A Human Rights Body Worth Backing

After five months of strained negotiations, the United Nations last week established a new Human Rights Council. The new body enjoys the support of 170 countries. The United States voted against the new council, as did three other nations: Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who lobbied for a tougher draft, said that victims of human rights violations deserve better than good enough or the best we could do. Maybe, but in reality this new council is a tremendous improvement from its predecessor, and the flaws that it does have can be fixed over time.

One of the main challenges for the new council is to ensure that flagrant human rights abusers do not hold seats. The former United Nations Human Rights Commission was infamous for including regimes such as China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Libyamembers that undermined the bodys credibility. Theres no guarantee that an odious regime wont slip through the cracks, but theres a good chance the new council will block most of them. Why? Because to join the council, each member will be required to get the backing of half the total membership of 191 countries. Previously, countries were simply selected by their regional blocs and easily elected. Also, the council will periodically review the human rights records of all its member states, beginning with newly elected members. If a country is deemed to be violating human rights, a suspension clause allows for a member to be voted off the council with a two-thirds majority. Saving face could be a major incentive for a country such as Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe not to seek a seat.

The U.S. position is that these new measures are not enough. It argued that an absolute majority in the General Assembly (GA) was not enough to keep abusers off the council, and thus preferred a two-thirds majority for election. Even though this more rigorous standard was not achieved, there is still reason to believe that the quality of the membership will improve significantly. The European Union, for instance, has pledged not to sign off on countries that face sanctions imposed by the Security Council for human rights violations. That will eliminate countries such as the Ivory Coast and Sudan. To the same effect, the Japanese delegation and a host of other countries recommended that those seeking a seat on the council present their applications with enough time for countries to properly review their credentials.

Beyond membership, some organizational changes will make the council stronger than its predecessor. The new body will be directly under the GA, a promotion from its former position under the Economic and Social Council. The council will meet more frequently and will be able to convene for emergency sessions. In the past, the commission met only once a year and much of the work focused on passing resolutions. The added continuity will maintain focus and allow for more time and effort to be spent on implementation. The council will also have fewer member countries, with 47 as opposed to the original 53.

The Commission was mostly a finger-pointing committee, but the new council has a much stronger mandate. It is designed to help countries on the ground, which may include, for example, providing legal advice on U.N. treaties or helping to develop national human rights policies. Another strength is that the councils mandate calls for follow-up on the resolutions it passes, which means fewer issues will be allowed to fester without at least council acknowledgement.

Which isnt to say that the U.S. critique is completely off the mark. The new council represents a compromise, and when working within the United Nations and among its 191 member states, compromise is inevitable. As German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger pointed out, when trying to reach the agreement, the decision to be taken is to see what the alternatives are, and in this case the alternative would have been to have no Human Rights Council at all.

Bolton is the first to say that U.N. reform isnt a one-night stand. Insiders speculate that his vote against the council was largely for the record, and that the United States will probably seek a seat on the body. There is also reason to believe that the new body will evolve for the better. Bureaucratic organizations drawn up by a resolution often look drastically different on paper than they do in practice.

To fulfill its potential, the council needs the United States to play a strong role in shaping its methods, rules, and procedures as it develops into a real institution. The new bodys first test will come in May, when wannabe members will be voted on for the first time. If the GA is able to keep abusers off the council, it would go a long way toward ensuring the bodys success. If the United States joins like-minded nations in making that happen, it may find last weeks compromise to be good enough indeed.