Strong Criticism of Ambassador Bolton’s Recommendations
10 January 2006

There is wide criticism of Mr. Bolton’s recommendation that the five permanent members of the Security Council be guaranteed spots on the new UN Human Rights Council.  Editorials in the New York Times, Denver Post, and Miami Herald have all argued that allowing China and Russia spots on the new Human Rights Council might result in a discredited body, much like the current discredited Human Rights Commission. 

The Miami Herald argued, “In no way should the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members be assured permanent seats on the new human-rights council, as U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton is arguing. Such a policy would promise seats to two nations with terrible human-rights records -- China and Russia. Their presence would damage the new council's credibility and defeat the purpose of the reforms in the first place.”

The Denver Post commented, “We would like the U.S. to have a permanent seat on the commission. But we also would hate to see the creation of a new human rights body get bogged down in the tired old politics that have eroded the U.N.'s effectiveness over the years.” 

In similar fashion, the New York Times remarked, “The issue of human rights is very different. It is not about recognizing the interests of the powerful. It is about protecting the interests of the powerless. It would be nice if all of the big five could be trusted to do this. But not all of them can, either at home or internationally. Some of the people most in need of a strong U.N. voice on human rights live under tyrannies that have carefully cultivated Chinese or Russian favor: Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, to name a few.”