The UN fails again

The UN fails again
By Thomas P. Kilgannon
May 18, 2006

Eleanor Roosevelt's dream of a global institution that values personal
dignity and individual freedom suffered another setback at the United
Nations this week as UN delegates continued their time-honored tradition
of rewarding dictators with prized seats on the organization's human
rights body.

Apologists for the UN's new Human Rights Council pointed to Iran's
failure to gain membership as evidence that the new council is a much
improved body, but they glossed over the election of repressive regimes
like Communist China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Algeria, Cameroon and
Azerbaijan, to name a few.

Secretary General Kofi Annan predicted the Council's members will "show
the depth of their commitment to promote human rights at home and
abroad," despite the election of 22 countries that are considered "not
free" or only "partly free" by Freedom House. General Assembly President
Jan Eliasson called the vote a "truly historic occasion."

China, one of those nations that will cast judgment on the liberties of
individuals around the world, is led by Hu Jintao, who is ranked number
six on Parade magazine's 2006 list of "The World's 10 Worst Dictators."
The editors at Parade write that in China, "between 250,000 and 300,000
political dissidents are held in 'reeducation-through-labor' camps
without trial." Privacy is a little understood concept in China as
communications such as phone calls, e-mail, and Internet are routinely
monitored by government agents. An organization known as Human Rights in
China said in the last 17 years it "has documented continued and
increasing detentions, arrests and other forms of persecutions."

Appearing at number seven on Parade's list of dictators is King Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia, whose nation was also rewarded with a seat on the Human
Rights Council. The House of Saud, where women are treated like
third-class citizens, received more votes in the General Assembly for a
Council seat than did Switzerland.

Among the other stalwarts of tolerance that were elected to the Human
Rights Council are Bangladesh, whose rights record is listed by the
State Department as "poor" and which restricts religious freedom and
freedom of the press; Cameroon, where activists are, according to
Amnesty International, "routinely harassed, detained and assaulted"; and
Cuba, whose totalitarian regime imprisons political opponents and
suppresses political, religious and economic freedoms.

This is the new and "improved" United Nations Human Rights Council – and
Kofi Annan can keep it.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton was right to withhold American prestige from
the reconstituted rights regime, because it was flawed from the
beginning. The United Nations ensured that rights abusers would make it
onto the Council when it guaranteed 13 seats each to the African and
Asian regions – where democracy and government accountability is in
short supply. But the Western European region, where stability and
respect for individual freedom is the norm, was only given seven seats
on the Council.

John Bolton should be applauded for ensuring that the United States no
longer has to swallow its pride and sidle up next to brutal dictators
while discussing human rights. But the United States can and should do
more. The Bush administration should withhold funding for the Human
Rights Council. When and if the Council proves itself responsible, the
United States can consider funding a worthwhile institution. But in the
interim, American tax dollars should not be given to countries like Cuba
and China to give themselves a political makeover and kick the United
States in the teeth.

Thomas Kilgannon serves as the President of Freedom Alliance, a
Townhall.com Gold partner dedicated to preserving the American heritage
of freedom and defending American sovereignty.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/TomKilgannon/2006/05/18/197803.html