U.N. commission must not be diluted

March 7, 2006
The Kansas City Star
Original Source: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/14033654.htm


United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wants to abolish the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which has become a parody of its purpose. Its current membership includes the likes of Cuba, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
Whatever body takes its place should operate from rules that keep flagrant abusers of human rights from sitting in judgment on the policies of other countries.
Unfortunately, Annan’s original plan for a slimmed-down Human Rights Council has been diluted by the General Assembly. Initially, the proposal would have required that council members be chosen by a two-thirds General Assembly vote, a supermajority that would make it tougher for the wrong countries to win acceptance.
But that language was amended, and under the current plan countries could become members after a vote by a majority of General Assembly members.
Another provision was added saying governments should consider the human-rights records and pledges of prospective council members. But at the United Nations, this sort of thing carries little weight.
Washington has rightly opposed the current plan for the new council. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton says the United States will vote against it unless tougher language is included.
Other countries have also raised doubts about the Human Rights Council, but not publicly. To prevent the formation of another easily mocked U.N. body, these governments should step up and make their objections known.