U.S. Threatens 'No' Vote on Human Rights Council Thalif Deen February 27, 2006 Inter Press Service News Agency Original Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32314 UNITED NATIONS, Feb 27 (IPS) - The United States, which has expressed strong reservations over a proposed draft resolution for the creation of a new Human Rights Council (HRC), is heading for a collision course with the highest policy-making body at the United Nations: the 191-member General Assembly. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton says he is very disappointed with the draft resolution, and is threatening to vote against it in the General Assembly -- if there are no amendments. We don't think it is acceptable, he said, as he sought to re-launch the entire process and renegotiate the proposed document, which has the support of an overwhelming majority of member states. Bolton, who has been seeking to block habitual human rights violators -- identified by the United States as countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba -- wants members to the new Council elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Since this move was opposed by most developing nations, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who crafted the draft resolution, opted for a compromise: an absolute majority -- meaning 96 votes in a 191-member General Assembly. Bolton also wants a smaller Council than the one currently proposed, which is expected to have 47 members. A smaller Council, however, is more vulnerable to political manipulation. Asked if Bolton's demand for renegotiation was a dangerous move that would bring the whole house down, Annan told reporters Monday: I think we have gone through intensive months of negotiations. If at this stage we get into line-by-line negotiations or discussions, I am afraid it will lead to major delays and can cause a serious problem. Annan also said that Eliasson had concluded that after months of negotiations, he had put forward a document which takes into consideration the views of all concerned. I would appeal to member states to understand that it is not a perfect world, he added, pointing out that despite its shortcomings, the current draft resolution is the best that could have been produced. Since the creation of a new HRC is considered a major political decision at the United Nations, Eliasson is seeking to have a consensus on the draft resolution when it goes before the General Assembly, either later this week or later this month. If the United States persists in its threat to oppose it, Eliasson may be forced to put it to a vote. If voting does take place, the United States is expected to lose. The 25-member European Union (EU) has still not firmed up its position because some of the countries are being influenced by the U.S. position, one Third World diplomat told IPS. Marie Okabe, deputy spokesman for Annan, told reporters Monday that the secretary-general hopes the United States will join the vast majority of governments who seem ready to accept Eliasson's draft proposals. As the rotating president of the Security Council this month, Bolton was also the centre of a heated controversy following his decision to hold a debate last week on a U.N. audit focusing on management and corruption in the Secretariat. The two major coalitions at the United Nations -- the 132-member Group of 77 and the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement -- protested Bolton's decision, arguing that management is within the purview of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Bolton now seems heading for a second showdown, this time with the General Assembly and its president, over the new Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, the draft resolution is also being supported by several human rights organisations. Although the text presented by Eliasson falls short of the vision that Annan set out in his reform report of last year, governments should approve the resolution without watering it down, says Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. The U.N.'s ability to protect human rights and its credibility will depend on government's willingness to make the council a strong and effective body, he added. Roth also said the proposed new Council is better than the old, discredited, Commission on Human Rights, but it is less than we had hoped for. Roth said that HRW was disappointed that the text dropped the requirement for members of the new Council to be elected by a two-thirds majority of U.N. member states, as this would have created a high obstacle to the election of the worst abuser states to the new body. Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International's representative at the United Nations, urged all governments to adopt without delay the draft resolution, as the first concrete step in meeting the 2005 World Summit's commitment to strengthen the United Nations' human rights machinery. This is an historic opportunity that governments must not squander for selfish political interests. It is time for those that have imposed so many tawdry compromises to allow the General Assembly to establish the Human Rights Council, said Terlingen in a statement released last week. Still, this is only a first step. Governments must now show the political will to make the Council an effective human rights body, she added. The time has come for the United Nations to move beyond the Commission on Human Rights, which has lost credibility, said Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First. Although the creation of the Council, by itself, is not enough to address the U.N.'s formidable human rights agenda, and the resolution is far from perfect, the new Council is a step in the right direction. Human Rights First urges the General Assembly to act quickly to approve its creation, Rona added. Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group, told IPS: What happened today was very simple. Once the New York Times editorial page -- the definitive bastion of American liberal multilateralism -- called the proposal 'an ugly sham', as it did yesterday, the jig was up. He said there was no way the administration of President George W. Bush would find itself outdone by the Times in U.N.-scepticism. Neuer said that keen observers had expected U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to weigh in, and eventually force Amb. Bolton to sign on to the plan, and so this negative decision -- coming as fast as it did -- is a great surprise. The proposed new Council will have 47 members compared with 53 in the outgoing Human Rights Commission. The membership 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, who will have term limits, will serve for three years but will not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. 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.