Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the nothing-will-change dept.

US leaving UN Human Rights Council -- 'a cesspool of political bias'

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced the United States is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council Tuesday, accusing the body of bias against US ally Israel and a failure to hold human rights abusers accountable. The move, which the Trump administration has threatened for months, came down one day after the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed the separation of children from their parents at the US-Mexico border as "unconscionable."

Speaking from the State Department, where she was joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Haley defended the move to withdraw from the council, saying US calls for reform were not heeded. "Human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council," said Haley, listing US grievances with the body. "The world's most inhumane regimes continue to escape its scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in its ranks."

Also at NPR and Bloomberg.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @10:25PM (#695837)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @02:54AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @02:54AM (#695968)

    I was unable to read past the first paragraph of your link to The Spectator when I realized they were raising that argument as a serious identification of a harm of socialist programs.

    The problem that immediately jumps out is that it fails to deal with the effect that capitalism has on prices, including the price of labor. This effect of capitalism is useful to us when we are talking about commodities.

    We are not actually talking about commodities when we are talking about labor. We are talking about human beings. This will become evident when we consider the effect of the price of labor decreasing past the amount of money an average member of the working class would need to survive above poverty level.

    It would be a profoundly disturbing proposition to suggest that human beings, as in their very lives, are a commodity--at least to somebody who is opposed to slavery.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @09:54AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @09:54AM (#696113)

      I realized they were raising that argument as a serious identification of a harm of socialist programs.

      Not true, they're identifying the rationale that led to socialist programs. Elitists have been the same the world over throughout history and note elitist leftys no longer care about the white working class. Not now that they can cynically exploit other marginalised groups by preventing whites as an oppressor class to gain power. Did they ever care at all? No, they wanted them dead! Now look at every socialist regime in history and see the same pattern repeat.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:32PM (#696175)

        Elitists have been the same the world over throughout history and note elitist leftys no longer care about the white working class. Not now that they can cynically exploit other marginalised groups by preventing whites as an oppressor class to gain power.

        This is what identity politics is for. People will call you a racist for saying this, but it is absolutely true. The majority of the working class in the USA is white, and identity politics seeks to divide the working class against itself along racialist lines.

        Now look at every socialist regime in history and see the same pattern repeat.

        I fail to see any states where the means of production are owned by the workers. I see many examples of Stalinism etc and control of the means of production by bureaucracies and authoritarian dictatorships. Stalinism etc could not ever have realized Marx and Engels' vision, because they did not embody the principles that were logically derived from the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

        Perhaps the confusion arises because socialism must come from an enlightened working class. It cannot be enforced from above.

        This may sound cliche to a reader of wswswswsws. Workers need to form rank-and-file committees and organize with rank-and-file committees internationally. Global socialism must supersede the anachronistic idea of a nation with borders, because global socialism's fight is against global capitalism, which has already superseded the idea of nations with borders. Indeed, the state of most governments is as a puppet organ of the international capitalist class. I am suggesting some kind of socialist syndicalism.