Lawrence J.
Haas
Read Larry's bio and previous columns
April 7, 2009
Obama Puts Global Engagement to the Test
President Obama is
about to test an important proposition – that the United States can more
effectively improve even the worst global institutions by participating
in them than by shunning them.
In this case, the
institution is the United Nations Human Rights Council, for which the
Obama Administration has applied for U.S. membership, reversing a
longstanding policy of the Bush Administration.
When the U.N. General
Assembly approves its application in May, as it surely will, the United
States will face the challenge of re-directing one of the U.N.’s most
notorious and ill-named panels.
The United States can
make progress, but only if it seizes the opportunity of council
membership to promote its own values of human rights. What it must not
do is go along to get along – that is, object too tepidly to the
council’s likely activities and, by doing so, give those activities more
legitimacy on the world stage.
The United Nations
created its Human Rights Council in 2006 to replace its discredited
Human Rights Commission. If anything, the council has proved more a
human rights embarrassment than its predecessor.
Membership in the
47-seat council is dominated by African and Asian regional groups, which
together control 26 seats. These groups, in turn, are dominated by the
influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
The council includes
some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, and it avoids discussion
of the world’s worst human rights situations. It has not condemned
ethnic cleansing in Sudan, it recently stopped investigating bloodshed
in Congo and it largely ignores day-to-day human rights abuses from Cuba
to Burma to Zimbabwe.
Instead, the council
focuses almost singularly on Israel, the Middle East’s lone democracy
but a nation to which many council members are reflexively hostile. The
council reserves one permanent agenda item for condemning Israel and
another for investigating human rights in the rest of the world, says
the Hudson Institute’s Anne Bayefsky, who edits the newsletter
www.EyeontheUN.org.
Not surprisingly, the
council has issued the vast majority of its condemnations against the
Jewish State – more than against all other nations combined. It also has
barred Israel from participating in any of its five regional groups
through which council members share information and plot strategy.
The council’s other
preoccupation of late is a move to outlaw criticism of Islam. It
recently passed a resolution that encourages nations to provide legal
“protections” against “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and
coercion” that arise from “defamation of religions” or “incitement to
religious hatred.”
Though it refers to
religion in general, the resolution is clearly designed to prevent
criticism of Islam. The resolution states that “Islam is frequently and
wrongly associated with human-rights violations and terrorism.” If
enacted, such “protections” could severely curtail free speech,
including efforts to explore the theological roots of terrorism that
emanates from the Middle East and elsewhere.
Obama’s decision to
apply for council membership reflects his desire to send a clear message
to the global community that, in contrast to President Bush, America’s
new leader wants to engage more with allies and adversaries alike.
His decision comes as
his administration seeks to develop a new relationship with the Islamic
world in particular, highlighted by such steps as Obama’s interview on
Al Arabiya TV, his high-profile stop in Turkey at the tail-end of his
European trip and his efforts to open discussions between top
administration officials and their counterparts in Iran – a U.S.
adversary for the last 30 years.
Whether the United
States benefits from council membership will depend on what Obama does
with it.
Several weeks ago,
critics blasted Obama for sending U.S. officials to planning meetings
for the upcoming “Durban II” conference, arguing the United States
should shun an event that has all the makings of another “Durban I” –
the 2001 conference that degenerated into such an orgy of
anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that Secretary of State Colin Powell
ordered the U.S. delegation to leave.
In fact, Obama used the
Durban II process to send a strong signal about U.S. values. After
participating briefly, the administration announced it would not
continue to do so unless organizers dropped the Israel-bashing and other
unacceptable features of emerging conference documents.
Obama will face similar
clashes between council priorities and U.S. values. If he turns these
clashes into opportunities to promote our values forcefully, U.S.
membership may prove a worthwhile endeavor.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column #
LH026.
Request permission to publish here. |