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.
Having China in a human rights council would be as ironic as having Russia in a peace counsil
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?
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 UN is actually doing its primary job very well, preventing another world war.
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.
Can we ban Chinese imports and watch everything crumble?
Didn't literally all the Muslim countries visit Xinjiang and come out of it with the consensus of "yeah, y'know what, China's doing pretty good all things considered."
What makes the opinions of white non-Muslim people matter in this context?
Truth is not supposed to be assigned to who makes the statement. What is actually happening is what is truth.
Also not all Muslim countries, mainly authoritarian régimes.
Name one that didn't.
Didn't literally all the Muslim countries visit Xinjiang and come out of it with the consensus of "yeah, y'know what, China's doing pretty good all things considered."
All things considered? There are some Uyghurs who could flee the country, and they don't say "it's pretty good" (this statement alond is disgusting given the human righrs violations hapoening there), and independent NGO hasn't been allowed to enter Xinjiang.
What happens there is a human catastrophe, comparable to what Nazi Germany did in the second world war.
You are utterly deranged if you genuinely believe what you just wrote. The more likely scenario however is that you are a Nazi apologist trying to minimise their atrocities. Even if the worst western theories about the Uyghur genocide are true, it is still not comparable to what the Nazis did. The Nazis had documented slaughterhouses that killed millions. Can you name just one person who was provably killed in this Uyghur genocide?
nein ist es nicht halt die fresse und hör auf naziverbrechen zu verunglimfplichen
A genocide is a genocide. Bist Du es nicht leid, immer wieder diesselbe Propaganda abzurufen als selbst zu denken?
Ich bin so froh das ich damit aufgehört habe immer dieselbe Propaganda abzurufen und selbst zu recherchieren. Es ist krass wie oft Behauptungen wie diese, die überall verbreitet werden von der gleichen sehr wackeligen Quelle kommen.
Wo sind denn Deine Recherchen?
Recherchiert hast Du noch was. Du bist einfach ein Teenager, der auf die Propaganda reinfällt. Du solltest Dir selbst einen Gefallen tun und von diesen 'Communities' fernbleiben.
Keine Zeit das alles abzutippen aber wenn man sich die Person Adrian Zenz mal anguckt und was sie sonst so über China und das Christentum schreibt sollten eine Menge Zweifel aufkommen.
Ist echt witzig dass das hier gerade das Thema ist weil der sogenannte "Genozid" mich dazu gebracht hat das ganze westliche Mediensystem zu hinterfragen. Ich konnte einfach keine verlässliche Quelle finden. Die (fehlende) Berichterstattung über die Nazi Milizen in der Ostukraine haben dem ganzen den Rest gegeben.
Keine Zeit das alles abzutippen
LOL
By definition, you've described a self-selecting sample.
Nobody is questioning whether China is policing Xinjiang very heavily, but calling it a genocide implies that China is somehow targeting all Uyghurs and not just radical elements. Most people are fine and Uyghurs are still represented in government and at top educational institutions. Comparing it to Nazi Germany is both reductionist and downright inaccurate.
Radical elements, sure. Let's just ignore the forced sterilizations, abortions, literal concentration camps, suppression of culture etc (sources can be found in the source list of eg this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide)
Oh great, citing a Wikipedia article whose sources predominantly cite a single person. You can do better.
Let's not pretend any source I could dig up would actually convince you
So… You have no useful sources? Good argument, bravo.
This is the problem with all the bullshit surrounding China. It's all "we KNOW it MUST be happening because I was told it a bunch of times."
I never said I have no sources, I said I know you'll come up with some sort of excuse for ignoring any source I can dig up.
But OK, I'll bite. Here's a UN report on the situation: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273613/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
Now's the part where you say it's obviously untrustworthy, and how China's definition of "extremism" isn't extremely vague and so broad as to be meaningless, and all reports of reproductive rights being violated are lies, etc etc.
At least someof us here know China from own experience, have worked for Chinese companies, lived in the country.
You, in contrast, are suffering from a major lack of experience. You're just echoing mindless propaganda. In the end, you are creating an obstacle for your own personal development, thus hurting yourself. You could do yourself a favour by staying away from this bubble-producing communities. But that's just on. Whether you do it or not, all others will be fine either way.
Its NATO. Their opinion matters became we will fund right wing death squads if you disagree.
Hell yeah more invasions to fund the military industrial complex
