US rejects UN rights council proposal as deficient

By Evelyn Leopold
February 27, 2006
Reuters
Original Source: http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-27T201806Z_01_N27374991_RTRUKOC_0_US-UN-RIGHTS-USA.xml

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States on Monday rejected a draft resolution for a new U.N. Human Rights Council as unacceptable unless negotiations were reopened, a move supporters fear might sink the entire plan.
We are very disappointed with the draft that was produced last Thursday. We don't think it's acceptable, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters.
He said the United States wanted to reopen negotiations to try to correct the manifold deficiencies in the text of the resolution, or alternatively to push off consideration of the resolution for several months.
The new council would replace the discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission, where a number of rights-violating nations have seats.
Bolton said that if U.N. General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who drew up the compromise proposal after months of negotiations, insisted on a vote this week, the United States would vote no. He had submitted proposals for a smaller council and more restrictions on admitting members than in the compromise draft.
Unlike the Security Council, the United States does not have a veto in the 191-member General Assembly, so it depends whether a vote would be called for over U.S. objections.
New negotiations could result in a line-by-line debate of the text. Supporters of the resolution, which include major human rights groups, fear this would open the door to opponents of a new council and produce a deadlock.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has admitted the compromise draft fell short of his original proposals unveiled in March 2005. But he again on Monday urged quick approval.
If we get into line-by-line negotiations, it will lead to major delays and could cause a problem, Annan told reporters in Geneva. There are enough good elements for all to be able to say that this is not old wine in a new bottle.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spoken to Annan about the council over the weekend, presumably to give her negative view, U.N. officials said.
A new rights council was a key demand of world leaders at a U.N. summit in September, with an original draft stronger than Eliasson's compromise resolution. But this was watered down by opponents of the rights council after Bolton submitted hundreds of amendments on a variety of subjects.
Eliasson's resolution would replace the current 53-member human rights commission with a 47-member human rights council that would be elected by an absolute majority of the 191-member General Assembly. Currently members are elected according to regional slates in the 54-nation Economic and Social Council.
Annan, the United States and others had wanted a two-thirds majority to make it easier to keep countries with poor human rights records off the new council. They also wanted a smaller, more nimble body of about 30 and Bolton proposed disqualifying any nation under sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
Still, outside of the United Nations there was growing support for the draft resolution, including a dozen Nobel Peace Prize laureates and most human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Some 11 U.S. human rights and democracy groups sent a letter to Rice on Thursday urging the United States to support the proposal. They called it a concrete step in the right direction, and warned that reopening talks would not lead to a better outcome.