US reaffirms no vote on new UN rights council

By Irwin Arieff 
March 9, 2006 
Reuters
Original Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=uri:2006-03-10T001452Z_01_N09207521_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-UN-COUNCIL.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton acknowledged on Thursday he was isolated in opposing a draft plan for a new U.N. human rights body but would still demand a vote and vote no if the plan came up for approval. 

Within hours of word that Washington had not softened its stand against the proposed new Human Rights Council, U.N. General Assembly President Jan Eliasson announced he would delay until next week his plans to bring up the proposal at a Friday meeting of the 191-nation General Assembly. 

Friday would have been the assembly's last chance to take up the plan before the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission opens its next session in Geneva on Monday. 

Most rights groups and virtually all U.N. members are leaning on the United States to endorse the plan, arguing the new rights body, while not without flaws, would be a big improvement. 

But backers of a new council, intended to expose human rights abusers and help nations draw up rights legislation, have said they would seek assembly action only if there was advance agreement to approve the plan by consensus. 

They fear calling for a vote would lead to paragraph-by- paragraph voting that would likely end up gutting the plan. 

Bolton said in late February that the blueprint for a new rights council, drawn up by Eliasson, had manifold deficiencies. 

He said he was under instructions from Washington to reopen negotiations in hopes of revising the text. Alternatively, the United States wanted the assembly to postpone a decision for several months on the new rights body, he said. 

COUNTRIES LINE UP AGAINST BOLTON PLEA 

Washington had sought high barriers to membership by rights abusers, which had come to dominate the Human Rights Commission. 

It also objected to a rule that countries could not be immediately re-elected after serving two consecutive terms -- a provision that would deny the United States a permanent seat.  
Rights groups and most governments argued that reopening the text would lead to its defeat. 

After two weeks of lobbying, Bolton acknowledged there was no enthusiasm for new negotiations. Country after country tells us they don't want to reopen the text, he said. If you don't reopen the text, you can't fix it. 

Some Western diplomats are still hoping a deal could be made with the United States by getting some 60 countries to assure Washington they would not allow major abusers to get a seat on the new council. Bolton gave no indication that would suffice. 

An ad hoc coalition of 32 rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues issued an urgent appeal to all U.N. members to support the Eliasson draft as a sound basis to strengthen the U.N. human rights machinery. 

The U.S. administration should not jeopardize the best chance in decades to establish a more effective U.N. human rights body, Amnesty Secretary-General Irene Khan said.