In January 1947, Eleanor Roosevelt was elected the
first chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. At
the time, it was an appropriate selection. The United States had
been a strong advocate for the creation of the United Nations and
had been equally supportive of the need to promote human rights in
the postwar era. To many, however, the election of Eleanor Roosevelt
was also a signal to the United States -- an appeal for its
participation and a call for its leadership.
The Commission on Human Rights was established by
the United Nations to guide its human rights program. Its first act
was the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948, the Universal
Declaration is perhaps the most important document of the twentieth
century. It represents the first international effort to codify the
fundamental rights of humanity. The commission also played an
integral role in drafting two other documents: the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Together, these
three documents are referred to as the International Bill of Rights
and form the foundation of international human rights law.
In recent years, the Commission on Human Rights has
provided a forum for claims to be raised by state and nonstate
actors. The commission has the authority to conduct fact-finding
investigations of alleged human rights violations and to publish
reports of its findings. Each year, the commission debates the
adoption of resolutions based upon its work. Resolutions adopted by
the commission have no legal effect; however, they have a strong
moral and political impact. As a result, states are loath to be the
subject of a critical resolution and lobby to prevent their
adoption.
For over 50 years, the United States was represented
and played a prominent role in the Commission on Human Rights. Last
week, in a stunning development, members of the U.N. Economic and
Social Council chose not to renew U.S. membership on the commission.
While 43 countries had originally agreed to vote for the United
States, only 29 actually did. After 54 years, the United States is
no longer a member of the Commission on Human Rights. On the same
day, the U.N.'s International Narcotics Control Board voted the
United States off its 54-member board, America receiving the support
of only 21 members.
These developments come as no surprise. It is the
inevitable cost of virtue and arrogance. On the human rights vote,
two groups voted against the United States: (1) countries that
violate human rights and sought to silence the United States; and
(2) countries that respect human rights and have grown weary of U.S.
intransigence. It would not be unexpected for China or Cuba to vote
against the United States. The United States regularly used the
Commission on Human Rights as a forum to condemn the human rights
record of these countries. It is unfortunate, however, that moderate
countries voted against U.S. membership.
Why should moderate countries vote against the
United States? In recent years, the United States has become
increasingly isolated within the international community.
In March 2001, the Bush administration announced
that the United States would not comply with the Kyoto Protocol.
This agreement, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has
attained a strong consensus among U.S. allies.
In 1999, the Senate rejected the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a treaty signed by over 187
countries.
In July 1998, the United States voted against the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. While President
Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, there is no
indication that the Bush administration will pursue ratification.
Since 1997, the United States has refused to sign
the Landmines Convention, even though the agreement has been signed
by over 135 countries, including all major U.S. allies.
Since 1989, the United States has refused to ratify
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Somalia is the only other
country in the world that has not ratified this treaty.
This list is by no means exhaustive. One of the most
divisive international issues remains the continued use of the death
penalty in the United States. With each execution, the United States
is subject to increasing criticism and contempt by the growing
number of abolitionist countries. Because the right to life forms
the cornerstone of all human rights, the use of capital punishment
undermines the credibility of U.S. human rights policy.
As a sovereign country, the United States is
certainly entitled to address these issues in the manner it deems
appropriate. As a member of the international community, however,
the United States must recognize the impact of its actions. Its
position on these issues places the United States in conflict with
much of the international community.
During the Cold War, these differences were often
overlooked by countries that were fearful of alienating the United
States and more fearful of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War
freed the Soviet bloc. Ironically, it also freed the Western bloc.
Countries are now more likely to challenge the United States,
particularly in the realm of human rights. As a result, the costs of
virtue and arrogance have increased.
The United States must continue to denounce human
rights violations, regardless of the cost. The impact of these
denunciations, however, will depend upon the credibility of its own
record. The United States cannot ignore the views of the
international community. Such arrogance has already proven costly.
Next year, the United States will again be eligible
for election to the Commission on Human Rights. Perhaps the interim
will serve as an opportunity for self-reflection, and the United
States will recall how its selection to the Commission was viewed by
the international community in 1947 -- as an appeal for its
participation and a call for its leadership.
