Source: https://mail.hudsonny.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/opinion/l01un.html \t _blank http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/opinion/l01un.html 
 
March 1, 2006
Rights and the U.N. 
To the Editor:
The Shame of the United Nations (editorial, Feb. 26) argued that my proposal for the new Human Rights Council was offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. But what are the facts?
Until now, members of the Commission on Human Rights could insulate themselves from criticism, as you acknowledged. Under my proposal, members would be first in line for scrutiny under a universal peer review. 
Before, there was no way of removing commission members. Now, there would be a suspension clause. Before, members could be elected on regional slates or with the support of 28 countries or fewer. Now, members would be elected individually, by secret ballot, and would need 96 countries' support.
Before, candidates' human rights records were not fully considered. Now, candidates would make commitments before election. Before, the commission met for only six weeks a year. Now, it would meet regularly through the year and be better able to convene extra sessions whenever it needed to.
It is for member states to decide whether to support the draft, which is the product of five months of intergovernmental negotiation. But I trust that all can agree that the proposal offers a fresh start for human rights in the United Nations, not the status quo. 
Jan Eliasson
President
United Nations General Assembly
New York, Feb. 28, 2006