inside the glass house

UN human rights race: US withdrawal signals isolation
NEW YORK -- When the 191-member General Assembly meets on May 9 to elect the 47 members of the newly-created Human Rights Council, there is a strong possibility that China, Iran and Cuba, described by the US as "habitual human rights abusers," may get the 96 votes needed for a seat in the Council. All three are running for elections, along with Sri Lanka and dozens more.

But the United States, the self-styled promoter of global human rights, will be missing from the slate because it has backed out of the race for the hotly-contested seats in the new Council. The widespread speculation at the UN is that the American decision may have been prompted by apparent fears it will not be able to muster the 96 votes needed to win a seat.

The reasons are obvious: the arrogance of the Bush administration in justifying its own human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism; its decision to go to war with Iraq without Security Council blessings; the differing US yardsticks to measure human rights between its friends and allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia: yes. Iran, Cuba: no); the haughtiness and sledge-hammer diplomacy of US Ambassador John Bolton; and Washington's overall antagonism towards the United Nations.

Over the last three years, the Bush administration has also come under fire for human rights violations both by members of its armed forces in Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad and by US law enforcement officials in the Guantanamo detention facility in Cuba. These abuses have been heavily document by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

All of these factors have generated a strong backlash against the Bush administration in the corridors of the UN. The possible election of China, Cuba and Iran to the Human Rights Council, is not so much a vote of confidence on the human rights situation in these three countries as a vote against the US for its insolence and its double standards.

The US decision to back out may also have been prompted by another underlying factor: secret balloting. Clearly, strong-arm tactics, political bullying and threats to cut off aid — some of the inherent political characterists of US diplomacy — do not always work when the voting is by secret ballot, particularly in an assembly with 191 members.

A former Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN once confessed that even if he receives instructions from the foreign ministry in Colombo as to how he should vote on a particular candidate or on a particular issue, he really has his own choice because the voting is secret — and not by a show of hands or the push of a button that lights up the larger-than-life UN electronic voting board.

"How I vote," the Sri Lankan envoy told a journalist, "depends on my relationship with other UN ambassadors." Clearly, the foreign ministry has no way of checking how ambassadors vote — whether they are from Sri Lanka or Nicaragua — when a decision is made by secret balloting. The Americans are conscious of this built-in weapon on UN voting. The Indians experienced this years ago when they were trounced during elections for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council. The promised votes did not surface despite written assurances.

When the United States ran for a seat in the outgoing Human Rights Commission back in May 2001, it suffered a humiliating defeat and was ousted from the panel for the first time since its creation in 1947. The resentment against Washington was so intense that many of the members who publicly pledged their votes to the US reneged on their promises privately — and got away with it in a secret-ballot vote.

During discussions leading to the creation of new Human Rights Council (HRC) early this year, Washington backed a proposal under which the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council — the US, Britain, France, China and Russia — would also be "permanent members" of the HRC.
But the attempt to ensure "guaranteed seating" for the Big Five was rejected by an overwhelming majority of members, even though the five permanent members found permanent seats in another newly created UN body: the Peacebuilding Commission.

When a proposal for the creation of the HRC came up before the General Assembly last month, the US voted against the resolution. But only three countries stood by the US: Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Another clear example of how isolated the US is inside the UN.

The news of the US decision to shy away from the HRC was criticised by several Congressmen last week. Representative Tom Lantos of California, a founding co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said: "This is a major retrenchment in America's long struggle to advance the cause of human rights around the world and it is a profound signal of US isolation at a time when we need to work cooperatively with our Security Council partners." He also said the decision "projects a picture of profound weakness in US diplomacy."

But Robert Wexler of Florida, a Democratic member of the House International Relations Committee, pointed an accusing finger at Ambassador Bolton for the increasing US isolation in the world body. "This decision reflects the colossal diplomatic failures of Ambassador Bolton. It's a national disgrace for America that we will not be a presence in guiding and leading that Council in a productive direction, and that under Mr. Bolton's leadership at the UN, the world's single superpower cannot muster the necessary votes to win an election.

Back to Columns