U.N. Overrules U.S. On Human Rights

U.N. member states ignored U.S. opposition and overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council on Wednesday, attempting to strengthen the world body's machinery to deal with major human rights offenders.

The 191-member General Assembly burst into sustained applause when its president, Jan Eliasson, announced the results of the vote: 170 in favor, 4 against, and 3 abstentions.

Joining the United States in opposing the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Venezuela, Belarus and Iran abstained. Some member states are barred from voting because of their failure to pay U.N. dues.

President George W. Bush's administration refused to back the new council, saying it wasn't the radical reform Washington wanted to ensure that countries like Cuba, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe, which abuse rights, are barred from membership. But U.S. officials have said Washington will nonetheless give its financial backing and seek a seat on the new council.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the new council made some improvements — but not enough.

"In coming years, we will be judged on whether we created U.N. human rights machinery that was effective and strong," he said. "We must not let history remember us as the architects of a council that was a compromise and merely the best we could do."

A year ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation or to criticize others. Under the resolution adopted Wednesday, the commission will be abolished on June 16 and the new council will hold its first meeting on June 19.

The resolution was drafted by Eliasson after months of contentious negotiations.

Before the vote, he told the assembly that "no member state has got everything it argued for." But he said the resolution represents "a unique opportunity for a fresh start for human rights" and would strengthen the U.N.'s machinery, authorize more frequent meetings, and toughen the criteria for membership on the new council.

Under the resolution, the 53-member commission will be replaced by a 47-member Human Rights Council that will be elected by an absolute majority of the General Assembly — 96 members — not the two-thirds majority that Annan, the United States, and human rights campaigners sought to try to keep countries abusing human rights off.

Every U.N. member state is 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 new council, and have their human rights records reviewed during their three-year term.

All 191 U.N. members would eventually face such scrutiny, a move that Eliasson said will "ensure equal treatment and prevent double standards" in dealing with human rights.

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

World leaders at last September's U.N. summit decided to create the council to replace the discredited commission as part of a major overhaul of the United Nations, which was created in the ashes of World War II and must now tackle 21st-century challenges ranging from terrorism the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The United States had argued for a permanent body of 30 members chosen primarily for their commitment to human rights that would deal with major rights violations. Its two key demands were a two-thirds vote for council membership, and a ban on membership for any country under U.N. sanctions related to human rights violations.

Bolton also objected to a two-term limit for council members, and to the provision that allows one-third of the council's members to put an issue on the council's agenda saying it should be a majority vote.

The United States lobbied unsuccessfully to reopen the negotiations, but Eliasson refused saying members told him it would be tantamount to opening "Pandora's Box."

Diplomats said Eliasson and Annan worked behind the scenes to try to ensure that no amendments were proposed if the United States called for a vote, which would almost certainly have weakened the text.

Cuba had already circulated several proposed amendments, and other countries including Russia, Pakistan and the Organization of Islamic Conference were also reported to have prepared amendments, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the efforts took place behind closed doors.

One of the surprises was that Cuba voted in favor of the resolution, despite serious reservations that it was no improvement over the commission which it claimed unjustly targeted developing countries.

"The attacks of the current U.S. administration to the text being adopted today prove their arrogance," said Cuba's U.N. Ambassador Rodrigo Malmierca. "They lost nothing with this project. On the contrary, they have assured new means to exert confrontation, hatred and punishment, and if they protest today, is because they intended to get new concessions."