On April 19, the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations held a hearing entitled, “The UN Commission on Human Rights: Protector or Accomplice?”
Chair Christopher Smith (R-NJ) argued that the United Nations “is no longer protecting and promoting the core human rights enshrined in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration [of Human Rights],” adding, “But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken. Other UN bodies have also strayed from their core mandates and failed to act on severe human rights violations. For example, the so-called ‘right’ to abortion is promoted, while the obligation to protect the life of the unborn child is ignored…It is the ultimate oxymoron that abortion be construed to be a fundamental human right. Abortion is violence against children, and chemical poisoning and dismemberment of the fragile body of an unborn child can never be construed to be a compassionate, sane or benign act. It is an act of violence and a human rights abuse, and it also exploits women.”
Stating that the UN is an “absolutely critical organization in today’s world,” Ranking Member Donald Payne (D-NJ) contended that the UN “only works as well as its member states cooperate.” He expressed “serious concerns” about certain members of the UN Commission on Human Rights and about the United States’ lack of participation in UN treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Mark Lagon said that the United States would support UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s proposal to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights with a smaller Human Rights Council. Under the proposal, he explained, “The Council would be a standing body, able to meet when necessary, rather than for only six weeks each year, as with the Commission. Its members would be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly and should have a solid human rights record. The Council would be mandated to review the human rights of every UN Member State periodically, but would be available to convene on short notice to deal with urgent crises or massive and gross violations of human rights. The Council would also be equipped to give technical assistance and policy advice on the promotion of human rights.”
Dr. Lagon also noted that the United States would support increasing the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including “additional resources…in the area of training, standardization, and professionalization of the so-called ‘special rapporteurs’ the UN term of art for private experts asked to research or monitor a situation and report back to the Commission or Commissioner.” Addressing criticism that the United States has backed away from introducing resolutions before the UN Commission on Human Rights, Dr. Lagon stated, “We continue to place a high value on resolutions. In particular, for some acute cases of repressive regimes that refuse to work with the international community, we believe it is important to retain country-specific resolutions as a last resort. However, the ability of the Office of the High Commissioner to offer advisory services, technical assistance, training, human rights and rule of law components of post-conflict reconciliation, and monitoring of grave human rights threats are at the heart of what the UN should be doing.”
During the question and answer session, Rep. Smith once again expressed his concern that there is a “right to abortion agenda” among members of the UN. Dr. Lagon agreed that there is a “commitment” on the part of other western nations to push the abortion issue. He explained that during a recent meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, the United States led an effort to introduce a resolution stating that the Beijing Platform of Action does not include an international right to abortion. The amendment was withdrawn after the U.S. representative stated her understanding that the Beijing document was not legally binding.
Joseph Laconte, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, voiced his opposition to Secretary General Annan’s proposal because “it will not prevent the nomination of oppressive states to the Commission [on Human Rights]. It will not produce UN resolutions that consistently name and shame the most egregious human-rights violators. In short, it will not help those who are caught in the grip of brutal regimes or renegade militias.” He urged Congress to support abolition of the UN Commission on Human Rights, reject any proposal to reconstitute a human rights organization within the UN whose membership is determined by a General Assembly vote, establish a U.S. Commission on Human Rights to focus on the prevention of genocide and human rights abuses, promote a Democracy Caucus within the UN, and help to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide.
