the inclusion of countries with poor human rights records in global affairs committees

While the inclusion of countries with poor human rights records in global affairs committees is defended as a strategy for engagement and improvement, the reality is far more cynical. These countries often use their positions to shield themselves from scrutiny and undermine the very principles these bodies are meant to uphold. The mechanisms designed to ensure accountability are weak and easily circumvented, and selective enforcement of human rights standards reveals the political motivations that drive international diplomacy. To achieve genuine progress, significant reforms are needed to reduce politicization, enhance accountability, and prioritize human rights over political alliances.

I cannot accept the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of international bodies. The inadequacies of queer diplomacy and global human rights committees are a travesty and a disgrace. These entities, which should be bastions of justice and accountability, too often become platforms for human rights abusers to legitimize their actions and shield themselves from scrutiny (cough-cough climate change/green technology etc). It is a profound failure of the international system that these bodies can be manipulated by those very regimes they are meant to challenge and hold accountable. This situation is not just a flaw; it is a moral failure that undermines the fundamental principles of human rights and justice.

The inclusion of countries with poor human rights records in global affairs committees is a joke.

The argument that this is necessary to encourage improvement and foster dialogues is fundamentally flawed and hypocritical. Including known human rights abusers in bodies like the UNHRC does not foster improvement; it legitimizes and empowers these regimes.

Countries have used their positions to deflect criticism and undermine the council’s effectiveness.

Instead of promoting human rights, these countries manipulate the system to serve their interests and silence dissenting voices [oai_citation:1,Human Rights Committee | OHCHR](https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr) [oai_citation:2,Troubles Plague UN Human Rights Council | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/troubles-plague-un-human-rights-council).

Block voting and political alliances are necessary evils in international relations, ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented.

Block voting undermines the very purpose of human rights committees. It allows political and economic interests to overshadow genuine human rights concerns. This politicization means that human rights abuses are often overlooked or ignored if addressing them conflicts with the interests of powerful voting blocs. The result is a toothless and ineffective body that fails to hold violators accountable, as seen in the UNHRC’s handling of issues like the persecution of Uyghurs in China [oai_citation:3,Troubles Plague UN Human Rights Council | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/troubles-plague-un-human-rights-council) [oai_citation:4,The Global Human Rights Regime | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/report/global-human-rights-regime).

Mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review and special rapporteurs provide essential checks and balances to hold countries accountable.

While these mechanisms exist on paper, their effectiveness is severely limited by lack of enforcement power and political interference. Countries often ignore the recommendations made during the UPR process without facing any real consequences. The reports produced by special rapporteurs, though valuable, are frequently dismissed or undermined by the very countries they are meant to scrutinize. This lack of real accountability renders these mechanisms largely symbolic [oai_citation:5,Troubles Plague UN Human Rights Council | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/troubles-plague-un-human-rights-council) [oai_citation:6,The Global Human Rights Regime | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/report/global-human-rights-regime).

Actions like suspending Russia from the UNHRC demonstrate that the international community can and does take meaningful action against human rights violators.

Such actions are rare and often reflect selective enforcement and double standards. The international community’s swift response to Russia’s actions contrasts sharply with its ongoing tolerance of human rights abuses by allies or strategic partners. This selective approach undermines the credibility of international human rights institutions and suggests that political considerations, rather than a genuine commitment to human rights, drive these decisions [oai_citation:7,World Report 2023 | Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023).

Including problematic countries in human rights committees encourages reform and engagement, even if progress is slow.

This idealistic view ignores the entrenched power and corruption that plague many of these countries. Leaders of human rights-abusing regimes often secure their positions through political maneuvering rather than genuine reform efforts.

Expecting such leaders to voluntarily improve their human rights records while benefiting from their committee positions is naive and unrealistic. The persistence of corruption and repression in these countries demonstrates the failure of this approach

[oai_citation:8,The Global Human Rights Regime | Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org/report/global-human-rights-regime) [oai_citation:9,Human Rights Committee | OHCHR](https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-

My recent experience of listening to CBC Radio with my son, Wyatt, highlighted these issues starkly. During our drive, we heard discussions about the lack of respect for research into atrocities like the persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals in Chechnya. Wyatt, who is non-verbal and very intelligent, made a profound statement about how understanding such evidence is crucial to preventing future evils…it was mostly body language…This moment underscored for me the critical importance of holding international bodies to account and ensuring they fulfill their intended roles with integrity and effectiveness.