UN Human Rights Council to Debate U.S. Human Rights Record
HUMAN RIGHTS, LAW & JUSTICE, SOCIETY & CULTURE, DIPLOMACY
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
On Friday, November 5, the United States of America will undergo the first-ever Universal Periodic Review ("UPR") of its human rights record before the United Nations Human Rights Council ("HRC") in Geneva, Switzerland. At the UPR, a "troika" of representatives from three nations, Cameroon, France, and Japan, will facilitate a public examination of the degree to which the United States is protecting and promoting human rights. Unfortunately, the UPR process is one driven largely by UN-based human rights "experts" and non-governmental organizations who expect the U.S. to adhere to the terms of every international human rights treaty, regardless of whether they have been ratified by the U.S. Senate or incorporated into U.S. domestic law.
As part of the UPR process, the U.S. submitted a report in August to the HRC explaining its efforts to strengthen human rights commitments and comply with international human rights standards. In the report, the U.S. cites the U.S. Constitution as the basis for protecting human rights in the U.S. and emphasizes the primacy of civil and political rights as opposed to so-called "economic and social rights." The UN views human rights as being universal, interdependent, indivisible, and interrelated and resents that the U.S. had not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a step that would lead to an expansion of social welfare programs at a time when many
Americans are questioning whether existing programs are financially sustainable.
As part of the UPR process, 103 "stakeholders" submitted reports to the HRC, the majority of which detailed alleged shortcomings or violations of the U.S. in protecting and promoting human rights. The HRC secretariat within the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has published a summary that highlights many of the criticisms leveled against the U.S.
The following samples are just a few of the criticisms contained in the HRC Summary:
• Amnesty International basically calls for the U.S. to ratify every human rights treaty to which it is not yet a party. (Part I.A.1, p. 2)
• Amnesty International argues that the laws, mechanisms and institutions to protect human rights and provide remedy for violations of the U.S. Constitution fall short of international human rights standards. (Part I.B.9, p. 2)
• Amnesty International wants President Obama to sign an Executive Order in essence creating a national human rights monitoring body. (Part I.C.14, p. 3)
• Amnesty International complains that U.S. laws only protect against intentional discrimination and that it should protect against policies and practices that have a discriminatory effect. (Part II.B.1.26, p. 4)
• A host of NGOs complain that the U.S. death penalty system violates international human rights law. (Part II.B.2.30, p. 4-5)
• Amnesty International complains about the use of "super maximum security" facilities. (Part II.B.2.35, p. 5)
•Amnesty International complains that there is unequal access in the U.S. to basic amenities such as adequate food, shelter, work, healthcare, and education as well as a lack of affordable housing, job shortages, and income insecurity. (Part II.B.7.59, p. 7-8)
The HRC was created in 2006 to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (the "Commission"), a body that had failed to hold governments accountable for violating basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. Because of the failure of the HRC to adopt reforms that would prevent the repetition of the same problems associated with the Commission, in 2006, 2007, and 2008, the Bush Administration decided not to seek a seat at the HRC. The Bush Administration also withheld a portion of the U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget (equivalent to the part of the U.S. contribution allocated to the HRC) and only became involved at the HRC when necessary to protect the "deep national interest" of the U.S.
Once in office, the Obama Administration quickly reversed Bush Administration policy by participating in council deliberations and winning election to the HRC. As explained in an article by Steven Groves and Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation:
Several Obama Administration officials argued that the Bush policy of distancing the U.S. from the HRC had not improved its performance, and that as a member, the U.S. would be able to improve it from within. Unfortunately, they were wrong. The performance of the council with the U.S. as a member has been virtually indistinguishable from its performance without U.S. membership.
Now, the U.S. faces its first UPR and the production of an HRC outcome document that will contain many unjustifiable criticisms of U.S. institutions, laws, and practices in the areas of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Countries with questionable human rights practices will use the HRC report to establish moral equivalency with the U.S. and reject U.S. demands for improvement in their own human rights practices.
But even before the HRC issues its final report on the U.S. UPR, several countries appear to be planning to use the occasion of Friday's public debate on the U.S. human rights record to unduly criticize the U.S. On Friday, two hours of the three-hour session are reserved for country statements on America's record. According to a UNWatch press release, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other non-democracies are planning to hijack the session to score propaganda points and drum up anti-American sentiment worldwide."
The press release explains that Cuba took the lead last week in circulating an advance sign-up sheet so that critics of Washington can dominate the discussions.
As the UPR process is repeated every four years, it appears that the UN and NGOs have found a vehicle for institutionalizing their long-held criticisms of the U.S. human rights record and for generating HRC outcome documents that can be used by them to organize support within the U.S. for the realization of a full range of ambiguous and prohibitively expensive economic rights.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
