The NAACP & The United Nations Human Rights Council

The merits and salient issues relative to the recent adoption of so called “Voter ID“ legislation  in states across the nation will be discussed in a future blog post, but it is crucial that before any such discussion can be intelligently engendered, the stance of one party to the discussion must be presented and understood.

To wit:

The NAACP this week presented its request to the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate and to intervene as it claims state governments in America  are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election.

The first amendment to the United States Constitution includes specific language that provides that each and every citizen has the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The premise that any American organization would consider it appropriate to circumvent the Constitution for some manner of political advantage is curious, but one must accept their claims on face value, and protect their right to employ whatever mechanism they believe proper. The supposition of nefarious intent would merely cloud the issue with political obfuscations and hinder the opportunity to shed light upon an issue that many consider itself an assault upon the intent of the framers and founders.

Once the merits of the argument are accepted as viable, the core issue of requesting United Nations oversight provides the true context of this debate.

The United Nations has a revolving membership of committees and councils; the belief was that such a rotating format would preclude a monopolization of any such committee or council.

The real concern here is that the NAACP chose to request the Human Rights Council to be the instrument to handle their concerns, and therein lies the most troubling aspect of the entire affair.

Consider for a moment some of the current members of the United Nation Human Rights Council:

The Syrian Arab Republic is currently engaged in the wholesale slaughter of its people in defending the Assad government, proposing that any violence is being fomented by ‘outside terrorists’.

Sudan is currently allowing its population to starve; actor/activist George Clooney was this week arrested outside the Sudanese embassy for protesting the actions of the Sudanese government.

Saudi Arabia has decided that women in their country will have the right to vote – in 2015. The female population of Saudi Arabia is still unable to drive, or to travel abroad without the permission of a male guardian.

North Korea continues to isolate itself under worldwide sanctions for the choice to pursue nuclear weaponry at the expense of its people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a publicly stated policy to remove Israel from the face of the map. Its leadership questions the occurrence of the Holocaust during World War II. It is currently pursuing nuclear weaponry and refusing to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to enter their country to determine the intent of their nuclear program.

In addition, these current members of the United Nations Human Rights Council recently issued a report that valiantly attempted to make the claim that the Libyan regime of deposed dictator Gaddafi was a shining example of positive human rights policies in action.

Quotes from member nations contained within the report of the council included the following commentaries on that premise:

--“Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms.”

--“Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrollment rate and improvements in the education of women.”

--“The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime.”

--“North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights.”

The fact that this is the body that the NAACP has chosen to help provide governance on their complaints against certain states in America seems to defy logic and strains credulity that they are truly interested in voter right protections.

A serious partner in what should be an internal national debate should not look for allies that currently comprise the United Nations Human Rights Council; it makes intelligent dialogue impossible and the NAACP should reconsider its position.