[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3911-3912]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to decry the failure of the 
United Nations to create a human rights body that deserves U.S. 
support. I regret that the United Nations, tasked with the solemn duty 
to craft a Human Rights council that would be beyond reproach, has 
failed in its mission. It has created a council that in its essential 
components has the same failings as its predecessor, the U.N. 
Commission on Human Rights.
  The U.N. Commission on Human Rights is an embarrassment. The U.N. 
Secretary General admitted as much in March 2005 when he said that, 
``the Commission on Human Rights suffers from declininq credlibility 
and professionalism, and is in major need of reform'' and that a 
fundamental problem is that, ``States have sought membership . . . not 
to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism 
or to criticize others.''
  Just look at the current Members of the Commission on Human Rights, 
the U.N.'s primary human rights body. They include some of the world's 
worst human rights violators, such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, 
Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
  The United States and other countries quite rightly called for the 
abolition of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and its replacement 
with a new Human Rights Council. The Secretary General endorsed the 
need for a smaller body that would be less likely to include countries 
found complicit in massive and sustained human rights abuses would be 
able to serve.
  Unfortunately, true reform was not embraced by the U.N. The Council 
will have 47 members instead of 53. That's far above the 20 member 
level proposed by the United States. And members will not be selected 
primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights. In fact, 
there are no real criteria for membership. Even countries under 
Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism are 
not categorically excluded from membership on the Council.
  The protection of human rights is of fundamental value to the United 
States. The United States has become used to having a presence on the 
U.N.'s primary human rights body. The US has been a member of the 
commission every term since 1947, with one exception. That will no 
longer be the case. Due to a rotating membership on the new council, 
the United States would be ineligible for Human Rights Council 
membership every six years. So our country, which has been at the 
forefront of promoting human rights would periodically lose its seat 
but still be required to cover 22 percent of the Human Rights Council's 
costs. Mr. President, in my book this makes this new U.N. Council worse 
than the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
  President Bush noted in his remarks before the U.N. General Assembly 
in September 2005, ``When this great institution's member states choose 
notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the 
credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the 
United Nations to be respected--respected and effective, they should

[[Page 3912]]

begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.''
  Mr. President, I am proud that the United States stood firm and 
opposed the creation of this fatally flawed Human Rights Council. Our 
country understood that to affirm this new council with our vote would 
have granted it legitimacy. The United States should be consistent. We 
should decline to participate on the council and fund the council for 
the very same reason we voted against it. Our country should not 
support a U.N. Human Rights Council which permits countries found 
complicit in sustained human rights abuses to be eligible for 
membership.
  Mr. President, I am embarrassed to say that some in the State 
Department are suggesting that even though we voted against the 
creation of the council we should take a wait-and-see approach and 
support it in the interim. That makes no sense. If this council had a 
chance to work, then the U.S. should have voted for it.
  Mr. President, other nations may not like what we stand for--but they 
know where we stand. U.S. human rights policy needs to be consistent 
and clear. We need to take a different wait-and-see approach. No 
participation and no funding until the U.N. proves that member states 
will not elect human rights violators.

                          ____________________