Source: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/06_002.htm http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/06_002.htm 
United States Mission to the United Nations
Statement by Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Moving Forward on Establishing a Credible and Responsible Human Rights Council, January 11, 2006 
Mr. Co-Chairman:  Thank you for convening today's meeting and for all your work on this important subject.  Establishing a credible and responsible Human Rights Council is critical if the United Nations desires an authentic and valid leadership role.  We fully concur with the Secretary General’s assessment last March that, “the Commission on Human Rights suffers from declining credibility and professionalism, and is in major need of reform” and that a fundamental problem is that, “States have sought membership…not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.”  
The current situation is untenable and must not be allowed to continue.  Membership on the Commission by some of the world’s most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself.  As President Bush noted in his remarks before the General Assembly in September, When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization.  If member countries want the United Nations to be respected – respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.
The United States remains deeply committed to working cooperatively with other delegations to ensure a credible Human Rights Council is established, one true to its designated mandate.  The changes cannot, however, be solely cosmetic, and the United States will not support artificial changes.  Simply to replace the “Commission” with the word Council after “Human Rights” would be a grave disservice to us all -- and it is not something the United States will support.  Recreating the Human Right Commission with only a name change, while replicating all of its flaws, will simply serve to undermine the goal that most of us, but sadly not all, share—namely, the promotion of freedom, liberty and human rights. 
We believe the United States has already shown great flexibility in the negotiations, though I should note at the outset that we still have grave concerns with the latest text, including some of the language the facilitators believe has been agreed to by member states.  For example, as you know, we do not support unbolded language on right to development because it violates our own commitments to treat all rights in a fair and equal manner.  
Let me note some of the areas where we believe we have shown great flexibility in hopes that other delegations will do the same.  First, with regard to the size of the Council, most of us agree, and the Secretary General concurs, that the current size makes it too large to be effective.  While our initial preference was to have a Council of 20 members, we continue to believe it should not have more than 30 members.  Second, while we adhere to the belief that Council members should be selected primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights, we have nevertheless been willing to grant that, within that goal, there should be a fair distribution of seats among the various regions.  
With regard to membership, though, we should all agree that the new Council should benefit from improved mechanisms for selecting membership, such as garnering two-thirds support within the General Assembly by each candidate, as well as letters of nomination and endorsement from at least half of a candidate's regional group.  To help further ensure credibility, we believe foreign ministers should take responsibility for nominees their country supports, and signal so in writing.  Finally, any country under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism should be categorically excluded.
Further evidence of our flexibility is the deference we have shown to those who would accuse the United States of selectivity, we have agreed to the concept of a universal periodic review.  But this should not constitute the priority task at the new Council, nor should it consume its work.  Let me say more on this point because it is important.  We consider the United States a champion of human rights.  It is a fundamental and bedrock tenet upon which our country was founded.  Thus, when the United States falls short of the high standards we set for ourselves, we move swiftly and decisively to vigorously prosecute offenders who are U.S. citizens in our courts.
Finally, the United States has been willing to work out the concerns some delegations have about whether the new Council should be considered a “standing” body as recommended in the Secretary General’s report.  It is important to have regular periodic meetings of the Human Rights Council throughout the year, as well as having flexible trigger mechanisms in place to call for additional sessions.  If the Council is to have maximum impact in promoting human rights, it must have the ability to respond to events in real-time as they evolve.  As new crises unfold, where there is credible evidence of gross abuses of human rights, the United States does not feel the United Nations can be authoritative if the response is “do not worry, the Human Rights Council will take up this issues in two to three months when in next reconvenes.”  
At its core, the ability of the new Human Rights Council to respond effectively to abuses wherever and whenever they may occur will be meaningless if human rights abusers themselves are allowed to serve on the Council.  We must also have an objective and principled position prohibiting those who turn a blind eye to their own human rights abuses from being allowed to stand in judgment of others.  We must firmly establish that members of the new Council should have a strong commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.  To fall short of these objectives will signal to the world that the United Nations is not functional or credible on human rights.
Let me highlight a few other key points the U.S. believes in strongly.  We support resolutions critical of specific state's human rights situation be adopted by the simple majority, not two-thirds of the members present and voting.  Other language on full implementation of all United Nations conferences and summits is nothing more than an attempt to raise the status of outcomes from non-binding UN meetings -- something the United States categorically rejects.  
Other reforms are necessary as well, such as streamlining the meetings themselves.  We must resist the efforts of some to insert language on development not contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We believe that there should be a strong focus on the abuses of civil and political rights, as this body will alone be responsible for monitoring the adherence to the international standards in this area.  
It is with this in mind that we have proposed stringent membership requirements and an action-oriented mandate.  We also support increased technical assistance and capacity building to help those countries willing to improve on human rights to do so.  We believe member states should work closely with the High Commissioner of Human Rights to improve human rights practices on the ground.  
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the United States is committed to working with other delegations to ensure the successful establishment of the new Human Rights Council.  Thank you, and I look forward to the remarks of other delegations.