Human Rights at the U.N. 
By Navanethem Pillay
May 14, 2009
The New York Times
Original Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/opinion/14iht-edpillay.html

For the first time, the United States is becoming a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the world’s main human rights forum. President Obama’s decision to seek membership is a welcome step to restoring international trust in U.S. support for human rights. Critics of the council point to the fact that among its 47 members there are countries with less-than-pristine human rights records. Why would the U.S. want to join human rights violators, they ask? 
To those critics I say two things: Is there any country that has a blemish-free record? Human rights violations are not the bane of any particular country or region. And even if such a thing were possible, what impact would a club of the virtuous have on those outside? Council membership is not a reward for good behavior. It is a responsibility, one that exposes members to increased accountability before their peers. 
One of the true innovations of the three-year-old council is its assessment of the human-rights record of every country in the world, including its own members. Almost 80 countries have been scrutinized. Only time can tell whether this new country-by-country review will effectively change for the better the human rights situation on the ground. But there are already hopeful signs that it will, and little doubt that this initiative carries promising potential. 
Participation in the council is indispensable if states wish to influence how it develops, especially given the review to be held by the end of 2011. Moreover, active involvement in the council is crucial to confront global human rights challenges and threats. 
Terrorism represents one of these threats. In their countermeasures, however, the U.S. and other governments have expanded executive power at the expense of the legislature and the courts, and eroded many of the most basic human rights guarantees of the modern era. Experience shows that if checks and balances are not adequate, the margin of abuse is high.
Although much more needs to be done, President Obama’s determination to resolve the untenable situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ban C.I.A. prisons and implement the prohibition on torture in compliance with international standards is highly welcome. The U.S. should also shed light into the still opaque areas that surround capture, interrogation methods, rendition and detention conditions of those alleged to have been involved in terrorism, and ensure that perpetrators of torture and abuse are held to account. 
A crucial issue on the human rights agenda remains the fight against discrimination. Last month’s Durban Review Conference took measure of progress made by states in confronting some of the most egregious and historically deep-rooted aspects of discrimination and inequality, namely racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 
In the eight years since the first World Conference on these topics that took place in Durban, racism has become increasingly visible in many forms, such as human trafficking. Refugees, asylum-seekers, migrant workers and undocumented migrants are increasingly being stigmatized, even persecuted. A new politics of xenophobia is on the rise. 
At an event during the Durban Review Conference, Stephane Hessel, a Holocaust survivor and a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pointed out that the election of President Obama incarnated the spirit and aims of the conference. Unfortunately, the United States and some other Western countries decided not to participate in this conference, missing an important opportunity to speak out and to renew a much needed collective commitment to combat racism globally. 
At the conference, 182 countries from all regions of the world reached consensus on an excellent text, known simply as the outcome document. It lays out concrete steps toward ending the politics of hatred and achieving justice for victims of racism worldwide. 
Having the U.S. at the table can bring important benefits, both to the cause of human rights and to the standing of the U.S. in the international community. But such benefits will depend most on the degree to which the U.S. embraces the international human rights agenda. Human rights defenders are watching anxiously to see if the new U.S. approach is one that engages constructively on the human rights record of its friends as well as its adversaries; protects civilians in Gaza as well as those in Darfur; defends economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights; and rejects hate speech while guaranteeing free speech. 
Signals coming from America reverberate around the world. Sending the right ones is the responsibility of power. 
Navanethem Pillay is the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.