A caterpillar in lipstick?
A slightly better human-rights body causes problems for America 

March 2, 2006
The Economist
Original Source: http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5577499







http://www.economist.com/images/20060304/CUS365.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET


“WE WANT a butterfly,” John Bolton, America's ambassador to the UN, insisted earlier this year: “We don't intend to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a success.” After months of tense talks on plans to replace the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights with a leaner Human Rights Council, he plainly believes that is all he has been given in the “final” draft proposal presented to the UN member states by Jan Eliasson, the General Assembly's Swedish president, on February 23rd. America wants to start again; others think they have to accept the caterpillar.
The 53-member commission includes some of the world's worst violators of human rights. Western governments wanted the new council to be smaller, more effective and with members chosen on the basis of their human-rights records. Instead, the new body has 47 members and is open to all (except for the usual guff about “equitable” geographic distribution). Remarkably, the “Western Europe and Others Group” (which includes America and various white Commonwealth countries) will now have fewer members than before (see table). 
However, Mr Eliasson has made some improvements. At present, regional groups can present a “clean slate” of candidates, corresponding to their allotted quota of seats, which is then elected en bloc by a simple majority of the 54 members of ECOSOC, the UN's economic and social committee. Under the new proposals, candidates would stand individually and would require the support of an absolute majority of the General Assembly's 191 members. Any member found guilty of “gross and systematic” violations of human rights could be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the assembly. 
All the countries in the UN would be subjected to regular review. First in line would be the members of the new council, who would be judged in part against the “voluntary” pledges they will be asked to make when they stand as candidates. This may not drive away all the baddies, but, as one senior British official says, “the capacity to embarrass is fairly substantial.”
Instead of members being allowed to stay for ever (Russia has been on the commission since 1947), council members would be able to serve only two consecutive three-year terms—though, as America rightly objects, this would hurt the goodies as well. And the new council would meet at least three times a year for a minimum of ten weeks, with extra possible emergency sessions; by contrast the commission meets only once a year for six weeks. 
“This is not old wine in new bottles,” insists Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general. Like Mr Eliasson, he is extremely anxious not to restart the negotiations, which could revive all sorts of issues. “We should not let the better be the enemy of the good,” he says. Most UN members and human-rights groups agree. But nobody wants to isolate America, the world's most powerful country, by forcing a vote.
Mr Eliasson pleads that the promotion of human rights is one of the three pillars upholding the UN: “If we cannot agree on a new, more efficient human-rights body, it will have serious ramifications for the whole organisation.” Some people want a cooling-off period. But then the council could become embroiled in negotiations on other sensitive issues such as management reform and the budget. And that could make matters even worse.