U.S. can bring change to human rights panel

The U.N. Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the commission, have long been criticized for pursuing an agenda that has little to do with ending widespread violations, especially in underdeveloped countries.

Indeed, the influence of Arab nations has rendered criticism of Israel a mainstay of the council, which is made up of 47 nations.

The lack of moral underpinnings prompted the administration of former President George W. Bush to not only shun the council, but publicly repudiate its actions.

However, despite the criticism from the United States and other law-abiding nations — mostly those led by legitimate democratic governments — the U.N. Human Rights Council has not changed its disruptive ways.

Thus the question: Can the United States affect change by remaining on the outside, or will it be more effective being a member of the panel?

The question is prompted by last week’s announcement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the administration of President Barack Obama will be seeking a seat on the council.

“Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy,” Clinton said in a statement. “With others, we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system.”

She added: “We believe every nation must live by and help shape global rules that ensure people enjoy the right to live freely and participate fully in their societies.”

The election to fill three seats on the council will be held in May. Initially, New Zealand, Belgium and Norway were on the ballot, but when the U.S. made known its intentions to run, New Zealand withdrew.

According to the Washington Post, human rights activists, who have been advocating U.S. membership since the council was created in 2006, welcomed the Obama administration’s decision. Likewise, U.N. officials were also supportive of its membership.

Positive global response

Given the positive global response — thus far, of course — to President Obama and to his foreign policy philosophy and initiatives, U.S. membership on council is timely and will make a difference.

However, the administration will have to find a way of overcoming the influence of those nations that aren’t interested in protecting the rights of people around the world who have literally and figuratively been beaten into the ground.

Obama must make it clear to the United Nations that its membership will mean exposing those countries that have become serial human rights violators. In addition, it is important that the U.S. conduct a top-to-bottom review of the workings of the council so it can have a say in 2011 when the panel will undergo a formal review of its structure and procedures.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration’s decision to seek membership has drawn criticism from an important figure: Former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.

“This is like getting on board the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg,” Bolton told the Post. “This is the theology of engagement at work. There is no concrete American interest served by this, and it legitimizes something that doesn’t deserve legitimacy.”

Bolton was a harsh critic of the United Nations and played a major role in the Bush administration’s refusal to not only join the council, but to dismiss its existence.

But that hard line position failed to change the attitude or behavior of council members.

The U.S. may have more success by working from the inside.