One third of the seats are currently held by members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has spearheaded the anti-Israel and religious defamation campaigns, with support from non-Muslim allies like Cuba, China and South Africa.
‘A cover for human wrongs’
Neuer said U.N. Watch welcomed the U.S. decision – “but only if it’s to vigorously push back against the world’s worst abusers, who currently have the human rights agenda in an Orwellian stranglehold.”
A “turning of the tide” was needed, he said. Noting that Egypt and Pakistan – “leading council hardliners” – receive significant funding from the U.S., he voiced the hope that would “back off somewhat now that their chief funder is sitting at the table.”
“With high-level advocacy by Washington, some wavering states could lean toward principle instead of politics,” Neuer added.
Human Rights Watch was one of the signatories of the letter to Clinton last month. Asked Tuesday whether it believed the U.S. could make a difference, given the council’s makeup and voting patterns over the past three years, the organization’s chief operating office Suzanne Nossel acknowledged the difficulties.
“The council is imperfect. Its composition and membership pose challenges,” she said. “But the council’s mandate and agenda are critical to the protection and enforcement of human rights worldwide and we definitely see the potential for improvement, particularly with the U.S. at the table.”
Other strongly disagreed.
“The real winners are the human rights abusers who control the so-called Human Rights Council,” said Anne Bayefsky, editor of the Hudson Institute’s Eye on the U.N. project.
“The U.S. on the council has no prospect of changing outcomes and the demonization of Israel that results. It just legitimizes the body that uses human rights as a cover for more human wrongs.”
“President Bush understood that there could be no positive result from American participation in an international body so inherently hostile to Israel and so fundamentally incapable of acting in defense of human rights,” said Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matthew Brooks.
“That President Obama has chosen to reverse American policy on this question is a blow to the U.S.-Israel relationship and a cause for deep concern among American Jews.”
The Anti-Defamation League also recently wrote to Clinton, asking that the U.S. seek council reform before joining the body.
ADL national director Abraham Foxman on Tuesday expressed concern about the decision.
“There is no question that the U.S. can play a decisive role in making U.N. institutions more effective, but the Human Rights Council has deep systemic flaws,” he said. “We remain concerned that the U.S. decision to join the Council before meaningful reforms are put into motion may not achieve this desired goal.”
Competition urged
In next month’s election, 18 seats will be up for grabs – five for Asia, five for Africa, three for the Western group, three for Latin America, and two for Eastern Europe. Members whose terms are expiring may stand for a second term (although they are not eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms.)
Of those 18 seats, a number are currently held by countries often criticized for human rights abuses, including China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Nine of the 18 are now occupied by OIC members.
It is not yet clear which countries intend to stand down and which will seek a second term. Also in question is whether the five regional groups will put up more candidates than there are positions vacant, thus ensuring some element of competition.
Human rights groups are
urging all five groups to present competitive slates.
Nonetheless, New Zealand early Wednesday announced it was now withdrawing its candidature for one of the Western seats, saying the move “will enable our many supporters to vote in substantial numbers” for the U.S. instead.
Barring any further developments, the U.S., Belgium and Norway will therefore be the unopposed candidates for three Western seats.