The U.N. versus “Human Rights”

by | May 17, 2001

Nothing could show more clearly the United Nations’ lack of commitment toward curbing human rights abuses than its absurd refusal to re-elect the United States to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This diplomatic slap in the face was compounded by the fact that the world body has elected Sudan to a seat on the […]

Nothing could show more clearly the United Nations’ lack of commitment toward curbing human rights abuses than its absurd refusal to re-elect the United States to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

This diplomatic slap in the face was compounded by the fact that the world body has elected Sudan to a seat on the commission, even though its government has spent the last few years stoking a civil war, bombing civilians, tolerating slavery and supporting international terrorism.

Worse, our rejection was orchestrated largely by Cuba and China — both of whom continue to sit on the commission, despite their own well-documented human-rights violations.

Perhaps the most upsetting factor about this whole episode is that it was engineered mostly for political reasons. Some of our most vociferous U.N. opponents have made it clear the United States is being punished for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol — a treaty that purportedly will stop global warming — and for wanting to field a missile-defense system.

This gives ammunition to President Bush’s domestic critics, who blame him for America’s ouster. “This means our government will no longer have a voice on the principal international body that evaluates human rights in countries like China, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Sudan,” House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said. “This is very unfortunate.”

Actually, what’s unfortunate is what this action reveals about the United Nations and the effectiveness with which it evaluates such abuses.

First, it shows growing solidarity among human-rights abusers. With the exception of Iran, all the countries listed by Gephardt currently hold seats on the 53-member Human Rights Commission, along with terrorist states such as Syria. Clearly, many members hope to block the monitoring of human-rights practices, slow the reporting of violations, and avoid denouncing human-rights abusers.

Second, it indicates the United Nations is becoming more a danger to human rights enforcement than a defender of such rights. The United States has proven itself one of the world’s staunchest and most dependable human-rights advocates. Kicking us off the U.N.’s commission while welcoming some rather infamous violators casts serious doubts on the United Nations’ commitment to enforcing human rights around the world.

Indeed, using U.S. membership on the commission as a political chit — as a way to protest unpopular but unrelated policy positions — tarnishes the image of the commission and vastly weakens efforts to punish those who violate human rights.

Ironically, the U.S. ouster can be traced in part to recent efforts by U.S. officials to censure China and Cuba for their human-rights abuses. In a useful illustration of why habitual abusers actively lobby for seats on the commission, China used its position to strike an American resolution criticizing its record on human rights. Not to be outdone, Cuba used its influence to dilute a resolution denouncing its record.

And now they are joined on the commission by Sudan, which has been reviled internationally for its role in killing and dislocating millions of its citizens. Even a ridiculously whitewashed report submitted recently to the commission by Sudan special rapporteur Gerhart R. Baum conceded that “government opponents and others face a permanent threat to their fundamental freedoms, and their political actions tend to be criminalized [in Sudan].”

The absurdity of kicking America off the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has the virtue of clarity, if nothing else: It’s a stark reminder to every American that the United Nations is not a community of democracies and not a serious defender of human rights.

The Bush administration should view this action for what it is: a political tantrum by our allies and a calculated tactic by human rights violators to undermine the work of the commission — and it should resolve to defend more forcefully America’s interests at the United Nations.

“We prefer to have dialogue,” China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Yingfan, said after the vote. “The United States does not.” Mr. Wang’s right. We prefer principled action — something we won’t be seeing out of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights anytime soon.

Daniel Fisk is deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in Heritage’s Center for International Trade and Economics. Distributed nationally by Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Wire

Editor’s Note: “Human rights” has only rational application when one means individual rights, i.e., right to life, right to property, right to free speech, etc. Unfortunately, the term “human rights” is used as to package deal the legitimate concept of individual rights with non- rights, such as “the right to a living”, “the right to free whatever care”, the “right to a free lunch”, etc. These so-called “rights” are “anti-rights” as they are only possible by violating the rights of others who must pay for and provide these “rights” or unearned entitlements. Your right to a job, makes a slave of the person who must provide it to you.

Related website: The United Nations is Evil

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

If young people worry and wonder about their retirement future, their health care, and medical needs, their chance to afford a place to live, and a reasonable possibility for their lives to be better and more prosperous than their parents, it is precisely because government over the decades has either taken over or heavy- handedly imposed itself over all these and other sectors of the American economy — and brought them to financial crisis and imbalance.

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The most equitable and just sharing of the burden of America’s military is assured by its all-volunteer nature, and that conscription would be inequitable and unjust.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest