A heated discussion on a draft resolution on the United Nations
Human Rights Council to replace UN Commission on Human Rights is
underway in New York. UN General Assembly Chairman Jan Eliasson
said the week's discussion is decisive for the fate of the Human
Rights Council.
The UN decided to establish the Council as one of the main
contents of the UN reform during its last year's summit. It
reflects that the UN pays greater attention to human rights issue
and member countries have a higher expectation on human rights
protection. Although the summit didn't set a specific date, it's
hoped that the Human Rights Council will be established before the
start of the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights on
Monday so that it will replace the commission by the end of the
meeting.
After about 30 rounds of negotiations through half a year, the
UN General Assembly Chairman announced the final draft resolution
on February 23 hoping that the Assembly will vote for the formal
establishment of the UN Human Rights Council.
However, on February 27, the US Permanent Representative to the
UN John Bolton suddenly proposed a revision of the final draft, or
it will vote against it. Although the US doesn't have veto right,
it is still very important to have America to say yes to such an
important issue. Thus, the Assembly delayed the voting and the
Human Rights Council failed to be born.
Why did the US suddenly change its idea?
Analysts recalled why the US put up forward the reform of the
commission: one was to think 53 member countries are too many and
not efficient; the other was to think it is not right to have those
who have bad human rights records as member state in the
commission. In fact, to say too many is because there are too many
developing countries whose views on human rights are not the same
as the US. So the US can't easily impose pressures to some
countries under the pretext of human rights. The US holds that if
those who got human rights problems become members of the council,
they will confront with the US. Thus, the US proposed to reduce the
number of member countries and set higher standards for entering
human rights council. However, after many rounds of negotiations,
the US still didn't feel to have achieved what they want. The
number has been cut to 47 from 53, but not enough. According to
regions, the majority of the member states are still developing
countries. The US request of two-thirds majority has been lowered
to half of the majority to enter the council. The draft resolution
didn't list obvious conditions for a membership, but mentioned that
member country's human rights protection contribution and promise
should be considered. Since the election is open to all the UN
members, no country can be deprived of its right to be elected.
Obviously, the US is not satisfied with this draft resolution.
Many believe the draft on human rights council has improved a
lot compared with the human rights commission in terms of status,
working time and methods. The current resolution has taken as many
suggestions as possible. Eliasson says, "It is balanced and
workable."
Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said frankly that it can't
make everyone satisfied, but it is not a new bottle with old wine,
but a new institution and can make human rights issue enter a new
era. Therefore, most countries think there is no need to change the
final resolution, but to pass it and establish the human rights
council. And if one finds shortcomings during the work with new
methods, then one can reform it again in five years because a
review will be conducted then. If talks reopen on the final draft,
other countries might put up forward some other requirements, then
the talks will never come to an end. Now only the United States
proposes to reopen negotiations, even the New York Times
article thinks the US is in an isolated situation.
(People's Daily March 14, 2006)
