UN Human Rights Council Mirrors Discredited Human Rights Commission
By Brett D. Schaefer
Heritage Foundation
May 10, 2006
WebMemo #1069
Last year, the United States led efforts to replace the ineffective and discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council (HRC). Negotiations watered down the U.S. proposal to one that failed to adopt any meaningful criteria for membership and left the new body vulnerable to the same manipulation by human rights abusers that plagued the old Commission. Despite these weaknesses, America stood virtually alone in voting against the UN resolution creating the HRC. Wary of adding credibility to a façade of reform, the U.S. announced that, while it would support the new Council, it would not run for a seat on the HRC this year and its decision to run in the future would be based on the HRC’s performance in the coming year.
Following that decision, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the U.S. would “work to ensure that countries elected to the Council uphold the highest standards of human rights.” But despite the efforts of the Bush Administration and other states that voted against human rights abusers, the May 9 elections proved that the HRC is little different from the Commission. Following the election, only about half of the 47 countries on the HRC are “free,” according to Freedom House. Slightly less than a fifth are “not free,” including noted human rights abusers Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. While the worst abusers make up less of the Council than of the old Commission, these states are still in a position to hamstring the Council as they did the Commission.
Click here for the full story.
