U.S. errs with “˜no’ on human rights reform

Nearly one month ago, the United Nations approved plans to
create a new subsidiary body, known as the Human Rights Council, to
handle international human rights issues. This council will replace
the Human Rights Commission, which was formerly in charge of the
United Nation’s human rights endeavors. The Human Rights
Commission came under scathing criticism in recent years because
its membership consisted of such countries as Sudan, Cuba, Zimbabwe
and numerous other dubious defenders of human rights.

On March 15, in light of this pressing need for reform, 170
members of 191 nations voted in favor of the reform proposal with
only three abstentions and four “no” votes. According
to the British Broadcasting Corporation, when the resolution
passed, the General Assembly broke out into applause. The
establishment of this council seemed not only to be a red-letter
day for the United Nations, but for human rights overall.

Therefore, the question needs to be asked: Why was the U.S. one
of the anomalous “no” votes?

I couldn’t help but feel a tinge of deja vu when I heard
that the U.S. voted against the Human Rights Council. In 1989, the
U.S., along with the collapsed state of Somalia, declined to ratify
the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child, a doctrine that
defines the bare minimum of civil, political, cultural, economical
and social rights of children worldwide, and now stands as the most
widely approved international rights standard. The U.S. has yet to
ratify the CRC because it “goes too far when it asserts
entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights,”
as stated on the U.N. Web site by Ambassador E. Michael Southwick,
deputy assistant secretary of state for the International
Organization Affairs.

Almost two decades later and again we are left asking why the
U.S. is voting “no” on human rights measures.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton says that the U.S. voted down the
proposal because they “did not have sufficient confidence to
say … the Human Rights Council will be better than its
predecessor, according to the BBC.”

Although I staunchly disagree with the ambassador’s
assessment of the council, it is a valid concern. After all, in
comparison to the commission, the Human Rights Council will only be
narrowing their membership by six members. Will this really be the
watchdog of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that one
envisions when thinking of drastic reforms?

No. Clearly, this is not a sea change in the U.N.’s
involvement with human rights. Undeniably, the Human Rights Council
is by no means a giant leap of reform but, nevertheless, it is an
essential step in the right direction.

In addition to limited membership, there will be new significant
restrictions placed upon the new human rights body, including a
secret-ballot election that requires an absolute majority, frequent
membership appraisals and the ability to suspend any member charged
with systematic human rights violations.

When striving to create an international consensus, even on an
issue as ostensibly nonpolitical as human rights, inches are miles.
Bolton should have realized that for an organization as expansive
and unwieldy as the United Nations to ratify this Human Rights
Council is indeed a victory, and one in which the U.S. should have
taken part.

Accompanied only by Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, the
U.S. voted against an international entity whose aim is to further
promote and protect human rights. This proposal not only received
the consent of the vast majority of the United Nations, but their
outright adulation. The U.S. voted against this Human Rights
Council after tirelessly claiming that the Human Rights Commission
was one of the fundamental reforms that needed to be dealt
with.

Much like our obstinacy regarding the CRC, it’s not merely
that the U.S. made a mistake by voting against the Human Rights
Council that troubles me. It’s that we consciously failed to
make the right choice.

Fonss is co-president of Amnesty International
UCLA.