As Human Rights Watch pointed out, Over the last decade, Libya has detained government opponents for years without charge or trial, prohibited the formation of political parties or independent non-governmental groups, and muzzled its press. In the past, the Libyan government has also been responsible for torture, “disappearances” and the assassination of political opponents abroad.
This is simply pathetic. The UN HRC has become a total embarassment.
The choice of Chair of the Human Rights Commission rotates regionally – it falls to Africa for the coming term, beginning in March. The African Union, a new body to deal with such things (among others), has stated its intention to nominate Libya to be the Chair.
That choice, if it comes to pass, must then be voted on by the Commission itself (I don’t recall whether it’s a majority thing, supermajority, acclaimation, or what). This procedure will occur in January.
None of this has actually happened yet. None. None. Not a little bit. None.
HRW is going a good job being out in front on this, and of course it ought to be stopped, but it just hasn’t happened yet. To report otherwise is a lie.
Easy now, London Calling. I’ve had a look for information confirming manhattan’s view. I think that it’s likely that skynews have got it wrong, although their story’s still up. Maybe december was eager to believe it, but he linked from a legitimate enough news site. It appears that 1. It is Africa’s turn to nominate 2. They have nominated Libya 3. All 53 governments on the commission must endorse the nomination in January before the annual session begins in March. Presumably pressure will be brought to bear, but Libya has been on a charm offensive of late and has a better reputation than one might think in some parts of the world.
hawthorne – I was mocking the certainty of the thread title.
Yep, Libya is keen to edge back towards international respectability (nb. British Ministerial visit to the sartorially distinct one last week). But if Gadhafi need all 53 votes and there remains a lack of transparency with regard his Human Rights record, what odds will you give me ?
Wonder if he’s swapped the tin foil for a tin helmet yet…
If Libya manage to sweet talk the 53 member council into heading the UNCHR, which I doubt will happen, it may actually force them to do something about their Human Rights abuses.
of course it ‘implies’ this. It also doesn’t indicate what the Brits could have done, and according to the Washington Times article (also linked above, but not, of course, by the OP), it states clearly :
So unless my geography is way worse than I ever imagined, GB did not have a voice in the nomination, which is, of course, the status of this whole thing (he’s been nominated).
