'Human Rights' Council

November 16, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Original Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116364530912524688.html

When the U.N.'s Human Rights Council came into existence earlier this year over U.S. objections, we argued that the new organization offered no improvements over the discredited Human Rights Commission it replaced. Turns out we were wrong: The new Council has been worse.
Among the many problems with the old Commission -- other than a membership that included Zimbabwe, Sudan and Cuba -- was its obsessive focus on Israel. As legal scholar Anne Bayefsky has pointed out, in 40 years the Commission dedicated more than a quarter of its resolutions to scoring Israel while never once condemning repression in China.
It was partly for this reason that the old Commission had to go, and why solons such as Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch and former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth of the U.N. Foundation urged the Bush Administration to endorse the Council, with Mr. Wirth describing it as an important step forward in the fight for global human rights.
That was in March. The Council has since not been able to agree on a resolution condemning the government of Sudan for its atrocities in Darfur. Instead, the sole object of its censures to date has been -- drum roll, please -- Israel.
In July, the Council condemned Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza, which had been prompted by the killing of two Israeli soldiers in Israel and the hostage-taking of a third. In August it cited Israel for massive violations of human-rights in Lebanon, never mind the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah that had caused the war. Now the Council has dispatched fact-finders to Gaza to report on the latest fighting.
We won't hold our breath waiting for a balanced report. Meantime, perhaps Messrs. Roth and Wirth can reflect on what their credulity has achieved.