United Nations
Related Material
Questions and Answers on the U.N. Human Rights Commission
March 2002
May 14, 2001

Question and Answers on the United States and the United Nations

On May 3, 2001, the United States failed to win re-election to its seat on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What does it mean for the U.S., the U.N., and the world? Joanna Weschler, U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch, responds to questions from our Web site users.
Why was the U.S. voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission?
    In addition to the usual targets of U.S. criticism, the U.S. has alienated many of its traditional allies. The United Nations Economic and Social Council, a body composed of 54 member states, elects members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), for a set number of seats for each of the five regional groups (African, Asian, Latin American, East European and Western and Others). The U.S. is part of the last one, along with all west European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Israel. This year there were four candidates for three regional slots.
    All 54 members of ECOSOC vote, but the competition is within each group, thus the U.S. was competing against Austria, France and Sweden, all of which received more votes.
    Governments have been resenting the U.S. in part because the U.S. has been vocal on particularly abusive country situations, but also increasingly because the U.S. has been on the wrong side of important human rights issues such as the International Criminal Court, and the treaty to ban landmines. Most of the U.S.'s traditional allies have been on the other side of these issues.


What are the positions on issues that the U.S. has taken in the past which have been perceived as having put them on the wrong side of human rights?
    Most recently U.S. tried to block the drafting process to create a Convention on Disappearances.
    During the last session of the CHR, the U.S. was also completely alone against all others with respect to resolutions on the availability of drugs to AIDS victims and the right to food, where it abstained on the former and voted no on the latter. These were very symbolic actions and many actors in Geneva were astonished and upset.


What is the significance of this move? What will the consequences be?
    The move has important symbolic significance. The U.S. has been on the Commission continuously since its inception in 1947.
    In practice however, it really is not as significant. The U.S. can do everything except vote. The U.S. can participate in Commission meetings, it just has a shorter speaking time and must speak in a different order.
    While it is not on the Commission, the U.S. can not sponsor resolutions alone, but it can still initiate resolutions if it finds a co-sponsor. The U.S. can and should be as active as ever.


When and how can the U.S. get back on the Commission?
    Next year the U.S. should be a candidate and should lobby vigorously to be assured the vote.


What actions toward the U.N. might the congress take? Should the U.S. withhold dues from the U.N. because it is not on the Human Rights Commission? What could the consequences be?
    On May 10, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to not pay the dues it owes the U.N. until the U.S. is restored to the Commission. At this time, the U.S. Senate is still drafting its own version of the legislation. Needless to say, if the U.S. decides not to pay its arrears this will further alienate the U.S. from the U.N. members. See HRW's letter to Representatives Hyde and Lantos and statement to the press.


What credibility will the human rights commission have when its members now include countries whose records of human rights abuses are atrocious?
    The Commission is indeed losing credibility and weakening its effectiveness by adding members with bad human rights records. Our position is that countries with bad human rights records should not be on the commission. They are there to protect themselves. See HRW Executive Director Ken Roth's Op-ed on the subject Despots Pretending to Spot and Shame Despots.


What good did the U.S. ever do on the Commission anyway?
    Recently the U.S. has been the most inclined to be principled on individual country issues. They are much stronger and much more forthcoming than other many Commission members. European countries that promote specific country issues tend to negotiate WITH the actual countries in question in order to achieve consensus. This results in weak resolutions.
    Historically, United States was a leading force when it came to establishing the Commission itself. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the key authors of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's ironic that U.S. is so opposed now to creating and joining new legal instruments.


What can we do to help the U.S. earn and deserve its place back on the commission?
    The U.S. should not turn its back on U.N.. It should be more engaged and more focused. Where it has been principled, it should continue to do so.
    Part of the reason the EU countries did not want to accommodate U.S. is because of the U.S. human rights record, particularly with regards to the death penalty. U.S. is the only country in its regional group that uses the death penalty. Europeans are very concerned about the death penalty. The U.S. should work on its own human rights record and listen to criticisms coming from other countries. This makes it gives it a better position when it works on its return to the commission.


Does the removal of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Commission indicate that America will be held accountable for its own human rights abuses both domestic and international?
    The U.S. was held accountable with respect to not being voted back on the Commission. It is a sign that people are watching the U.S. very closely.




BACK: Human Rights Watch and the United Nations