RSS
Using PayPal
Bolton on the UN Human Rights Council: Hero or Nemesis?
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Mar 03, 06, 10:20AM
John Bolton is a very smart guy -- a tough, pugnacious, thumb-in-them-there-foreigners-eye kind of guy.
A few days ago, remarkably both the New York Times and the Washington Post lauded our recess-appointed American Ambassador to the United Nations for holding out for a UN Human Rights Council that met a higher bar.
The editorial writers for those papers did not call me before they wrote those sycophantic pieces. If they had, they might have learned a bit more regarding the background about Ambassador Bolton and this Human Rights Council debate.
First of all, Ambassador Bolton failed to even attend all but one of the thirty plus negotiations that occurred about the Human Rights Council.
Secondly, these editorialists should have worked harder to discern the differences in nuance, language, and posture between the official State Department position and what John Bolton has been conveying. Bolton knew that the 2/3 voting requirement for HRC membership was the key point for the US and he failed to emphasize this to UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who was attempting to placate the Europeans who had backed away from this voting rule.
Had Bolton been more emphatic when it counted, Eliasson might have arm-twisted the Europeans more vigorously.
But what really bothers me about this John "human rights crusader" Bolton fiction that the Times and Post have created is that John Bolton has been sour about the Human Rights Council for four months. He began winding down expectations of a positive outcome at the end of last October. His press operation is very impressive and expertly managed in my view.
But he has kept up this theme saying nothing would come from the Human Rights Council negotiations through November, December, January, and through his tenure as President of the UN Security Council in February.
Where was John Bolton's pugnacious commitment to getting this Council set up right these last four months? The answer is that he has been trying to kill the Council all this time and attempting to knock yet another key pillar out of America's engagement with the UN.
TWN has also learned from multiple sources that John Bolton has done more than 70 editorial and press meetings and calls encouraging the notion that the press could "demonstrate objectivity" by supporting his position against Eliasson's Human Rights Council proposal and holding out for something better.
Again, all good credit to his media staff -- but Bolton has been emphasizing the failure of the Human Rights Council negotiations and did little to transmit to Eliasson what the key provisions America required in the draft were.
True to form, Bolton is publicizing a breakdown that he considers runs against American interests -- while doing nothing to publicize what would have clearly been in American interests while the negotiations were underway the last four months.
One of the provisions that Bolton opposes is one that involves regional slates of candidates. Regions can propose candidate nations to fill a specified number of slots on the HRC. However, any individual nation -- if it fails to earn a majority of votes in the UN General Assembly -- will not be allowed to ascend from the regional slate to the Human Rights Council. The U.S. believes that these slates will still produce some rosters of outrageous human-rights abusers.
What is odd is that if the U.S. were deeply and seriously worried about this provision, the normal process for trying to get the matter resolved or renegotiated is for the US Mission to share its concerns with NGOs involved and the office of Jan Eliasson, the President of the UN General Assembly. According to several NGO representatives, this matter was mentioned during the NGO briefing meeting by the US Mission in the final week of negotiations. . .the final week.
At some point, one has to go back and not only weigh the laudable goals Bolton is expressing as his objectives for the structure of the Human Rights Council but also the manner in which he pursued this end all along.
Bolton is saying some impressive things about what the Human Rights Council out to be -- but he helped design the impasse that America is in by doing little to help us achieve our objectives.
Former Senator Tim Wirth, President of the UN Foundation has sent a letter and a Human Rights Commission/Human Rights Council Comparison Grid to Congressional leaders.
Specifically, he suggests that even the Human Rights Council that has been negotiated is better by far than the old operation.
He writes:
The proposed Council would have several key improvements over the Human Rights Commission. These include:~ A new requirement that Council members be voted on by an affirmative vote of a majority of the General Assembly -- or 96 countries. For comparison's sake, the provision that the United States is advocating would allow for members to be voted onto the Council by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly -- a number that could range between 100 and 120 votes, depending on abstentions. Also for comparison, the Commission on Human Rights allowed countries to become members by appointment from regional groups.~ A new provision allowing Council members to be suspended at any time if they commit gross and systematic human rights violations.
~ Providing meetings throughout the year, not just once a year, making the Council more responsive to real time human rights emergencies.
These make sense to me.
But there is a serious question that has been rolling around in my head -- and perhaps I am missing something in this debate that I have not yet seen which covers the matter -- but how did John Bolton think that the U.S. was going to get on the Human Rights Council with a 2/3 voting requirement?
I now understand why he lobbied hard -- and beyond his State Department mandate -- to get the Permanent 5 Members of the Security Council on to the HRC because in the current geopolitical climate, support for America on the Commission may not run so robustly.
Some have suggested that there is a de facto stance that all members of the UN Security Council can float on and off of UN Councils at will, but I need to look further into this. But if this is not in fact the case, America's own membership is helped by the majority rule vote and harmed by the 2/3 figure.
More later on this brewing matter. And just in closing, I feel strongly that John Bolton should be given credit for the constructive things he does -- full stop.
But just as well, I don't believe in assigning him credit for his lofty Human Rights Council stance when it is clear that he's been trying to poison the environment and keep the key negotitors guessing all this time.
Bad John Bolton, bad.
-- Steve Clemons
How do you know, Steve, that Bolton is absent from these negotiations? Having zero personal experience in the matter, are you sure you're not confusing what you're calling "negotiations" and plenary meetings?
Your profound misunderstanding of how UN deliberations unfold, not to mention the details of HRC negotiations, should be embarrassing. I am having trouble understanding what sociopathic fixation you suffer from that compels you to A) think you're an expert of some variety and B) dwell so much on a guy who doesn't know you exist.
FYI - Your last post over on Bolton Watch makes the same mistake that Mark Goldberg's post attacks the Post for making. (re: simple majority)
This past Friday I was fortunate enough to be briefed by Bolton and to meet with Eliasson. Eliasson pleaded that my group support his new plan. It was convincing but seemed somewhat fishy. Why is there so must haste to the matter? I heard rumors Eliasson would push for a vote this week. This makes it easier for me to accept my stance that Annan is trying to get this done and working before his term is over in around 8 months. The US Mission (and Bolton more recently) have been the backbone to this whole reform process since the beginning. You can't blame them for just wanting the whole process to not be rushed and not have a new council begin with flaws.
Phocion -- you are obviously new to my blog and have not searched this blog for the many items I have written and reported about Ambassador Bolton. The Ambassador does know I exist. I have met him previously and we have had a civil set of exchanges. I don't believe that he should be our Ambassador to the UN -- but there, the best I can do is to keep him under serious scrutiny.
There were more than 30 negotiating sessions on the Human Rights Council. John Bolton attended one. Mark Lagon, a very good guy by the way in my view, attended some others. A foreign service officer whose name I do not know attended some others. Many of the sessions had no U.S. representative there at all.
I know this from research.
Your several posts here indicate that you are a strident Bolton advocate -- and you are welcome to join the debate. However, if you veer into personal ad hominem attacks, your comments won't be allowed to stay on the site.
All the best,
Steve Clemons
What is interesting, ESchwartz, are the number of items Bolton is trying to rush, including the naming of Kofi Annan's successor.
best,
Steve Clemons
Phocion - I just did a search of your ISP and see that you have been a reader and poster for a long time, though under different identities. Your note that I have had "zero" personal experience in either the the UN Human Rights Council negotiations or other matters related is off-putting to say the least and inaccurate.
Feel free to keep posting your comments here -- but I will keep writing and reporting as I see fit.
best,
Steve Clemons
The Foreign Service Officer is AMBASSADOR Alejandro Wolff. I would review your research methods because, with all due respect, you're just plain wrong.
Who the heck is hiding behind "Phocion"? From my reading of this blog, compared to many other blogs, Mr. Clemons has consistently shown transparency, honesty, and integrity. If only everyone behaved so well in politics and the blogosphere.
Why would ANY reporter/editor run an editorial without requesting input from Mr. Clemons? Don't plane aficionados seek pilots to learn how to fly? Wouldn't a Denny's cook seek out a professional chef before opening his/her own restaurant? I smell laziness.
Speaking of...wow, what typical right-wing attack! They are GREAT at calling you "mistaken", or "plain wrong", but NEVER offer any further substance. They assume you're wrong, but don't know what's "right", and don't even attempt a correction. And they change aliases before anyone notices their absence of didactic debate.
Coffee: $2.00
Laptop: $1400
Struck nerve: priceless.
> John Bolton is a very smart guy -- a tough, pugnacious, thumb-in-them-there-foreigners-eye kind of guy.
This was a tongue-in-cheek comment I presume. In the REAL business world this feckless pretender would get ass kicked six ways to Sunday.
Without Cheney backing his sorry ass he would be toast !
Steve I'm sorry to say that you appear to have lost cutting edge. The conference where Wes Clark was the keynote was your highwater mark and its been downhill ever since.
Buck up !
"Phocion - I just did a search of your ISP and see that you have been a reader and poster for a long time, though under different identities."
Ho hum. Amazing that these jokers think that they are not being obvious in their ploys. Wouldn't happen to be your resident "native American Democrat", would it, Steve???
STEVEN,
Maybe only by poisoning some of the putrid parts of the "environment" of the UN, can Bolton continue "the constructive things he does", to quote you, and achieve his "lofty" goals for a renewed Human Rights Council.
And indeed, if this clever, strong, and "pugnacious" American remains in his position long enough, he may even be the mainspring for an overall renewal of the UN, after the departure of the weak and corrupt Kofi Annan.
IN HARD TIMES ONLY THE HARD MEN/WOMEN PREVAIL
I don't know John Bolton nor do I have any insight into the way the UN negotiates its reforms. I have been reading Mr. Clemons' blog for some time because he has demonstrated a kind of willed faith in governance that I find nowhere else. Furthermore, he is invariably polite and that is certainly something all of us might try to emulate.
To speak to what I take to be the points of this post on Mr. Bolton and the attempts to reform the Human Rights council: I don't believe that the focus of interest for the US is human rights. The US, well-represented by Mr. Bolton here, is determined to use the UN as a sort of morals-laundering operation. The intended audience for Mr. Bolton's performance is not the UN membership but rather, as Mr. Clemons makes clear in this post, the American media and its consumers.
The measure of Mr. Bolton's success is that there is much editorial tut-tutting about the UN's failure to reform the Human Rights council to our standard even as more and more information is pryed out of the Pentagon and the administration about our own treatment of detainees. No doubt this is precisely one of the short-term goals the administration wished to achieve.
The larger goal seems to me to be to keep the US unconstrained by any global body or agreement.
Always remember Steve there are alot of us who cant thank you enough for your still carefully keeping an eye on Bolton. Hopefully any of the determined to be hostile commentators go away,your blog is like a breath of fresh air and highly informative. Watching you on Cspan and having my first choice for Prez Wes Clark be your keynote speaker was fantastic.
I agree with Bolton that some nations simply should be ineligible for seats on the HRC. If the Sudan is on the commission, who is going to take it seriously?
I DON'T think the US has to be on it all the time. There are plenty of nations whose records qualify them to sit on it. I also don't think the US has to take Kofi Annan's call every time he wants the US to run halfway around the world to fix some situation that only the US would be asked to fix.
Reader Comments (16) - post a comment