UN human rights plan wins some support
(AP)
Updated: 2006-02-24 11:19

The General Assembly president on Thursday called for a vote next week on his latest proposal to replace the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council and won immediate support from key rights groups — but not the United States.

The Geneva-based Human Rights Commission has been widely criticized by Western governments and human rights campaigners for allowing some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation or to criticize others. In recent years, commission members have included Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe and Cuba.

After four months of difficult and contentious negotiations, Jan Eliasson told the 191-member world body that his draft resolution strengthen human rights through periodic reviews of every country's rights record and would toughen the criteria for membership on the council — but U.S. Ambassador John Bolton questioned whether it would keep rights abusers off.

"While no member state has got everything it argued for, the text before you is balanced, strong and workable," Eliasson said. "I also hope that, after reviewing the text as a whole and after assessing the larger issues at stake, you will be ready to move to a decision on this draft resolution as soon as possible, preferably before the end of next week."

All 191 U.N. member states are eligible for membership but the new draft toughens the criteria: Council members must "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council," and have their human rights records reviewed during their three-year term.

Under the new proposal, the General Assembly can also suspend a member for "gross and systematic violations of human rights" by a two-thirds majority of those voting. Also, any country on the council, with the support of one-third of its members, can call a special session, a provision aimed at getting a quick response to human rights emergencies.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First issued separate statements urging all governments to approve the resolution, calling it a positive step forward to strengthen the U.N.'s human rights system while expressing disappointment that it didn't go further.

Later, the three organizations joined seven other U.S. human rights and democracy groups in sending a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging the United States to support the resolution, saying it "represents a concrete step in the right direction." The 10 organizations, including the Carter Institute, the International Crisis Group and the Open Society Institute, asked Rice for an urgent meeting.

South Africa and Costa Rica lined up some other developing countries behind it but many said they were checking with capitals. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said "it's not an ideal text but ... it is a real progress" and called on European nations to use the council effectively.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who called last March for a small permanent human rights body to replace the highly politicized and widely criticized Human Rights Commission, said "it's not everything we asked for, but it's a credible effort to move ahead."

But Bolton raised the possibility of new negotiations, saying it didn't include many provisions the U.S. wanted to ensure human rights abusers were kept off the council — including election of new members by a two-thirds majority which Annan sought.

"We've laid out in public statements what our position is on the importance of keeping the worst violators of human rights off the council, and a lot of language we supported is not in there," he said. "Based on conversations we've had with other governments, the strongest argument in favor of this draft is that it's not as bad as it could be."

Bolton said it was time to consider whether to begin "real international negotiations on this text" between nations — not have Eliasson be the "facilitator" and produce the drafts. The United States will study the draft, consult with other governments, and Washington will make a final decision, he said.

"What we have been looking for is a substantial reform of the existing human rights decision-making machinery in the U.N. and the question that's still before us is whether this amounts to a substantial reform," he said.

Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International's U.N. representative, said reopening the text will only weaken it — "and that is not in the interest of the United States."