Local Weather Forecast
Today: Current:79	Thursday: 90/72	Friday: 94/75
Complete Forecast for  Jul 24 2008

In an effort to boost its human rights reputation, the United National General Assembly voted in March 2006 to form a Human Rights Council, replacing the Commission on Human Rights.

The commission was dominated by human rights abusers who used their influence to block scrutiny or criticism, and it proved to be a sorry champion of human rights.

One member, not too enthusiastic about the new Human Rights Council at the time was the United States, which expressed concern it would not be an improvement over the commission.

Just two years later it has become obvious those concerns were well founded.

Like the commission, the council has focused on criticizing Israel - condemning it in 19 separate resolutions and decisions, said Brett D. Schaefer, a Heritage Foundation analyst. No other country - not even notorious human rights violators such as Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Sudan - have received a fraction of the criticism or attention the council has focused on Israel.

States hostile to human rights have undermined the council's agenda by eliminating scrutiny of states such as Iran and Cuba, constraining the independence of human rights experts and obtaining passage of a resolution on defamation of religion that condones constraints on freedom of expression, Schaefer observed.

Despite its poor record, he added, even skeptics hoped the council could do a service for human rights through its Universal Periodic Review of human rights practices in all countries.

Even that process, however, has fallen short of expectations.

Considering the record of the new council, the United States clearly was right to distance itself from this body, Schaefer acknowledges. In the face of strong criticism, the United States refused to run for a seat on the council, a move that would have lent the flawed institution "undeserved credibility."

"The council is a sham that does not effectively promote or protect human rights," Schaefer said. "The Bush Administration should be congratulated for its recent decision to withhold an amount equivalent to the United States share of the Human Rights Council budget from its 2008 funding for the United Nations."

Protecting and advancing fundamental human rights has been one of the United Nations' primary objectives since its founding. Drafters of the U.N. Charter included a pledge by member states "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." U.N. treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, form the core of international human rights standards.

Adoption of the Universal Declaration, however, in many ways has been the high-water mark of United Nations efforts to promote human rights. Its subsequent record in getting member states to adopt and protect the fundamental human rights identification in that document "has been riddled with failure and inaction," Schaefer said.

There have been some infrequent positive actions by the council, but they do not outweigh the many negative aspects of its activities.

This determination by the United States has led to the country foregoing running for a seat on the basis that having the United States on the council would make little difference to the proceedings.

Based on evident bias and other problems, the United States announced it will withhold an amount equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget from its 2008 funding for the United Nations. The withholding also extends to the U.S. portion of the $6.8 million expected costs for the Durban II preparatory process administered by the council.

Other U.N. member states have declined to act when presented with opportunities to make the council more effective. Such actions demonstrate those states do not take the council or human rights seriously, Schaefer said.

A poor record of the council in its first two years and dim prospects for improvement make the Bush Administration decision to lend it credibility with U.S. membership or support of its contributions the right move.

Withholding support of poor performance is a correct action by the United States and it should stick to that course unless council actions change to merit use of "human rights" as appropriate to its name.