Human Rights and the U.N.

Last spring the United Nations repeatedly clashed with President George W. Bush’s policies on the Kyoto climate change treaty, missile defense and the International Criminal Court. These tensions came to a head on May 3, 2001, when the United States lost its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission following a secret vote. There had been four candidates for the three regional slots in the Western European and Others Group; Sweden, Austria and France were elected, while America was dropped for the first time since the commission was established in 1947. The U.N. quickly sought to justify its vote, explaining that there had been a plethora of European candidates and that America had been hurt by its lack of a permanent ambassador at the time. This rationale, however, did very little to mitigate such a blatant denigration.

The U.S.-U.N. relationship was further strained when America’s delegation walked out of the “U.N. World Conference Against Racism” in early September, citing its unpalatable anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric. After Sept. 11, the U.N.’s thinly-veiled America-bashing was slightly mollified. Yet in recent months, particularly with the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities in the Middle East, the U.S.-U.N tension has surfaced once again.

On the face of it, therefore, Monday’s decision by the U.N. Economic and Social Council to approve America’s uncontested reentry onto the human rights commission seems reassuring. Sichan Siv, U.S. ambassador to the Economic and Social Council, commented that he was “very pleased” at the outcome. “Human rights,” he said, “is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.”

Upon closer evaluation, however, it remains to be seen whether America—or any liberal democracy in the West, for that matter—should even want to be on this so-called “human rights” commission. For example, on April 22 the commission voted 20-19 against a U.S. resolution to censure Iran for political murders, torture, brutal discrimination against minorities and violent restrictions of press freedom. A day later the Iranian regime tragically executed six young men who had, according to official government language, “disturbed public order.” In light of this open butchery, the U.N.’s decision not to condemn Iran’s leaders seemed patently absurd—and highly disheartening to that country’s progressive student demonstrators.

It should also be noted that Cuba, China and the Sudan all have seats on the U.N.’s main human rights body. When one considers the realities of Cuban political dissidents rotting in decrepit, inhuman prison cells, Chinese religious minorities suffering harsh persecution by Beijing and Sudanese women and children being sold into chattel slavery, it becomes difficult to accord the commission any real credibility at all.

Other member nations include Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Libya. Saudi Arabia’s notorious repression of women is clearly disgraceful, while the Congo is known primarily as an epicenter of genocide and ethnic cleansing. And it was, of course, Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi’s henchmen who blew up a West Berlin discotheque in 1986 and were also implicated in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.

After Monday’s vote, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe—an international symbol of corruption—will join this litany of human rights abusers on the commission. Although he has rigged elections, brutalized opponents and condoned murderous attacks on his country’s white farmers, Mugabe will now have his views of morality and justice represented in the U.N.

Thus, while the U.N. regained a certain degree of credibility on Monday, it still has a long way to go. Murderous dictatorships have no place on any legitimate human rights commission—to argue otherwise is just laughable. The U.N. must also jettison its reflexively anti-American tendencies if it wishes to maintain any sense of principled authority on the world stage. It may disagree with President Bush over global warming and missile defense, but it sorely needs his moral clarity and strong leadership. Despite the remonstrations of European elites and left-wing international bureaucrats, America is still the brightest beacon for freedom in the world.

—DUNCAN M. CURRIE ’04