Israel Matzav

Another U.N. "Reform"

The United Nations is in the process of selecting a 'new, improved' human rights council. The elections for the new council have become a fiasco. According to Anne Bayefsky, the editor of Eye on the UN, the question is no longer whether the council will be inept, or even "whether it will use U.N. cover to demonize the United States and Israel while ignoring the human rights violations of the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe," but rather what the council's election ought to mean for the United States' financial and political commitment to the UN. Bayefsky discusses an idea proposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, an idea whose time seems to have come. It seems obvious to me that the US should not continue to support the sham of 'human rights' at the United Nations. It's time to start looking elsewhere for international cooperation. Here's an excerpt of Bayefsky's article:

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has a different vision of constructive multilateralism. He submitted a resolution last week calling on the president not only to eschew a seat on the council, but also to "establish an effective human rights oversight body outside the United Nations system, so as to make it the primary means for examining, exposing, monitoring, and redressing human rights abuses throughout the world." Membership in this body would be limited to states with "a demonstrated commitment to the protection of human rights."

To understand the importance of the action Frist proposes, it is necessary to be clear about what it would leave behind. There has been a massive disinformation campaign concerning the Human Rights Council, operated by General Assembly president Jan Eliasson, Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Congressman Tom Lantos, with added muscle from Ted Turner's U.N. Foundation and financier George Soros.

Despite these efforts, the U.N. Secretariat has had to produce some unambiguous rules to govern the election process, and these clarify the situation. A U.N. document released April 4 explains that "membership of the Council shall be open to all Member States of the United Nations." No substantive criterion of eligibility reflecting respect for human rights is required for membership. The document also makes obvious who will own the U.N.'s human rights agenda: Membership "shall be based on equitable geographical distribution and seats shall be distributed among the regional groups as follows: African Group 13, Asian Group 13, Eastern European Group 6, Latin American and Caribbean Group 8, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) 7." (The United States is in the WEOG group [as is Israel. CiJ].)

Which brings us to the candidates that have put themselves forward. First out of the gate for the African group is Algeria. And throwing their hats into the ring for the Asian group are China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others. The Latins? Cuba to start.

Congressman Lantos has expressed "outrage" that the United States isn't anxious to join the party. By running, he says, the United States could "ensure" that states with abysmal human rights records would not be elected. This ignores the facts of life at the U.N., where the United States is only one of 191 members. Feverish vote-swapping among regional groups is now in full swing for the secret-ballot election to the council, and one can be sure the horse trading has nothing to do with protecting human rights.

In another twist, countries standing for election can choose to make a public pledge that they will eventually protect human rights. In the words of the secretary general, "states wishing to be elected to the new Council will put forward their pledges and commitments to protect and promote human rights. It will be up to their fellow member states to evaluate these promises." The U.N., however, for reasons that became clear as soon as the Algerians and Cubans made their pledges, has decided not to translate these pledges, but to make them available only in their original language, thus impeding evaluation of their worth. So far, only 15 of the 42 declared candidates have made such pledges. While the U.N. budget for 2006-2007 anticipates that the organization will translate 582,781 pages (one-fifth of the cost being borne by American taxpayers), the 15 pages of pledges won't be among them.

In short, nothing has changed.

Read it all.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:31 AM