You may recall that a few days ago, there was drama in Geneva as the Venezuelan government was dragged kicking and screaming to the UN to defend its human rights record.
My favorite parts of the diplomatic, tersely-worded statement, are: (my translation)
“14. The Committee is worried about reports related to human rights violations presumably perpetrated with regards to street protests. About that, and even though it takes into account the information that some of those who participated had done so violently, it is worried about numerous reports related to human rights violations perpetrated in the context of protests which took place in the first few months of 2014, including cases of excessive and disproportionate use of force, torture or mistreatment, arbitrary detentions, and non-observance of basic legal safeguards.”
15. The Committee is still concerned about the situation of the judicial system in [Venezuela], particularly concerning its autonomy, independence, and impartiality. It is worried that only 34% of judges have tenure, meaning that the rest are provisional, and their appointments and removals can be done discretionally.”
Really? After Afiuni? After Marvinia Jiménez? After the Human Rights Watch report from 2004 basically alerting this was going to happen, the best the UN can muster is to express “concern” for the independence of the judicial system?
Way to go UN. I can tell you’re way ahead of the curve on these issues.
Perhaps in 2020, the UN will muster enough courage to express “concern” over the “alleged” scarcity of basic products, and over the “alleged” media hegemony.
Bureaucrats …. they are incorregible.