We do not know what the outcome will be in Libya, where protesters seeking freedom have been brutally attacked by forces loyal to dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
At this writing, Gadhafi and opposition forces are battling over a key airstrip and oil facility, and the opposition controls nearly half the nation's territory. Hundreds of Libyans have died.
Meanwhile, we could not help but notice that the U.N.'s badly misnamed "Human Rights Council" has temporarily suspended Libya from membership on the council.
That raises an obvious question: How did Libya come to be a member of the Human Rights Council in the first place? The supposed goal of that body is to boost human rights worldwide. What evidence has Libya, under the Gadhafi dictatorship for four decades, shown that it has the faintest interest in protecting the rights of its own people, much less the rights of people around the world?
For that matter, there is no reason to believe that the Human Rights Council itself promotes individual liberty. You'll notice that Libya, despite its ongoing oppression of its people, was not actually removed from the council but only suspended for the time being.
Ironically, just last November, the Human Rights Council praised Libya for its alleged support of democracy and defense of human rights.
That's no surprise. Among the council's other members are Saudi Arabia, Communist China and Communist Cuba. What does any of those countries have to do with the promotion and defense of personal freedom? In fact, Freedom House points out that most member nations on the U.N. Human Rights Council are themselves "not free" or only "partly free."
How can such countries have any legitimacy when they issue statements about the rights enjoyed or denied in other nations?
People of good will should fervently hope that freedom, representative government and the rule of law will take hold in Libya. But one thing is certain: The less the U.N. has to do with that process, the better off Libya and the entire Middle East will be.