The U.N.'s Human-Rights Sham

Last week the U.N. Human Rights Council held an emergency session, organized by Arab and Muslim nations, to condemn Israel for its military actions in the Gaza strip. That the council is capable of swift and decisive action is a welcome surprise; that Israel remains the only nation to provoke such action is not. In the 17 months since its inception, the body has passed 13 condemnations, 12 of them against Israel.

The council replaced what was widely viewed as a cancer on the United Nations -- an ineffectual "Commission on Human Rights" that also had a single-minded focus on Israel. According to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute."

The removal of the diseased commission two years ago was heralded by U.N. officials as "the dawn of a new era." Its replacement was designed to have stricter standards for membership, and rules to prevent politicized voting. But such safeguards were neutered by the time the new Human Rights Council was approved, and the results are agonizingly apparent. The council is no better than its predecessor.

The problems begin with the council's composition. Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as "free democracies," according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as "not free." Four -- China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia -- are ranked as the "worst of the worst." These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit.

These regimes have repeatedly used the council as a powerful tool for shielding themselves from scrutiny and meting out criticism along stark political lines. According to Human Rights Watch, the council has turned a blind eye to at least 26 countries -- the sites of some of the world's worst human-rights crises.

In some cases, the council has actively eroded the level of monitoring. Last year, when Cuba drew fire for persecuting journalists, and Belarus for political imprisonments and rigged elections, the council responded by removing monitors from both countries.

As fresh waves of violence convulsed Darfur in December, the council responded by dismissing the team of experts tasked with monitoring atrocities in that region. Sudan's closest allies, Egypt and China, have led the council in shielding the Sudanese regime.

Even mild resolutions, like a Canadian proposal requesting the prosecution of those responsible for abuses in Darfur, have been rejected. Reports from U.N. fact-finding missions implicating Sudan's government in torture, rape and mass murder -- including one led by Nobel Peace laureate Jody Williams earlier this year -- have been discarded. And while world leaders labeled the Sudanese regime's actions as genocide, the council continued to commend Sudan's conduct and assign blame to "all parties" involved. In the face of the world's worst human-rights crisis, it has refused to issue a single condemnation.

The council's defenders point out nominal improvements over the old commission. More of its seats are held by free democracies. However, these nations have performed anemically, remaining too quiet and acquiescing too frequently. Democratic members such as Canada, France, Germany and Britain must do more to make their presence felt, and work harder to prevent abusive regimes from commandeering the council.

Powerful democracies not on the council -- including the United States -- should press those who are to use their positions within the body to the fullest extent. But given their track record thus far, the chances of democracies finding their voice seem slim.

The best hope for recovery lies in a system of "universal periodical review" slated to begin in April. This would compel the council to review the human rights records of all U.N. states, not just a narrow selection of their choosing. Council members should work to ensure that the system is implemented with impartiality and rigor. But if the council's reviews of Sudan are any indicator of the quality of assessments to come, then even periodical reviews may make little difference.

Another cancer has grown in the old commission's place, and it is just as malignant. U.N. member states should be prepared to call for a fresh start. A new body should be built, with the safeguards initially proposed for this one -- such as the required approval of two-thirds of the U.N. to attain membership -- left intact. A forum that serves as a real tool in service of human rights is worth fighting for.

Mr. Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, has worked on human-rights issues at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

Comments

[driven989]

"According to Human Rights Watch, the council has turned a blind eye to at least 26 countries -- the sites of some of the world's worst human-rights crises."

Well, also according to Human Rights watch:


Human Rights Watch Accuses Israel of War Crimes

By Jim Lobe

08/02/06 "IPS" -- -- In systematically failing to distinguish between Hezbollah fighters and civilian population in its three-and-­a-half-wee­k-old military campaign in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have committed war crimes, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch Wednesday.

The 50-page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," detailed nearly two dozen cases of IDF attacks in which a total of 153 civilians, including 63 children, were killed in homes or motor vehicles.

In none of the cases did HRW researchers find evidence that there was a significant enough military objective to justify the attack, given the risks to civilian lives, while, in many cases, there was no identifiable military target. In still other cases cited in the report, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.

"By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets," according to the report.

"The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes," it concluded.


And let us not forget the human rights violations that occur everyday against Palestinians, as Israel maintaines its decades long illegal military occupation.

[OSUMercutio]

Great article!

[realitytrumpsbull]

And YOU paid for it...at least in part...it'­s too bad there's no magic stick to wave to cause a mass development of whirled peas, some people have it in them that they want to fight. Whether it's an ethnic thing, or a religious thing, or a political thing, or a land thing, or a money thing, somebody's bound to do something that other people don't like. With the Israel story, you always read the same thing, and you wonder when people will respect their neighbors and fix their borders and stuff, and, moreover, when we get to stop footing the bill for the whole thing. In a perfect world...bu­t, when we go broke from all the graft, fraud, and corruption, and there's no more welfare checks and no more foreign aid and no more bullets, people will have to find other hobbies...­maybe they'll all open a commune together and pass the peace pipe...but not as long as there's 10 more dollars in their sob story...it­'s Mexico all over again...ev­eryone playing for the camera instead of doing what's right...

[Semaj51]

Bring out the old and bring in the same. There are some areas in which the UN does well. But there are far too many areas in which the UN only provides a platform for making speeches and politics.

[RumiSouth]

Gosh, do you think that interest on the part of the US State Dept. and White House could have made a difference? That sending someone to the UN who doesn't think the UN should be abolished (Bolton) is actually a good idea?

I say that whoever the next president is should have the wisdom to send Bill Clinton to New York as our UN representative. The world would love us again, and he could use his rhetorical super-powers to reinvigorate agencies like the UNHRC.