The Obama Administration has just announced that, reversing the policy of the Bush Administration, the United States will seek a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. It was established in 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights. Of the 32 resolutions passed by the Council, 26 have condemned Israel.
Defenders of the decision say that by participating in its work, the US can help bring about reform from within the Council. But this was exactly the argument that the Obama Administration used just a few weeks ago to defend its intention to participate in the preparations for the vehemently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic UN World Conference on Racism – also known as Durban II. It had to sheepishly retreat when it became obvious that its attempts to bring about reform would fail.
Naturally, supporters of Israel have already expressed concern over the administration’s decision. But anyone who wants the US to promote respect for human rights abroad should be worried by it. Freedom House, a respected human rights monitor, claims that more than half of the nations that now sit on the Council don’t comply with basic democratic standards. Furthermore, during the last two years the council has moved to eliminate country-specific investigations of human rights abuses in Darfur, Congo, Cuba, Belarus and Libya.
3 responses so far
1 barker13 // Apr 3, 2009 at 10:54 am
(*SIGH*)
‘nuf said…
BILL
2 Lab3003 // Apr 4, 2009 at 9:03 am
What exactly does the UN have in terms of power? I’d prefer the USA join a front group with the title of “UN Commission on Human Rights” than not because of the political implications. This group isn’t going to enact economic sanctions nor does it have a military.
So beyond a mere political title, isn’t this much-a-do about nothing? The USA for all intensive purposes blindly supports Israel. No sitting American President will allow Israel is a both a country and an idea (i.e. a home for the Jewish people) to fail.
3 sinz54 // Apr 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Lab3003: The problem is that it puts the Obama position in a much worse position than the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration could boycott this so-called Human Rights Council, and nobody would think that out of character for Bush. But Obama has been making a show out of “a new era of international cooperation.” Yet on this Council, he’ll be forced to vote Nay on one resolution after another, because those virulently anti-Western nations will keep bringing up those resolutions precisely to embarrass the U.S.
What’s the point in attending a body whose only purpose is to embarrass us, repeatedly?
You must log in to post a comment.