Right body blow for Bush policy

Unfortunately, it is used mostly for elections to UN bodies, and rarely or never to judge contentious political issues of the day. 

If the future of Iraqi sanctions is subjected to such a ballot in the 189-member General Assembly — a policy-making body which reflects the will of the international community — an overwhelming majority is very likely to vote against the embargo.

Most of the UN member states would also have no qualms voting for a separate nation state for Palestinians.

But since key political decisions — including war and peace — are taken by the Security Council in open voting by veto-wielding members — sanctions on Iraq have dragged on for more than 10 years, and Israel's ruthless suppression of the Palestinians has continued for more than 50 years, despite strong worldwide condemnations of both. 

Clearly, the United States and most Western nations would not be willing to take a chance to test the UN's will on a secret ballot. If they did, they would lose.

While majority rule is an integral part of multiparty democracy preached by the West, it most certainly does not apply to burning political issues that cry out for decisions at the global level.

The United States, which has come under increasing criticism for reneging on its payments to the world body, got clobbered in a secret ballot when it was voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission (HRC) last week for the first time in its history.

Since the Economic and Social Council traditionally elects members of the HRC by secret ballot, both developing countries and some Western nations joined hands to deprive the US of a much valued seat in the HRC.

The decision was a stunning blow to Washington — and particularly to the new Bush Administration where right wing conservatives have downgraded the importance of the United Nations and held back monies rightfully due to the Organisation.

Now it was payback time.

The voting to unseat the US was a reflection of a seething — and growing — anger among most developing nations about the attitude of the US Congress which continues to unjustifiably pillory the world body.

The post of US Ambassador to the UN, which under the Clinton Administration had cabinet rank, has been downgraded to a run-of-the-mill diplomatic posting under the new George W. Bush administration.

Despite the announcement of a new US Permanent Representative, the US Mission to the UN is still headless because his appointment has still not been approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former US ambassador to the UN, said last week that the US was vulnerable to diplomatic ambushes — like the one on the Human Rights Commission voting — because of the failure to get a new envoy on board.

"Somebody wasn't watching the store," she said.

In an irony or ironies, several countries who are perceived by the West to have "poor human rights records" were all elected to the 53-member Human Rights Commission: Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Togo.

They will be serving a three-year rotating membership, along with countries such as Syria, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, who are already members of the HRC.

Joanna Weschler, the UN reprentative for Human Rights Watch, describes the group as "a rogues' gallery of human rights abusers."

"A country's human rights record should be the single most important factor in whether or not it joins the Commission. An abusive country cannot honestly pass judgment on other abusive countries," she argued.

Although she may have justifiable reasons for adducing that argument, she is also critical of the US.

"In recent years," she says, "the UN often failed to support important human rights initiatives at the Commission, or found itself voting alone, on the wrong side of important issues."

Invariably, on every single issue in which Israel is condemned for human rights violations, the US is the only country that has voted against such resolutions — besides of course Israel.

The US record on human rights treaties has been dismal. It is only one of two countries — the other being Iraq — that has still not ratified the 1989 landmark UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The US has also held back ratifications on the treaty to ban landmines and the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court.

"It's not surprising that the US was voted off," Weschler said, "But to punish the US and reward Sudan is clearly absurd."