US and human rights council

2 April 2009

President Barack Obama's decision to recognize the legitimacy of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and to have the US seek to win a seat on the body at the UN General Assembly elections to be held this May, would seem at first sight to be a thoroughly positive development. The Bush administration spurned the UNHRC when it was established three years ago. It later claimed its decision was vindicated because of the consistent criticism the body has since made of Israel's appalling treatment of the Palestinians. However, though UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the US move, it may not constitute a ringing endorsement of the organization. Announcing the change, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out that in 2011 the UNHRC is due to undergo a review of its structures and procedures. It was, she said, important that Washington be in a position to "contribute" to this process. She went on to make no secret of the administration's belief that the focus of the council had been "unbalanced" and when pressed, explained that by this she meant, in terms of its criticism of Israel. Washington's engagement with the UNHRC could, therefore, mean it will seek to use the review exercise in two years time to hobble its ability to condemn Israel for abuses. In so doing, it would also be limiting the council's capacity to take a view on human rights abuses carried out by other states, including as it happens, the United States itself. One argument the Bush White House used against the council was that there was no provision to keep a state deemed to be guilty itself of human rights abuses, from serving on it. Will Washington, despite the crimes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay still seek to advance this line, and if it does, how will the rest of the UNHRC handle the issue? It is important to remember that the council has no other power than to collect evidence of human rights abuses and present it to the UN General Assembly. The assembly in its turn has no power other than to recommend action to the UN Security Council, where Washington, of course, holds a permanent seat and veto power. But between the UNHRC and the assembly there is a strong element of moral suasion, if not yet of authority. The US has until now had only observer status on the UNHCR but in recent month, according to UN officials, has started acting positively toward the body. By deciding to stand next month to become one of the 47 member states, each of which serves a staggered three-year term, Washington has recognized the legitimacy of the council, even if it continues specifically to deplore its trenchant strictures against Israel. Perhaps the best outcome of the election would be for the US to fail to win a seat at this first attempt. Maybe the General Assembly, having made a useful point, could change its mind next year and vote the US on. A perhaps chastened Washington could thus still play a role in the 2011 review. Right song andwrong singers The Guardian yesterday commented on G-20, saying in part: Whatever the outcome of this week's G-20 summit, two things are certain. First, it will be hailed as a success. Second, it will be dismissed as a failure. Summits are often like that, ending in agreements long on principle and short on detail that allow all sides to chalk up a result. This time, however, another — more personal — game is afoot. The Tories, and many others on hubris-watch, are itching to write off the G-20 as a humiliation for Gordon Brown. Fair dos, perhaps, for all the months in which the prime minister foolishly talked up prospects for the conference in his capital. Had Brown been better at managing expectations, he could have expected a fairer hearing for the measures set to be announced tomorrow (according to drafts of the communique leaked this weekend). More regulation of the shadow banking system and greater attention to banks' management of their capital — there is some meaty stuff here, even if it does not go far enough. But, for politicians and media people who do not really do policy, all this will probably be lost in the Brown-baiting.n Then again, one of the features of this summit is that the right things are being said by the wrong people. So whatever the merits of Brown's comments yesterday about the need for fairer, more moral markets, they sound plain odd from the man who was the light-touch chancellor. And Barack Obama is right to call on China, Japan and Germany to pump more money into a world economy showing distinct depressionary characteristics. But for any government to take policy advice from America, the nation that brought us this financial cataclysm, would be like getting stock tips from Bernie Madoff.mThe problem with the UK and US positions is a fundamental one: They are all mouth and no money. Brown and President Obama are running big current account and budget deficits that limit their room for maneuver.

 

Editorial :Arab News, Saudi Arabia