Meditations - From Martin LeFevre in California The New Human Rights Council
One hopes that the creation of the new Human Rights Council by the United Nations will reverse the global backsliding on
human rights in recent years. But for many reasons, that’s not likely. The Human Rights Council is a band-aid that
doesn’t even begin to cover the gaping wounds.
Forming a coalition of the trilling, the United States led Palau and the Marshall Islands in voting against the new
council. Besides these Lilliputian states, the ‘sole remaining superpower’ was joined in opposing the new council by
Israel, a nation that has decades of experience violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
In a stunning display of both hypocrisy and duplicity, US Ambassador John Bolton said, "We did not have sufficient
confidence in this text to be able to say that the Human Rights Council will be better than its predecessor. That said,
the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the council as strong and effective as it can
be.”
Proving once again that the US “war on terror” is actually a war on human feeling and reason, the United States, which
should itself be denied a seat on the Human Rights Council, claimed to be standing up for more stringent standards.
As Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies said, "No country with such a
record of torture, secret detentions, 'extraordinary renditions,' rejection of the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), denial of due process and generations of capital punishment, even for minors and the mentally
disabled -- all as a matter of official policy -- should be allowed to serve on the new Human Rights Council."
Coincidentally or not, the ‘new’ “National Security Strategy” for the United States was published the day after the
overwhelming UN vote. It upholds the ‘principle’ of preemptive war behind the invasion of Iraq, for which tens of
thousands of dead, wounded, tortured, and humiliated Iraqis mutely attest to the grossest contravention of human rights
since Saddam Hussein.
The core of Bush’s “National Security Strategy,” sounds the death knell for any hope for reform of the nation-state
system: “We are a nation at war. We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country.”
Rounding out the bitter irony, the document concludes by saying that “the United States will lead the effort to reform
existing institutions and create new ones.”
Eleanor Roosevelt is turning over in her grave. She was the driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which gave rise to the Human Rights Commission, and now, the Human Rights Council. Appalled by the atrocities of
the Holocaust, she sought to clarify, beyond the UN Charter, the rights of the individual. Nearly 60 later, the United
States and Israel voted against reforming and strengthening the body derived from this document.
(The scope of the Declaration of Human Rights can be seen in Article 25: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”)
The headline in the Sydney Morning Herald reads: “America can't block UN's new human rights body.” So another charter
member of the coalition of the willing, Australia, peels away from the US orbit. Does this mean things will now move in
a good direction, and that human rights will find real traction in international relations?
Don’t count on it. The day after UN members voted overwhelmingly to create the new Human Rights Council, White House
press secretary Scott McClellan said that “the situation in Sudan, and especially the Darfur region, remains a top
priority for this administration.” That is an evil lie if there ever was one. The suppurating wound of Darfur is not
only a betrayal of the UN Charter and Declaration of Human Rights by the Bush Administration, but a continuing stain on
the conscience of humanity.
The Declaration of Human Rights begins, “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts
which have outraged the conscience of mankind…” Does Darfur outrage the conscience of humankind? Did Rwanda or
Srebrenica?
The term ‘human rights’ stands for the protection of the individual from the power and predations of governments. Though
the Human Rights Council and the United Nations itself are necessary, they are not sufficient for redressing flagrant
violations of human rights. No matter how much they ‘reform,’ they can never provide an adequate response.
Why? Because the United Nations and the international/multilateral order are based on the concept of national
sovereignty. National sovereignty is an idea that took root in the 19th century, exploded in the 20th century, and is
completely obsolescent in the 21st century. Governments will never surrender their power and privileged status, but
violent overthrow is no longer an option.
Is there a space from which people can cooperate without viewing the world through the destructive prisms of
nationality, ethnicity, and religion? Yes, in an age of instantaneous, borderless communication, that space already
exists. The only thing preventing it from being acted on is a numbing acquiescence to the philosophy, frameworks, and
structures of the crumbling status quo.
************
- Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in
North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years. Email: martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net. The author welcomes comments.