United Nations has dumbed-down the word reform.... to allow genocidal, pro-terrorism nations to continue to make decisions on world-wide human rights.
The U.N. has already been violating its Charter, by allowing terrorist-supporting and human-rights-violating nations to become members in the first place---let alone sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the U.N. Security Council. It's a slap in the face of all the victims among citizens of those very nations and the rest of us who have had to suffer the corruption and subversion of the unreformable cesspool at Turtle Bay.
Read about it below or here.
"UN Approves New Human Rights Body"
"The United Nations General Assembly Wednesday approved a new U.N. human rights body to replace the current U.N. Human Rights Commission, despite objections from the United States.The vote was 170 to 4 with three abstentions. The U.S., Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau voted against the new human rights body, while Belarus, Iran and Venezuela abstained.
U.N. Ambassador John Bolton was against the new council's creation because the rules were not strong enough to prevent human rights violators from getting a seat on the council. The current U.N. Human Rights Commission has recently included some of the most notorious human rights violators....
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the congressional human rights committee, expressed "deep disappointment and dismay" with the U.N. General Assembly for adopting a "weak and deeply flawed replacement" for the Human Rights Commission."To call what the UN did today 'reform' is Orwellian," Smith said in a statement. "The victims of human rights abuse around the world deserve better than this new, egregiously flawed council. The hypocrisy and gross ineffectiveness that was the hallmark of the former Commission will likely continue unless the American position in favor of sweeping reform is enacted...."
The New Jersey congressman said the UN "overreached in the most outrageous sense by treating the conclusion of UN bureaucrats as though they were internationally agreed upon treaties." Smith noted that even the New York Times referred to the proposal as "an ugly sham...."