides food to 90 million people in 75 countries.

3) For all you vaccine supporters out there, the UN vaccinates 58% of all children who vaccinated. in the entire fucking planet.

4) The UN directly helped over 30 million refugees worldwide, including setting up refugee camps in some of the worst conflict zones in the world.

5) The United Nations Food Program provides more than 12 fucking billion meals each year to people starving around the world. This includes providing school meals to 20-25 million children through school meals. When's the last time any of you provided a meal to anyone other than yourself?

6) The UN Development program works in nearly every country in the world on economic development, including grassroots development. The World Health Organization is the largest health organization anywhere in the world, was largely responsible for the eradication of polio. WHO works in countries across the world, preventing millions of deaths through its work in communicable diseases.

7) UN-brokered treaties have led to widespread disarmament of nuclear weapons, including a massive reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia. Treaties brokered under the auspices of the US resulted in the chemical weapons ban. In the nuclear test ban.

Seriously, try and educate yourself before you spout ignorant crap on the Internet. You come across as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers. The UN has a lot of issues, mostly because it deals with some of the most complex issues on the planet within a sphere where powerful countries seek to maximize their personal benefit. But to try and pretend as if the UN isn't one of the most powerful forces in the world trying to help people and better their lives is ridiculous.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

479

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

85

u/JustinBobcat Oct 06 '22

Peacefully we’re going to keep ignoring the issue.

Sounds like it’s working

→ More replies

6

u/Publius82 Oct 06 '22

Who do we make the check out to?

→ More replies

345

u/ChrisTheHurricane Oct 06 '22 Faith In Humanity Restored

So, when we said "never again," it was clearly cheap talk.

54

u/bakejosh Oct 07 '22

Genocide has consistently been permitted, as long as you keep the murder within your borders. Rwanda is the classic example, but they're have been many others since 1945.

The only reason anyone took issue with Hitler's actions is because he spilled his mess all over Europe. Had he stayed in Germany, had he stopped after conquering Poland, or at least kept the genocide local, he'd likely have gotten away with it.

It's one of the known limitations of the UN; which was designed to prevent WW3, not genocides. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Papa Doc, and many more were able to commit horrible atrocities against their own people without international intervention because there's not sufficient global will to invade and then rebuild a country soley because its leader is a murdering asshole.

→ More replies

26

u/YamSamwiches Oct 07 '22

The problem is that we have to feel the pain to learn the lessons every few generations. Our memory is shit.

→ More replies
→ More replies

219

u/PhotinoZ Oct 06 '22

I see a lot of “UN is a joke” comments. The UN has a difficult balancing act and depriving it of enforcement capabilities keeps it in the realm of a discussion board between member states instead of a world police. UN and Interpol are meant to facilitate communication, not enforce the rules.

29

u/bell37 Oct 06 '22

Their main goal is to prevent nuclear war amongst the main powers. Everything beyond that is optional.

19

u/No_Mission5618 Oct 06 '22

Unless it’s an intervention, they usually use coalitions for that. For example what happened in Yugoslavia. Even though nato did act independently without approval of un that was because some of the world Leaders would’ve been biased in the voting.

→ More replies

6

u/Intelligent_Hand_436 Oct 07 '22

Rare? Anyone who even barely follows the UN, knows this is representative and to be considered the norm going forward. The UN is a joke.

201

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

84

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/hotgator Oct 06 '22 Silver Take My Energy

We have decided that, instead of holding a vote to write a strongly worded letter, sending that letter, and then taking no action. That we will skip the formalities and move right to the step where we take no action.

17

u/RomanNose Oct 06 '22

What specifically would you like the UN to do?

→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/househarley Oct 06 '22

China: Perhaps we should take a look at everyone else's human rights record while your at it.

World: Lets pass on this debate.

lol that is so gangster of China

5

u/whiteprv Oct 07 '22

And that is why the un is shite

3

u/Edouardpsycho Oct 07 '22

And Ukraine abstained....

4

u/unlimited2gether2 Oct 07 '22

Oh what a surprise

41

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22

[deleted]

13

u/juicyjvoice Oct 07 '22

It’s all performative

35

u/ZET_unown_ Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

Its no coincidence at all.

As unpopular as this opinion is, the truth is that the moment India catches up to the US, they will be painted as the new devil. This happened to Japan in the 80s, until they lost to US pressure.

→ More replies
→ More replies

103

u/BigMcThickHuge Oct 06 '22

Gosh, how nice to finally acknowledge one of the violations of humanity worldwide.

Shame we hadn't done this sooner...or with any other atrocities countries commit...because goodness - think of the diplomatic and economic hurdles!

We will forever continue to ignore heinous acts committed publicly and in broad daylight, often on video....because think of the bad attitudes we would have to deal with from a dozen people that control everything.

13

u/nwordcoumtbot Oct 06 '22

Wait what? This article is saying it shot down western countries call for a debate. It’s doing the opposite of acknowledging the genocide

→ More replies

27

u/gonzo650 Oct 06 '22

Khashoggi being murdered, his murderers getting caught, and nobody doing a thing about it..... Well that sends a powerful message. In volume China is clearly worse. Something about the way Khashoggi was disposed of makes it feel more bold though.

39

u/BigMcThickHuge Oct 06 '22

Khashoggi has to be one of the wildest I've ever known and I hope it sticks in minds for decades to come.

A journalist was kidnapped, drugged, tortured in heinous ways that many can't think of, and then chopped up (I think he was anyways).

And we uh...let it go through the news for a week and said "Shucks, next thing!"

Has ANYTHING AT ALL come of his assassination?

22

u/gonzo650 Oct 06 '22

No. It was buried by the Trump administration and nobody in the current administration wants to use their political capital on that. Magically after Trump was out of office the Saudis gave Kushner $2B though. I really wish governments would stop looking at suffering of people as business assets where they need to see if it's worth it. I'm convinced that if the same Holocaust happened today, nobody would stop the Nazis. I mean it basically is happening in China and here we are with nobody willing to act because of what it will cost them financially in business with China

5

u/PrDelahaye Oct 06 '22

That it happened then and not now changes nothing. France and Britain did nothing until they were pulled into the war by the German attack on their ally Poland. The US was overwhemingly against the war until Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor. In all of these countries there was a lot of anti-semitism and sympathy for Nazis.

The Dreyfus affair is one famous example in France of division between anti-semites and normal people that showed basically half of the country was anti-semitic (it was half a century before WW2 though, so the mentalities likely evolved for better or worse during this time). Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer, was framed for an act of treason committed by someone else and sentenced to prison in Guyana despite very lacking evidence with complicity of military officials (basically, it was convenient for him to be guilty, in no small part due to him being Jewish).

Edward VIII was an infamous Nazi sympathiser and he may have been worse than we'll ever know because the crown covered it up. In the worst cases, the Nazis could have plotted to make him replace his younger brother and successor George VI, either after conquering the UK, or kidnapping the king. These claims come from secret Nazi communications and have no other proof though, so they're most likely false, but, again, what we do know is that the crown did all it could to cover him up, so most likely we won't ever be able to tell apart the true from the false.

5

u/gonzo650 Oct 06 '22

You're absolutely right. My wife's grandma is a holocaust survivor. She was old enough(94 now) to understand what was happening. She still has words about Roosevelt and after Trump came to power she was very clear they she had seen this playbook before.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -John Stuart Mill-

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies