Why Not the Best? That was the title of Jimmy Carter's autobiography and the leitmotif of his 1976 presidential campaign, when he exhorted Americans to "lift ourselves above mediocrity and fulfill the ambitions to which America aspires." But mediocrity, not excellence, is the hallmark of the watered down proposal to replace the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights with a reformed Human Rights Council--a proposal that Carter, along with 11 other Nobel Peace Prize winners, rushed to embrace last Friday as a "delicate compromise," albeit one that falls far short of what is needed to change how the U.N. protects human rights.
There is little in this "compromise" to cheer about. Basic and obvious reforms, such as excluding from membership nations that are under U.N. Security Council sanction for human rights abuses, were rejected. The ideal of objective membership criteria, such as compliance with elementary human rights norms, was vetoed. Secretary General Kofi Annan's proposal that members be selected by two-thirds of the General Assembly--a necessary check on the election of the worst human rights offenders--was struck. The proposed reforms are cosmetic and create no barriers to the selection of any nation to the Human Rights Council--the very problem that led in the past to the election of Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Zimbabwe to the Human Rights Commission. The size of the new Council remains essentially unchanged--going from 53 to 47--rather than, as the United States suggested, a Council of 30 members, a number more likely to enable swift action to address urgent human rights situations. The draft resolution significantly reduces the seats held by the Western European and Others Group ("WEOG")--the very countries that historically championed action at the Commission to condemn human rights abuses.
The "peer review" examination procedure proposed to scrutinize the human rights records of each member elected to the Council has been recast as a "cooperative mechanism" based on "interactive dialogue." Given China's longstanding position that its human rights record is a matter of "internal affairs," and therefore none of the UN's business, it is difficult to imagine how much "interactive dialogue" there will be concerning China's suppression of religious minorities, or its persecution of human rights activists whose only crime was to surf the Internet. Worse, the proposal would leave it to the Council develop the "modalities" for peer review. That is an ominous delegation of responsibility, since many nations have already insisted that peer review be a "light mechanism," to be allocated only "limited time" on the Council's agenda, and one that does not "burden" members by duplicating reporting obligations already in place through existing U.N. treaties--obligations that are routinely ignored by those nations most in need of oversight.
But, says Jan Eliasson, the President of the U.N. General Assembly and the champion of this "compromise proposal," this is the "best attempt" to formulate a solution. Secretary General Annan has likewise thrown up his hands. While conceding that the draft is not perfect, Annan claims that failing to adopt the proposal "would undermine this organization's credibility," and "deal a blow to the cause of human rights."
By now, Annan should know that the U.N. already has a serious credibility problem. This plan to create a Human Rights Council will not solve it. To the contrary, it exposes the uncomfortable truth that many nations have no interest in U.N. reform, or are unwilling to summon the collective will necessary to protect victims of despotic regimes.
Rejection of this shameful proposal is necessary, and the United States has said that negotiations must resume. Here are a few ideas to create a Human Rights Council worthy of its name:
1.Make the Human Rights Council a subsidiary body of the Security Council: Systemic violation of human rights is a leading cause of armed conflict, inter-ethnic violence, and genocide. Bringing the membership selection and work of the Human Rights Council under the mandate of the Security Council will go a long way toward focusing the Council's work on where it is most needed. It will also enable the Security Council to select members most likely to have the backbone to condemn egregious human rights abuses.
2. Divide responsibility for the selection of Council members between the Security Council and the General Assembly: If the U.N. refuses to empower the Security Council to select members of the Human Rights Council, then give both the General Assembly and the Security Council a role in membership selection. Some portion of its members will be selected by the General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote. The remaining seats will be filled by the Security Council.
