UNITED NATIONS - / www.MaximsNews.com/ 20 March 2006 - A complete American isolationist may congratulate the Bush Administration and United Nations Ambassador John Bolton on his grandstanding vote Wednesday against the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council. Nobody else would.

It was a clear case of prejudice masquerading as policy, with Bolton playing to his usual gallery of Know-Nothings on one side, while also relishing briefly being on the side of Human Rights NGOs and what he considers to be the liberal New York Times in criticizing the failings of the negotiated outcome.

But taken as a poll on the Bolton-Bush stand, 170 votes to 4 epitomizes America's waning global prestige.

The three states that the United States led into the "nay" camp were Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, which are among the highest per capita recipients of US cash in the world, along with the Federated States of Micronesia, which even Bolton couldn't bully enough. 

The two Pacific micro-states depend on the US Congress for almost their entire budget. 

There is an additional irony: For decades the United States stalled on allowing the former Trustee territory of Palau independence until it dropped clauses in its constitution that barred the United States from bringing in nuclear weapons to defend it.

Nor could one be sure that Venezuela, Belarus and Iran, the states that abstained, were necessarily part of the Administration's dream team.

In fact, for all the many compromises, UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson and Secretary General Kofi Annan have pulled together what could be an effective and workable Human Rights Council--despite the Bolton blusterings, which did much to aid the opponents.

For example, although Bolton later jumped on Annan's proposal for a two-thirds majority vote for future members--after it had disappeared in the course of negotiations--he was almost certainly quite pleased. 

The United States has lost elections to the old Human Rights Commission before--and that was before the Bush Administration added Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and "renditions" to the world's human rights vocabulary. 

Many diplomats at the UN feel that if the US delegation had actively and constructively participated in negotiations instead of posturing for domestic constituencies, the electoral requirement for a two-thirds majority would have been passed.

Similarly, Bolton was very reserved on the term limits for members, and showed initially that he would have preferred a permanent seat for the United States, even if it entailed one for China, hardly a paragon of human rights.

While Bolton is particularly tin-eared in how he listens to other countries, we should remember that it was the Clinton Administration that worked assiduously and steadily to attenuate the International Criminal Court, and then only signed the much-weakened instrument at the very end of his presidency. 

It was this attitude that cost the United States the seat in times past. 

There are far more substantial grounds on which states of goodwill, in a secret ballot, may have scruples about voting for this US Administration to have a seat on the council, although many may support Washington in LBJ's eminently pragmatic argument that it is better to have opponents inside the tent urinating outward rather than vice versa.

The American diplomatic approach to human rights is, in its own way, every bit as partisan and partial as some of the notorious human rights offenders who have conspired to emasculate the Human Rights Commission over the years.

Indeed, the best weapon of the Axis of Offenders in the old commission has been the US attitude, which has, for example, condoned, trained and financed some of the worst human rights offenders of the era in Central America, while fulminating against Cuba's much less serious offenses. 

Disagreement with the United States should not necessarily put a country in the dock for human rights offenses--although neither should opposing the United States allow an exemption.

It did not help that one of the last reports of the Human Rights Commission was on Guantánamo, in which the experts roundly condemned the US breaches of international law. 

Even though the commission's conclusions were not that different from the US Supreme Court--that internees have legal rights and should have access to the Courts--the Bush Administration and its supporters attacked the report in terms that could have been borrowed from a riposte by Cuba, Uzbekistan or Syria.

The council has addressed the genuine concerns of many members by adopting the principle of "universality" in a constructive way instead of its usual blocking context at the UN. All members' human rights records will come under scrutiny. 

The Axis of Offenders' main purpose in getting on the former commission was to block consideration of their cases, so this removes much of the incentive for them to be on the Council.

Countries that are genuinely concerned about human rights need to eschew their usual regional voting pacts, but we can be sure that the NGOs will keep their feet to the fire.

And as for the United States, it would be good if it voted on the basis the State Department's own annual Human Rights Report, which has managed to be critical even of allies.

Along with the "Responsibility to Protect" resolution adopted last year, the Human Rights Council is a step forward for the United Nations. 

But far from being rewarded by Congress, watch out for attacks on the world's temerity for disagreeing with Ambassador Bolton.

          IanWilliams@MaximsNews.com 

MaximsNews Q & A: The New Human Rights Council

1.  How many members will the new Human Rights Council have?

The new Council will consist of 47 members, as compared to the 53-member Commission on Human Rights. 

2. How will members be elected?

Membership to the Council is open to all Member States of the United Nations.  Members would be elected by the General Assembly through individual and direct votes by absolute majority (96 votes).  The distribution of seats would be in accordance with equitable geographical representation (13 from the African Group; 13 from the Asian Group; 6 from the Eastern European Group; 8 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group; and 7 from the Western European and Other States Group).  The members of the new Human Rights Council will be elected on 9 May 2006.

3.  How is this new election procedure for Council membership different from the Commission on Human Rights?

The new election procedure calls for an absolute majority of the entire membership of the General Assembly. Election to the Commission on Human Rights was by the 53 member Economic and Social Council through a majority of those present and voting. 

4.  What are the expectations of the members to the Council?

When voting for members of the Council, member states will take into consideration a candidates' contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights.  Upon election, new members will commit themselves to cooperating with the Council and to upholding the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.  Candidates to the Council would also submit voluntary pledges and commitments with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights. These expectations did not exist for the Commission on Human Rights.

5.  How will the Council ensure that its members are abiding by these human rights standards?

Members of the Council will undergo the Council's new universal review mechanism during their term of membership.  The modalities and frequency of this universal periodic review mechanism will be adopted by the Council within one year of its first session. 

6.  Could a Member have its rights and privileges suspended in the Council?

The General Assembly would have the right to suspend the rights and privileges of any Council Member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership.  This process of suspension would require a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. 

7. How long are the terms of membership?

Members will be elected for three year terms.  They would not be eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms.

8. Where will the Human Rights Council fit in within the United Nations system?

The Human Rights Council would be a subsidiary body of the General Assembly.  This would make it directly accountable to the full membership of the United Nations.

9. Where and how often will the Council meet?

The Human Rights Council will be based in Geneva and will hold no fewer than three sessions per year (including a main session) for a total period of no less than ten weeks. The Commission met in one annual six-week session. The Council will also be able to convene to deal with urgent situations, and to hold special sessions when necessary through a request by a Member of the Council with the support of one-third of the membership of the Council. 

10. Will non-governmental organizations and other observers participate in the proceedings of the Council as they did with the Commission on Human Rights?

Observers, including non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions and specialized agencies, will initially participate in the Council through the same arrangements and practices that applied to the Commission. 

11.  How will the work of the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights – independent experts, treaty bodies, and special rapporteurs – be affected by the establishment of the Council?

The Council will carry over all the Commission's mandates and responsibilities to ensure that there is not a protection gap in the transition.  A review will be completed within one year from the Council's first session. This review will examine ways to rationalize and strengthen the special procedures and mechanisms including the Sub-Commission of Commission on Human Rights on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

12. What will the relationship be between the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council?

The new Council will assume the role and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights relating to the work of the Office of the High Commissioner.  

13. How would you summarize the main objectives of the Human Rights Council?

The Council will serve as the main United Nations forum for dialogue and cooperation on human rights.  Its focus will be to help member states meet their human rights obligations through dialogue, capacity building, and technical assistance.  The Council will also make recommendations to the General Assembly for further development of international law in the field of human rights.

14.  What are the next steps?

It is envisaged that the election of the first members of the Human Rights Council will take place on 9 May 2006 and that the first meeting of the Council will be convened on 19 June 2006.