[capitalistsforever] UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Universal Periodic Review(UPR) process reviews countries on several bases, including, but not limited to:
(a) the charter of the Universal Nudnik(UN);
(b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(c) human rights instruments to which the state is a party; and
(d) voluntary pledges and commitments made by states, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council.

Venitist Brett Schaefer points out that while the UPR offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism, it has proven to be a flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from criticism, a flaw that the HRC shares with the broader human rights efforts in the Universal Nudnik system.

Venitist Steven Groves points out two key problems with the UPR:

(1) contributions to the process by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are strictly curtailed; and

(2) countries use points of order and other procedures to intimidate NGOs from making statements or to strike their comments from the record.

These two issues have tainted the UPR and resulted in numerous farcical human rights reviews. For instance:

* China laughably claimed in its UPR report that it "adheres to the principle that all ethnic groups are equal and implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy in areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities," that elections are "democratic" and "competitive," that "citizens enjoy freedom of speech and of the press," and that China respects the right to religious freedom.

* Cuba's UPR report claimed that its "democratic system is based on the principle of `government of the people, by the people and for the people'" and that the right to "freedom of opinion, expression and the press" is guaranteed and protected, as are the rights of assembly and peaceful demonstration.

* North Korea asserted that it "comprehensively provides" for fundamental rights and freedoms, including "the right to elect and to be elected, the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, the rights to complaints and petitions, work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security, freedoms to engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits, and freedoms of residence and travel."

These patently false reports were accepted at face value and approved by the majority of member states in the council! The Universal Nudnik(UN) is only as relevant as the member states wish it to be. In areas of common concern, the desire to cooperate and compromise may temporarily trump concerns over protecting state sovereignty and preserving freedom of action to deal with urgent security threats. The disappointing Universal Nudnik Human Rights Council(HRC), created to replace the discredited Universal Nudnik Commission on Human Rights, has ignored ongoing state-sanctioned human rights abuses in Belarus, Cuba, China, Iran, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere and instead has spent much of its time obsessing about Israel.

Basil Venitis, an Athenian orator, asserts HRC's record is gravely disappointing. The council can now claim added legitimacy for its decisions and resolutions because of U.S. membership. The council's performance is unlikely to improve without drastic reforms to improve its membership, such as barring states with grave human rights violations from membership and requiring competitive elections. If membership reform efforts fall short, Uncle Sam should explore creating an alternative human rights organization composed of governments that respect and observe human rights.

Since 2000 about 95% of Universal Nudnik member states that receive American and European assistance have voted against USA and EU most of the time in the Universal Nudnik General Assembly on non-consensus votes. The West should inform aid recipients that their support for Western priorities in Universal Nudnik and other international organizations will directly affect future decisions on allocating Western assistance. In order to strengthen and broaden support for Western policies in Universal Nudnik, the West should also seek to build coalitions of like-minded nations that are firmly committed to political and economic freedom. Over the long term, Western aid could facilitate the expansion of these coalitions by encouraging more countries to become freer, both politically and economically.

Unlike Universal Nudnik Security Council resolutions, which all Universal Nudnik member states are theoretically obligated to obey, General Assembly votes are non-binding. However, they do influence public perceptions in many countries and are often characterized as expressing the will of the international community. Regrettably, many proposals in recent General Assembly sessions, if adopted and enforced, would damage the global economy and Uncle Sam interests. This situation requires the West to pay close attention to General Assembly votes and Western diplomats and negotiators to spend much time and effort to prevent such initiatives from gaining international legitimacy through Universal Nudnik resolutions.

Basil Venitis, an Athenian orator, asserts that in protecting and advancing Western interests, the West should do all that it can to strengthen and broaden support for Western policies in Universal Nudnik. The West should focus on changing the dynamics of Universal Nudnik by explicitly linking Western assistance to support for Western priorities in Universal Nudnik(UN), by forging coalitions with nations that share the Graecoroman principles of political and economic freedom, and by seeking to expand the membership of those coalitions. Increasing the number of economically and politically free countries and forging coalitions with those nations in Universal Nudnik will serve as an indispensable long-term diplomatic tool for advancing Western priorities.