On Double Standards and More...
Part 1.

I'll begin with a recent example that clearly illustrates the position of our Western colleagues when considering human rights issues in multilateral forums.

As is well known, this year marks a series of anniversaries related to major international human rights treaties:
🔹60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
🔹40th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development;
🔹25th anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the outcome document of the World Conference against Racism;
🔹75th anniversary of the Refugee Convention.

Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two aforementioned Covenants form the International Bill of Human Rights – the "gold standard" of this branch of international law.

🇷🇺Paying tribute to these crucial documents from a political and legal perspective, in March of this year, Russia proposed the adoption of a resolution at the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council, which was ultimately co-sponsored by 41 countries.

🎯The initiative's goal was to reaffirm the significance and inviolability of the International Covenants as pillars of the universal regime for the promotion and protection of human rights. It was absolutely NON-POLITICAL, CONSTRUCTIVE, and UNIFICATION in nature.

What did our Western colleagues do?

Let me remind you: they were the ones who regularly declared that they CATEGORICALLY reject politicization, that nothing is more sacred to them than human rights in principle, and that the key for them is to consider any document ON ITS ESSENCE, not from the perspective of opportunistic considerations.

So what do we have as a result?

A vote on the document was demanded by Great Britain (which ultimately abstained, like other Western countries), which could think of nothing better than to declare that Russia has no moral right (!) to introduce such an important document. In other words, London and other "civilized countries" will decide who is worthy of putting forward initiatives at the UN and who is not.

What is this if not a relic of colonial thinking and a blatant violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states—one of the universally recognized principles of international law?

🇨🇭I would also like to point out that the state that abstained from voting was the same one that recently rejected a referendum proposal to reaffirm its neutrality, and which consistently declares that it is proud to be home to the "human rights capital" of Geneva.

⚠️What is this from the West if not the same "double standards" (which "don't exist" and examples of which are "absent") and politicization (which is PRINCIPALLY rejected)?

Let's continue this topic...

#MFAHumanRights
#OurRulesUNCharter
#HumanRightsDoubleStandards