Human Rights Council: You Say Yes, I Say No Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Today the US was virtually the lone dissenter as the UN Human Rights Council was voted into being to replace the body's discredited Human Rights Commission.  We've had plenty of posts here on the issues surrounding the composition and credibility of the Council. 

The compromise terms of reference adopted for the Council manifestly fall short of what both the US government and most human rights advocates wanted to see, particularly in terms of ensuring that the Council's membership excludes human rights violators, and those who intend to use the Council for political point-scoring rather than to advance the cause of human rights.

Here's how Ambassador John Bolton put it: 

We must not let history remember us as the architects of a council that was a ‘compromise’ and merely ‘the best we could do’ rather than one that ensured doing ‘all we could do’ to promote human rights

This is a statement that, at least a few weeks ago, most human rights NGOs would have agreed with.

Bolton also said, however, that the US intends to work with the new Council, and will agree to fund it.

So here's the question, given that the new Council is not all it could or should have been, was it right for the US to cast a protest vote reiterating its principled reservations?  After all, why should the US acquiesce in mediocrity and half-measures when it comes to something as important as human rights?

In this case the protest vote was not a smart move.  The US and Bolton in particular had made their views very well-known through a series of detailed mark-ups, proposals, and public statements throughout the negotiation process.  So no one would mistake the US postion on the new Council as unqualified approval.

In the UN General Assembly, there's a strong tradition of consensus and taking votes is relatively rare.  I believe strongly and have written that on key issues the US should make clear that its prepared to call for votes, because doing so can be the only way of influencing recalcitrants. 

In this case, it was crystal clear that the new Council had well in excess of the number of votes it needed to pass, meaning that the US's refusal to join consensus was purely symbolic and would have no effect on the outcome.

The upshot is that the US came off as a spoilsport and, once again, as a hold-out against the rest of the world.  Given the difficulties we face in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories, now is a time to be edging closer to others and forging compromises, rather than taking lone stands on principle that have no practical effect.

After the UN's Reform Summit last September fizzled out, many despaired at the prospects for achieving any progress on matters like the human rights Council.  The new Council will be better than the old in certain key ways - members will work harder and more consistently, and there will be more objectivity to the selection process.

Instead of talking about how the world is taking important, if incomplete, steps to reform the Council and better tackle human rights, the news headlines are instead focused once again on America's isolation.

Comments

[Jeff Younger]

Amb. Bolton explained the US vote this way

The resolution before us merely requires Member States to “take into account” a candidate’s human rights record when voting. And the provision for the General Assembly to suspend an elected member of the Council requires a two-thirds vote, a standard higher than that for electing members.

Our position on the need for a strong, credible membership is one of principle...

If the US is the only member nation to stand up for the correct procedural principles, then the US vote is honorable.

Liberals can't make up their minds: should the US play realpolitik as Ms. Nossel suggests, or should the US stand on principle. Liberals complain either way, so is there some "esoteric" third way liberals want us to take?

[libertarian soldier]

So if the US is the only country willing to vote against a resolution equating Zionism with racism, or calling Hamas a legitimate national liberation movement, it shouldn't?
Mr Younger, of course there is a 3rd way for the liberals, and nothing esoteric at all--whatever the Bush administration does, oppose it.

[J Thomas]

If nations that violate human rights aren't allowed on the Council, what nation will serve?

Certainly not the USA. Or russia. Or china.

[Jeff Younger]

If nations that violate human rights aren't allowed on the Council, what nation will serve?

Other than you, no state has advocated such criteria. Your uninformed post is a blatant straw man.

[J Thomas]

"The compromise terms of reference adopted for the Council manifestly fall short of what both the US government and most human rights advocates wanted to see, particularly in terms of ensuring that the Council's membership excludes human rights violators...."

Jeff Younger, either you didn't read the original post or I didn't read it carefully enough. Which do you suppose it is?

[Jeff Younger]

J Thomas, my supposition is that you have not read Bolton's statement. Why do you suppose that is?

[J Thomas]

The compromise terms of reference adopted for the Council manifestly fall short of what both the US government and most human rights advocates wanted to see, particularly in terms of ensuring that the Council's membership excludes human rights violators, and those who intend to use the Council for political point-scoring rather than to advance the cause of human rights.

Jeff Younger, this quote was what I was responding to. I don't get where your non sequitur response to me came from. Do you have some reason why I should not have responded to this as I did?

[omnicef]

ambien sleep aid http://celebrexatt.blog.hr/ celebrex erectile

[proscar]

carisoprodol 200mg http://carisoprodol4u.blog.hr/ carisoprodol 350mg

[flomax]

carisoprodol mexican http://cialisblog.blogbeam.com/ stephen colis padgett