 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS | UN Human Rights Council | ||
|
DECISION TIME: TO WORK OR NOT TO WORK By Raj Purohit Within hours after Tuesday’s inaugural membership election of the United Nations Human Rights Council, two statements on the outcome were issued by well respected U.S. Congressional leaders in the House of Representatives and the Senate. A close analysis of the two sharply contrasting statements highlights that the differing perspectives of Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) are not confined to “glass half-full” versus “glass half-empty” views of the election results; rather, the statements reflect, in a microcosm, the broader foreign policy divide that we see in Washington, DC between those who wish to engage the international community comprehensively and robustly and those who do not. Senator Coleman falls into the latter camp. His statement highlighted the election of Cuba to the HRC as a way to bury both the new entity and the idea of broad engagement with the U.N. on further reform. He did not publicly address the fact that the U.S. failed to engage in the election process nor did he acknowledge that the HRC membership is a significant improvement over that of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Coleman showed an unwillingness to prescribe a hands-on approach to improve a new institution that will exist for many years and could be used constructively by the United States. Lantos, by contrast, noted that much work had been undertaken by individuals, organizations and countries to build a strong HRC, leading to an improvement over the Commission. He was quick to acknowledge that much work remained to be done and that U.S. interests were harmed by its unwillingness to engage. In short, Lantos was urging the U.S. to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work. He clearly sees that a strong HRC can be used to advance U.S. human rights interests. This clash between those who wish to engage with the international community in an ad hoc fashion when it suits them versus those who understand that we are all in this together and need to persuade, convince and get into a “give and take” process has been apparent over recent years. What has also been clear is that the approach of those championing a “my way or no way” approach has not benefited the U.S. Our country finds its global reputation at an all-time low and this has real consequences as global cooperation is required to solve major problems. From the International Criminal Court to Climate Change and now U.N. Reform it is apparent that US interests are harmed when we fail to engage. The consequences are not confined to the specific issue of the day but have a knock on effect – they impact the ability of the U.S. to garner support on its issue of the day. In a recent, contrasting, positive example of what happens when our elected officials jump into the fray, Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick helped secure a Darfur peace accord in Abuja that could help bring an end to the killing in that part of Sudan. Unfortunately, Senator Coleman’s statement on the HRC typifies the default mode of many politicians who insist on continuing down this work-shirking road typified by the current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton. Mr. Bolton failed to approach the HRC issue with the determination, sophistication and seriousness needed to achieve results. The United States desperately needs to change course, roll up its sleeves and engage on issues where we have a stake in either the process, the outcome, or where a lack of engagement has a spillover effect. The Human Rights Council is one such place where we have an interest in both the process and the outcome. A robust HRC would advance U.S. interests and would generate momentum for other U.N. Reform efforts. Congress should be urging the Bush administration to engage in three specific ways: First, the United States should urge that the Peer Review System is implemented in a timely, transparent and robust fashion. Key components include determining when countries will be reviewed and how they can be reviewed in a way that allows all peers and civil society to have a voice. Second, the United States must stop supporting the candidacy of human rights violators who wish to get onto or remain on the HRC. Russia and China were supported by Ambassador Bolton for inclusion in the Council because of their permanent status on the Security Council. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are two dictatorial rights abusing regimes that are treated as close allies of the U.S. – a fact that may have assisted their election efforts. Third, it is vital that we work with allies who are on the HRC to ensure that it focuses on human rights violators both on and off the Council, including Zimbabwe, Russia, Cuba and Pakistan. None of this is easy but the benefits of hard-working diplomacy are clear for
all to see, just as the consequences of work-shirking are also apparent.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|