www.una-connecticut.org

Even worse, the could decide to opt out of the new council when it is formed if the resolution comes to a vote in the UN General Assembly in the next few weeks. Virtually all of America’s friends and allies, most of the major US-based human rights organizations, and most recently, five winners of the Nobel Peace Prize—to name a few—have come out in favor of the new council and stand opposed to the US position. While the current status toward a stand-off is not favorable, there is hope that the Human Rights Council will be formed with full UN support.

It is important to note that the potential US confrontation with the UN and its member states—the most recent and most serious in a series led by US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton—could have been avoided had the US government been clearer during the past five months of negotiations over the council about what it believed it needed in order to get Congressional support for the new entity. A Human Rights Council has long been at the center of the government’s agenda for UN reform. Clearly, the US could not get everything it wanted during the negotiation process as there was a lot of give and take between nations, but there were trade-offs being made from the outset of which the US could have taken advantage.

UN officials and other diplomats say that US government officials have been in general disagreement among themselves and unclear about their “bottom line” regarding the council. The has not been centrally engaged in the intense negotiations over the council with nations who wanted no change at all to the old structure of the Human Rights Commission. Few followers of the UN reform process would have anticipated that agreement could have been reached so quickly on a Human Rights Council that contains so many of the provisions for which human rights advocates had been pressing. The position was not completely clear until after a draft resolution had been adopted by the General Assembly and after Amb. Bolton made an announcement to the press that the would reject the draft resolution and gave its reasons for the opposition.

This new Human Rights Council is a substantial improvement over the Human Rights Commission even though it may not provide for everything the executive branch and Congress wanted. The membership of this new council, for example, will have to be approved by 96 nations rather than just their regional group, making it much less likely that serious offenders of human rights will be included. The vote will be by secret ballot for the first time. There is also now a formal mechanism to dump council members who turn into human rights violators. While there will not be a requirement of a two-thirds majority vote for members to join the council as demanded by Amb. Bolton, the effect of the new procedures will achieve virtually the same goal—a council of members more committed to protecting human rights. In fact, while regional groups can make nominations for council membership, there will no longer be automatic acceptance of regional groups’ slates—nations are to stand individually. Finally, the new council will meet throughout the year rather than holding one highly politicized meeting as did the commission, and will continue to use the valuable “special rapporteurs” to monitor human rights. The council also will provide new procedures permitting council members to review the human rights records of all nations.

Most importantly, this new council represents a renewed commitment by virtually all member states to the core universal set of principles that forms one of the major pillars of the UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—pressed to conclusion by former US First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, one of UNA-USA’s most distinguished early leaders—is second only to the UN Charter as a foundation for guaranteeing human rights around the world. The term “universal” should mean that all states participate, that all states comply and that the values set within the declaration are valid for all human beings. The needs to be a part of this precedent-setting global entity.

The has many objectives to achieve in the UN reform agenda that will require hard bargaining and compromise in the months head. This is a defining year in the life of the UN as an institution; with constructive leadership, the UN can become a better organization for the and the world community—but only if we can find ways to work with other member states in partnership to accomplish change.

Last fall at the World Summit, there was a desire to take bold action on a variety of UN reforms but that desire is rapidly being replaced by mutual recrimination, frustration and uncertainty. Diplomacy by confrontation might work for the once or twice but not as a regular habit on the UN floor without grave damage to the process and to US interests. A renewed American engagement with a spirit of cooperation would greatly improve the environment and the opportunities standing before us. There is much at stake and the today can achieve great respect and collaboration by working with the member states on this important reform agenda—specifically, the establishment of a Human Rights Council. The US needs this improved environment today, perhaps more than at any time in recent history.

Amb. Luers is president of the United Nations Association of the .