Tense UN Considers Creating New Human Rights Body 
http://view.atdmt.com/ORG/view/nwyrkfxs0040000007org/direct/01/ \* MERGEFORMATINET
March 15, 2006
The New York Times
Original Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-rights-un-usa.html


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The creation of a new U.N. human rights body the United States opposes may be adopted, killed or watered down on Wednesday in a tense 191-nation General Assembly session.

Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who spent months negotiating a compromise, put the issue on the assembly's agenda for Wednesday in hopes it would be adopted without changes. But negotiations on establishing the Human Rights Council are being conducted until the meeting begins.

U.N. members want American support for the proposed new Human Rights Council to bolster its international authority. However, Washington believes the body lacks a means to prevent major rights violators from getting a seat and it would be too hard to suspend a major abuscan't and an overwhelming majority of the members go for something, you should let it go,'' Annan told reporters after meeting former South African President Nelson Mandela, adding the U.S. would work with the Council.

He said the U.N. General Assembly had produced a document that gave a credible basis for human rights work.

Many nations, including Canada and members of the European Union, share American misgivings. But they rejected U.S. Ambassador John Bolton's proposal to postpone or renegotiate the council, fearing the final result would doom the entire effort.

The proposed council of 47 members is a watered-down version of reforms submitted by Annan last March.

It is to replace the 53-nation Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission, which drafted the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Eleanor Roosevelt's leadership. In more recent years it has included some of the world's most abysmal rights violators. 

AMENDMENTS?

At issue in the General Assembly is whether the United States would call for a vote rather than let the measure pass by consensus or acclamation and then state its objections.

Eliasson fears a vote could open the door for amendments from Cuba and others that have been the target of human rights resolutions and would result in a weaker or no resolution.

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, which once wanted language against blasphemy, plans to meet early on Wednesday to work out its position should the text be amended.

``But I hope he (Eliasson) asks for a consensus because the voting scenario is not a good scenario,'' Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram told Reuters.

The 25 European Union countries, and others including Canada and New Zealand, have tried to assure the United States they would not vote a council seat for a country that has been placed under Security Council sanctions. They have been organizing other nations to make a similar public stand.

Bolton has opposed membership for any nation under sanctions. He also has said members of the new council should be elected by a two-thirds vote, rather than by a General Assembly majority as currently proposed.

If a new council is approved, diplomats are questioning whether the United States will associate itself with the council or campaign against it. Republican U.S. lawmakers want to make the establishment of a strong rights council a condition for fully paying U.N. dues.