US Balks on Human Rights Leadership

The typical Democratic argument that Bush alienated us in the world after 9/11 never really resonated with people who, a. assumed America was the most powerful country in the world, and so didn't need "friends," b. that we hadn't really lost friends, only temporarily ruffled a few feathers, and c. that as soon as Iraq worked itself out we'd be just fine. Hindsight, which is not as 20/20 as some would like, illuminates how all three of these things are insane. And, if hindsight doesn't convince you, the latest negotiations at the UN should. I have to say, almost nothing has frustrated me as much as this in recent weeks.

Here's the story. The UN finally admitted that the old UN Human Rights Commission was a rediculous oversight board because infamous rights violators like China, Libya and Sudan held seats there. (You know, it would be like having an oil lobbyist re-write our environmental policy regarding the use of oil. But I digress.) Then, under pressure from Kofi Annan and the US, members voted to disband the board permanently. Soon thereafter, members rejiggered a few kinks, closed a few loop holes, and, lo and behold, we now have the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It is no surprise that the US voted against the adoption of the Council-- Bush fears recrimination for Abu Ghraib, Guantamo, and myriad CIA "black sites" and renditions. Henry Hyde has been proposing legislation to withhold UN dues ever since he waddled into the halls of Congress. Heck, UN-bashing is a favorite Republican pasttime. So when the US said yesterday that not only did it not support the creation of the Council to begin with, but it also would not seek a seat on it, I was inscenced. But I assumed, incorrectly, that this was a sort of boycott, a statement on the unacceptability of the Council rules.

However, that is not the case. The reason the United States will not lead the world in protecting human rights is because it does not believe it can get the votes to do so. That's right, we're not asking for a seat, because we think we will be denied.

It is humiliating that US presence on this issue is not a given. It infuriates me that America, arguably the greatest force for good in the world and rhetorically one of the most fervent supporters of human rights anywhere, will be completely absent for the Council's first year. This is when many of the fundamental questions will be addressed and the very character and direction of UN enforcement against genocide, torture and repression will be cemented.

Bush has driven away our allies and left some of the most basic questions facing humanity to those who do not respect it.