单选题
{{B}}TEXT C{{/B}}
The United Nations was
founded lo promote peace, prosperity and human rights. It is doing some what
better on the first two counts than its critics sometimes make out. The last,
however, has been such a failure that it is threatening to bring the whole
edifice down. Once revered as the creator of all the great universal
human-rights rules and instruments, the 53-member Commission on Human Rights has
been thoroughly discredited. If it cannot be fixed it needs to be scrapped. In
its present form it serves only to make a mockery of the cause.
The reason for this is simple enough. The present committee is packed with
members who are themselves serial abusers of human rights. Kofi Annan. the UN
Secretary-General, admits that their main purpose in being on the committee is
not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves from criticism. At
present, these members include exemplars of virtue such as Zimbabwe, Sudan,
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Nepal and Russia--a veritable roll call of the worst
offenders.
A plan of sorts exists to reform this mess. Mr. Annan
called for the replacement of the commission, which at present meets for just
six weeks once a year, by a leaner, tougher, year-round Human Rights Council,
which would be ready to act whenever serious abuse was discovered, and whose
members should have a solid record on human rights. America and the other
leading democracies backed the idea. The serial abusers did not. In the
wrangling at a summit on wider UN reforms, Mr. Annan's baby was reduced to a
skeleton. Many wondered whether it could survive.
Amazingly, it
has just. There is now agreement on the need for a new body, on a par with the
Security Council, that would meet several times a year including, when
necessary, for emergencies. But its size, powers and composition are still up
for grabs. The Americans want no more than 30 members, all with solid
human-rights credentials, elected by a two-thirds majority of the General
Assembly, along with a routine review of human rights in all 191 UN member
states. The abusers want as big a body as possible, elected by a simple
majority, as at present, with no membership criteria, and no automatic peer
review.
Any reform must not just shrink the commission, but must
also change the way in which members are elected. At present, regions usually
put forward a slate of candidates corresponding to their allotted number of
seats, which the General Assembly votes on to the commission as a block. Under
one sensible proposal, regions would be required to put forward more contestants
than their quota. Each candidate country would then stand separately for
election by the General Assembly. Early peer review of all members would further
reduce the temptation for thugs to try to get seats. But opposition is fierce,
not only from the most notorious offenders, but also from those middle-ranking
ones who fear their relatively minor abuses would be put under the
spotlight.
Timing is tight. The old, unreformed commission is
due to hold its next annual meeting. Mr. Annan wants a new one to be ready to
take over by then. That means reaching agreement on a blueprint within the next
few weeks. If agreement is stymied, the next best solution will be to wind the
existing commission up altogether. Human rights matter too much for the UN to
continue to shunt the subject off to a cynical talking shop that has become home
to the worst violators. That just blackens the overall reputation of the
UN.