The UN Remains UNchanged & UNfair Towards Israel
by Aaron Goldstein | View comments |
Print This Post
The new UN Human Rights Council looks a lot like the old UN Human Rights Commission.
With great fanfare, the UN General Assembly this week voted the UN Human Rights Commission out of existence and has replaced it with the UN Human Rights Council.  After the vote, the General Assembly patted itself on the back by giving itself a lengthy ovation.  U.S. Ambassador John Bolton was not in a self-congratulatory mood.
The new Council, which will have its inaugural meeting in Geneva on June 19, will comprise of 47 members.  This is six fewer members than on old Commission.  The elections to the Council will take place on May 9.  In order to be elected to the Council (for a term of three years), a member state must have the support of at least 96 members of the General Assembly.  Â
So let’s see.  Israel would require 96 votes by the UN General Assembly to gain a seat on the Council.  How many allies does Israel have in the UN?  The United States, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands and sometimes Australia.  Canada’s new Conservative government has signaled that it will be more sympathetic towards Israel in the General Assembly.  However, Canada's new Ambassador, John McNee, will not come aboard until July.  Canada’s current representative to the UN, Allan Rock, is notoriously unsympathetic to Israel, so don’t count on Canada just yet. Including its own vote, Israel has a grand total of five votes in its corner.  Israel can literally count its support in the General Assembly on a single hand.
The only other criteria required to be a member of the Council is membership in a regional group.  Again, let’s see.  Israel is not currently a member of the Asian bloc and only has associate membership in the Western European and other Bloc.  So don’t hold your breath, Israel will not have a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Â
Consider this provision in Section 8 of the Resolution:
(W)hen electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto;Â the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.
In theory, it appears to be a provision that could be utilized to prevent the admission of countries like Cuba, Sudan or Zimbabwe onto the Council.  Currently, all three countries sit on the Commission.  Any human rights body that includes the governments of Cuba, Sudan or Zimbabwe deserves to be associated with human rights about as much as Sirhan Sirhan deserves parole. Â
However, we must live in the real world. It must be remembered that six of the ten emergency sessions called by the UN General Assembly have concerned a single country.  You guessed it: Israel.  How many emergency sessions have been convened with regard to Rwanda, Kosovo or Sudan?  Try none.
In fact, according to www.unwatch.org, during the 59th Session of the General Assembly in 2004-2005, Israel was condemned 19 times.  Try guessing how many resolutions the General Assembly passed concerning the Sudanese genocide in Darfur?  I won’t keep you in suspense.  None.
Once the new Council is in place in June, how long will it be before the General Assembly will take it upon itself to formally suspend Israel from sitting on the Council.  Yes, that would take two-thirds of the General Assembly.  But let me remind you that Israel can count its supporters in the General Assembly on one hand.  Believe me, if the UN General Assembly wants to suspend Israel from being eligible to sit on the UN Human Rights Council, they will.
The UN can change the name of its human rights body but it cannot change its parts.  The human rights forum might have a different stage but it is comprised of the same actors.  Unless the General Assembly were to suddenly drink too much Manischewitz, expect the UN’s institutional attitude towards Israel to remain both UNchanged and UNfair.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
The UN Human Rights Council / Commission is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Quite frankly, the UN today is no more than a combination mouthpiece for tyrants and debating society for weak-kneed democracies.
The United States needs to politely but firmly herd the professional blabberers out of Turtle Bay, let them set up shop somewhere outside of US territorial waters and let France, Russia, Germany, and the other has-been world powers fight over the remains. We can then focus on relationships with our few actual allies, such as the UK, Australia, Israel, and some of the newly free Eastern European / FSU countries who have been so supportive to the United States recently. I'd include Canada, but we'd have to include the Peoples Republic of Quebec and Ontario. Maybe we can get Canada west of Thunder Bay to secede, but I digress.
Comment by Mike McGill | March 20, 2006
Mr. Goldstein,
I neglected to mention that I enjoyed the article very much.
(ps: I revise my last sentence in post #1 as follows: "Maybe we can get Canada from Thunder Bay and points West to secede…)
Comment by Mike McGill | March 20, 2006
Jay Nordlinger has a good piece on Bolton in the National Review which brings up the HRC. What pisses me off is the fact that I have to pay the salaries of this bunch of boobs.
btw, are there any New Democrats in the New Democratic Party? I met a New Democrat once. I found out later that he is a long-time Senator from Pennsylvania.
Comment by The Plumber | March 20, 2006
Um… I am unUN because I understand it stands for underdeveloped nations against US and Israel.
Comment by parsimonious mom | March 21, 2006
If we lose Israel, it is game over. That is their main goal. Got to stick with Israel at all costs. As far as Canada goes, they are too busy getting drunk. So next subject.
Comment by Jim Westcott | March 22, 2006