Controversy rages in the United States over whether or not to accept the draft resolution for the proposed Human Rights Council. The United States government has stated that it will vote ‘no’ on the resolution unless it is amended to require a 2/3 majority vote for countries to become a member on the Council.
General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, Secretary General Kofi Annan, former president Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have all expressed support for the resolution, arguing that the Human Rights Council would be a significant improvement over the current Human Rights Commission. The Washington Post quotes Kofi Annan as stating that the United States should “join the vast majority of governments who seem ready to accept” the resolution. The Post reports that under the proposed resolution, members on the council suspected of abuses could be removed with a 2/3 majority vote of present UN members. Supporters worry that further negotiations may result in an even weaker institution.
The editorial boards of both the New York Times and Washington Post have given support to the Bush administration’s decision to press for revisions. Ivo Daalder, a Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, |
|
"...Until now, members of the Commission on Human Rights could insulate themselves from criticism, as you acknowledged. Under my proposal, members would be first in line for scrutiny under a universal peer review.
Before, there was no way of removing commission members. Now, there would be a suspension clause. Before, members could be elected on regional slates or with the support of 28 countries or fewer. Now, members would be elected individually, by secret ballot, and would need 96 countries' support..."
Jan Eliasson, President
U.N. General Assembly
New York Times, Feb. 28, 2006
Click here to read |
speaking in a personal online commentary, supported the US decision saying of Annan’s original proposal for a new Human Rights Council, “There were two elements to his proposal that were noteworthy. One was that members would have to be elected by a 2/3 majority of the General Assembly in a secret ballot…The other was the elimination of regional nominations.” Since neither of these elements exist in the proposal, Daalder worries that human rights abusers will still find their way onto the Council. |
Rights and the U.N.
Jan Eliasson, March 1, 2006 New York Times
To the Editor:
"The Shame of the United Nations" (editorial, Feb. 26) argued that my proposal for the new Human Rights Council was "offering cover to an unacceptable status quo." But what are the facts?
Until now, members of the Commission on Human Rights could insulate themselves from criticism, as you acknowledged. Under my proposal, members would be first in line for scrutiny under a universal peer review.
Before, there was no way of removing commission members. Now, there would be a suspension clause. Before, members could be elected on regional slates or with the support of 28 countries or fewer. Now, members would be elected individually, by secret ballot, and would need 96 countries' support.
Before, candidates' human rights records were not fully considered. Now, candidates would make commitments before election. Before, the commission met for only six weeks a year. Now, it would meet regularly through the year and be better able to convene extra sessions whenever it needed to.
It is for member states to decide whether to support the draft, which is the product of five months of intergovernmental negotiation. But I trust that all can agree that the proposal offers a fresh start for human rights in the United Nations, not the status quo.
Jan Eliasson
President
United Nations General Assembly
New York, Feb. 28, 2006
