inside the glass house

Why Bush regime is fighting shy of the UN human rights council
NEW YORK - US President George W. Bush's popularity ratings plunged last week to the lowest standing ever -- a wobbly 34. But as one comedian jokingly pointed out, it wasn't 34 percent but just 34 Americans who were supportive of Bush's domestic and foreign policies. Perhaps it was an uncharitable remark in the context of the country's 296 million people, but still drove home the point with biting humour.

When the 191-member UN General Assembly voted for the creation of a new Human Rights Council last week, the White House didn't fare any better either. The final tally was a resounding defeat for the US, with even its 25-member European Union ally defecting to the opposition.

The three loyal US allies -- Israel (population 6.3 million) and the two tiny Pacific Island nations of Palau (20,000) and Marshall Islands (59,000) -- were the only member states to stand in unison with the US when it rejected a resolution calling for the creation of the Human Rights Council.
The continuous pro-US voting by all three countries in virtually every single UN resolution -- whether Washington is right or dead wrong -- is one of the running jokes in the world body. The three loyalists -- best described as the fabled three blind mice -- always help stave off the embarrassment of the US being reduced literally to a minority of one in UN voting. All three are high per capita recipients of American aid.

The vote in the General Assembly was 170 in favour and four against (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau), with three abstentions (Venezuela, Iran and Belarus). The overwhelming support for the resolution -- despite intense lobbying against it by the US -- proved once against the international isolation of the Bush administration.

Since the US has no veto powers in the General Assembly, the negative stand by Washington couldn't block the establishment of the new Human Rights Council, which will replace the existing, much-maligned Human Rights Commission by June this year.

When the US decided to invade Iraq three years ago, it refused to go before the Security Council for an endorsement because it just didn't have the necessary votes in the 15-member body. But it still decided to go to war -- a virtual unilateral decision -- which has now turned out to be a political and military debacle for the Bush administration.

Despite the threat of military defeat in Iraq -- and the strong possibility of a civil war -- the White House has continued to put a political spin on an unfolding tragedy in that country. As the Washington Post pointed out last week, two-thirds of the American people doubt that the Bush administration has a plan in Iraq.

But over the past few weeks, Bush has been repeating a mantra, which even he probably does not believe in. The Post quotes Bush as saying at various occasions: "We have a comprehensive strategy for victory in Iraq"; "Iraqi security forces turned in a strong performance"; "This is real progress"; "The terrorists are losing on the field of battle;" "We are making progress in the march of freedom:" "As Iraqis stand up, America and our coalition will stand down." But judging by the deteriorating military and political situation in Iraq, everyone of these words just ring hollow.
Meanwhile, during the last few weeks at the UN, the Bush administration tried unsuccessfully to scuttle the proposal for a Human Rights Council. The opposition was presumably because the proposed Council was not strong enough to keep "habitual human rights abusers" out of its membership. The new members will be elected by an absolute majority -- meaning 96 votes-- not by two-thirds majority as the US demanded.

But in reality, the Bush administration also fears that it will be brought under scrutiny before the new Council because of US human rights violations in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The US abuses are expected to be high on the agenda of the new Council, which will meet throughout the year unlike the outgoing Commission.

The proposed new Council will have 47 members compared with 53 in the existing Commission. The membership in the new Council shall be based on equitable geographic distribution and seats shall be distributed among regional groups: 13 for the African Group; 13 for the Asian Group; eight for the Latin American and Caribbean group; six for the Eastern European Group; and seven for the Western European and Other States Group.
All members will serve for three years but will not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms, thereby imposing term limits. The General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Human Rights Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, says that as the work of selecting the first group of members for the new Council begins, each candidate state must agree to being vetted before membership, as well as being examined fully at some point during its three-year term.

"The United States, despite its opposition to the Council, has claimed it will 'work with' the Council, and we can anticipate it will expect to win a seat in the first term," she added. But such an effort should be rejected, she said, as countries evaluating human rights records keep in mind the continuing patterns of US human rights violations both within the United States itself and internationally, where US military or political officials are in power.

"No country with such a record of torture, secret detentions, 'extraordinary renditions,' rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), denial of due process and generations of capital punishment, even for minors and the mentally disabled -- all as a matter of official policy -- should be allowed to serve on the new Human Rights Council," said Bennis, author of 'Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN Defy US'

If the General Assembly does indeed allow the United States a seat, she argued, special care should be taken to insure that the mandatory human rights evaluation carried out on all members be taken very seriously when it comes to the US, so that the claim that the so-called "indispensable nation" should be somehow exempt from human rights scrutiny will be rejected.

Back to Columns