Reforming the U.N.

In yet another show of disregard for multilateralism and compromise, the U.S. voted down the United Nations resolution calling for the creation of the Human Rights Council. Despite the U.S. move, fortunately, the General Assembly approved the new Council in a 170 to 4 vote, and this approval marks a step in the right direction for the U.N., whose former Human Rights Commission had been discredited by its questionable membership of such nations as Cuba and Iran.

The U.S. justified its vote by heralding its own high standards for human rights, while lambasting the current resolution for its lenient admission procedures. John R. Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., sharply criticized the newly established Human Rights Council, calling it only marginally better than its predecessor. The U.S. proposal, unlike the one that passed, required member nations to garner a super majority of the vote rather than a simple majority in order to win a seat on the council. The more stringent standard was meant to prevent countries like Iran and Sudan—notorious for their gross violations of human rights—from gaining membership, as they had been able to do on the former U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

We commend the U.S. for pushing for this higher standard, especially given that its own tenuous human rights record may have prevented it from winning a seat on the council. Yet, we fear that its final decision barks again of a chronic unwillingness to compromise. If the U.N. is to become an effective organization, its members must be willing to meet halfway on their individual aims and lend support to laudable efforts such as the creation of this council. The U.S. cannot expect the scores of other member nations to bow to its desires; a negotiation of over 100 countries requires concessions in the name of progress. Though this new council may not conform to the American vision of a perfectly composed body, it undoubtedly represents an improvement from the former commission, whose members were nominated by regional groups and often rubber-stamped by the U.N. Economic and Social Council.

Moreover, it is presumptuous for the U.S. to attempt to take the moral high ground in a matter for which it has been rapidly losing credibility. The atrocities of Abu-Grahib and Guantanamo Bay preclude the U.S. from touting its own human rights standards as higher than those of others. A protest vote from a nation with such a questionable human rights record holds little sway, especially given its reputation for inflexibility and unilateralism in the U.N.

Rather than stubbornly vote down the resolution and refuse to seek a seat on the Council, the U.S. should act upon its supposed commitment to human rights by encouraging measures that represent improvement in this arena. Especially given the prominence of the U.S. on the world stage, we are concerned about the international perception of this move. The U.S. cannot afford to simply flex its muscles like a belligerent bully; instead, it should use its strength and influence to garner support and work collaboratively to improve human rights globally.