March 2, 2006

The wrong approach to rights?, The Economist

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVSVNVP

The wrong approach to the wrong approach. How anti-Americanism masquerades as concern for human rights and results in a litany of misinformation. Misrepresentation (1): Nothing prevents regional groups from putting forward only the number of candidates which would fill their regional quota. Consider who is doing the electing "individually". Is the "Group of 77 plus China", comprising 132 of the UN's 191-member General Assembly, going to vote against the countries on any agreed slate from the African and Asian regions? Misrepresentation (2): A review of a human rights record conducted after the election is all over will be a "powerful deterrent". Who is conducting the review? The same countries that can't adopt a resolution criticizing Sudan's human rights record in November of 2005, or have not adopted a resolution critical of human rights abuses in China, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe - ever. There is no likelihood of a strong statement about actual human rights violations in virtually any UN state (except Israel) in a report which will be authored by this new Council. Misrepresentation (3): The one-third of the membership required to deal with human rights crises would translate into emergency sessions on Darfur. Hello. It would translate into emergency sessions on Guantanamo, the Danish cartoon "offence", and Israel, Israel and more Israel. (There have been ten emergency sessions of the General Assembly in its history, and six have been about Israel.) But the biggest lie of all is what's bad for America is good for human rights. It's almost enough to say let the vote happen and the U.S. vote against. The EU (and the rest of the Western regional group) - who will have their representation proportionally reduced and end up with a whopping 7 seats out of 47 - will have reaped the UN body they deserve.