Metten also stressed the critical need for nations to hold China accountable for its ‘severe human rights violations’ during its fourth Universal Periodic Review, done by the UN Human Rights Council in January. Such as what’s happening in Tibet.
Several other nations seconded that opinion. Including Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
“The Chinese government’s ongoing policy of repression aims to eradicate the authentic and self-determined Tibetan culture. This policy must be stopped immediately,” Metten said.
They already are. China, Russia and the USA are permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and the USA were both current members of the Human Rights Council for separate concurrent terms, but Russia was removed as part of the aftermath of their invasion of Ukraine.
Part of the idea is having these dangerous nations included at the table so they can be held accountable to whatever degree the UN is capable. If they are removed from that process entirely, what motivation do they have to comply with the UN at all?
China’s government doesn’t see a motivation to comply with UN (or any) rules as long as they don’t support their expansionism and economic colonization. What they want is to influence UN decisions and re-writing human rights and other rules to their benefit, eliminating democracy.
The UN is actually doing its primary job very well, preventing another world war.
Having all superpowers in the security council is likely a significant contributor to that success.
The jury is very much out on this.
I think it’s arguable that the UN was an important forum during parts of the cold war.
Although to be honest I think the main reason why the cold war remained cold is neither of the two main belligerents wanted a hot war. The USSR post-Stalin was not an expansionist power. And the USA wasn’t expansionist in the traditional sense of wanting to conquer territory. US business interests enjoyed the CIA’s dial-a-coup service whenever they wanted while the KGB enjoyed happy fun times in Europe and Africa.
Both countries managed to suck the other into bloody proxy wars at various times and the UN was useless there.
Even during crisis points (Cuba) the UN was mostly a venue for grand standing and shoe pounding while the real deescalation happened in bilateral side-channels.
Now I really don’t see any value to the UN. During my lifetime the only thing it has done is rubber-stamp Bush’s wars. And I don’t see it doing anything to stop—say—a conflict between the USA and China either of those countries want it.
I also doubt any of these majors powers are actually committed to human rights or peace, but I was asking the question rhetorically, as in, I think that’s the reasoning behind including these members that seem to conflict with the very mission of the various councils.
Expansionism to… a bunch of uninhabited holes in the ground? Oh no, the horror.
Nevermind that I’m fairly sure that under the recognized methods of acquiring sovereignty, China owns the Paracels through either effective occupation or conquest during the Vietnam War.