Bayefsky on the UN Human Rights Commission...

Here's one of my favorite commentators with an important piece...

It was therefore predictable that this year would look a great deal like years past. A resolution called for another report on discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples. A resolution containing a minor reference to anti-Semitism, and no call for a report on this subject, was met by the Pakistani ambassador's pronouncement — on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (comprising 30 percent of U.N. members) — that anti-Semitism was not about Jews. No resolution was attempted on behalf of 1.3 billion Chinese who are deprived of basic civil and political rights, despite the fact that Commission members had before them a detailed report concluding that "the rules and practice concerning judicial deprivation of liberty are not in keeping with international law and standards." After the 2002 defeat of a draft resolution on Iran, nothing has been attempted to condemn the appalling human-rights record of a state sponsor of terrorism hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

Overall, the ledger shows that the U.S. was in the minority 80 percent of the time. EU states were in the minority just 35 percent of the time.

Some of the difference between the U.S. and EU alignments was due to U.S. positions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now that the U.S. has agreed to send the case of Sudan to the ICC, its policy on the subject is incoherent and the commission was the first test of the State Department's ability to pretend otherwise. Nobody was impressed by the U.S. practice of joining consensus on resolutions making a number of references to the ICC and then making "Explanations of Vote" strenuously objecting to the court's statute.

The State Department's recent report to Congress comparing U.S. foreign-policy positions to 2004 outcomes at the U.N. was at pains to point to consensus results as demonstrative of a high degree of "coincidence." But consensus at the U.N. masks serious disagreements. The consensus resolution called "Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism" encourages the notion that fighting terrorism and protecting human rights are on opposite sides, despite lip service paid to the contrary. It calls for detailed examination only of violations of human rights caused by counter-terrorism activities and not by the terrorism itself.

Consensus was also reached on Sudan. The resolution which the United States and the European Union took off the table in the face of African and Asian opposition said that the Commission "Condemns . . . attacks[,] . . . many of them under the direct responsibility of, or tolerated by, the Government of Sudan." What was adopted instead "condemns: the . . . violations of human rights[;] the violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and urges all parties to take the necessary steps to prevent further violations; the prevailing situation in Darfur . . . including attacks against civilians committed by all parties[.]" Though the U.S. ambassador felt compelled to claim victory by describing the resolution as providing "a strong mechanism for investigating ongoing human rights abuses and bringing about their end," the commission actually wants another report six months from now, and assistance to the African Union whenever they get serious.

The dynamic reveals a great deal about the underlying U.N. pathology. With no democratic pre-conditions for membership, the commission, like the general assembly, is a forum through which non-democracies can trump democracies. Furthermore, situating democracies in an organization where relationships with non-democracies provide leverage over other democracies divides democratic states rather than bringing them together. Though the EU relishes the role of middleman between the state sponsors of terrorism or genocide and the United States, the halfway point is not where the U.S., or its fellow democracies, ought to be.