U.N.

By Doug Bandow
Published 4/24/2008 12:07:54 AM

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, comes close to counting as a founding document.
In the Declaration, the Assembly affirmed that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The body also warned that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind."

By and large, the Declaration offers a positive vision for humanity. It has been supplemented by subsequent agreements, declarations, and exhortations over the years. These honeyed words suggest that the United Nations is devoted to promoting human rights.
However, it is difficult for people familiar with the workings of the UN to review these words without laughing, or crying. They promise so much. Yet the institution behind them has failed so badly.

For years the UN's primary vehicle for advancing human rights was the Commission on Human Rights, which was established by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To say that the Commission was never an effective advocate for human rights is an understatement.
In fact, over the years the Commission's members included Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, human rights violators all. Libya was chosen Commission chairman in 2003.
Before the Commission's merciful death, less than half of the members were judged "free" by Freedom House.

THE COMMISSION WAS widely viewed as ineffective at best; an enabler of human rights violators at worst. Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation charged that the body "devolved into a feckless organization, which human rights abusers used to block criticism, and a forum for attacks on Israel."

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, complained: "The reason highly abusive governments flock to the Commission is to prevent condemnation of themselves and their kind, and most of the time they succeed."

Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted that the panel had a "credibility deficit" and was casting "a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole" -- not an easy task, given the UN's shady reputation.

So diplomats devoted much effort into turning the Commission into the Human Rights Council in 2006. The Council was launched with great fanfare and expressions of hope for the future.

America's UN ambassador, John Bolton, warned at the time: "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."

His words have proven only too correct.

THE COUNCIL'S MEMBERSHIP has shifted, but not for the better. The most seats, 13 each, go to Africa and Asia, the areas of the world with the largest number of dictatorships and human rights violators. The U.S., Europeans, and other industrialized states actually have fewer seats.

The Council now includes numerous human rights violators as members: Angola, Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Madagascar, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Almost half of the members are undemocratic.

In the Council's first year of operation, the group UN Watch figured that just 13 of the 47 members had positive voting scores. Several democracies, most notably India, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, and South Africa, voted more like dictatorships.

During its short life the Council has taken several steps to prevent action against genuine human rights violators. Every UN state is supposed to face a periodic review of its human rights record. Yet no reviews were conducted in 2006, allowing the one-year members to escape oversight.

GOING FORWARD, the Council intends to hold 48 reviews a year, which will last all of three hours. The Council scheduled Israel to be among the first nations reviewed while waiting on many of the world's worst human rights abusers.

Human rights experts are barred from participating in these reviews. Governments are to be "fully involved in the outcome" and the review is to take into account "the level of development and specificities of countries," providing ample excuses for even the worst abuses.

The Council has focused on Israel -- the latest denunciation was delivered at an emergency meeting in late January -- eliminated the Special Rapporteurs for Belarus and Cuba, reduced the independence of the experts employed in reviewing countries, and created a new Code of Conduct to help shield miscreant states.

The Code emphasizes "restraint, moderation, and discretion" in discussing states that kill and jail their citizens.

At the behest of Muslim governments, led by Pakistan, the Council adopted a resolution denouncing the "defamation" of religion. This measure did not include any defense of freedom of religious belief and practice. Rather, the resolution, later approved by the General Assembly, sought to protect religion, namely Islam, from criticism, overriding free speech rights.

Finally, the Council has turned political correctness into an overarching, absurdist theme. For instance, at the 2001 UN Durban Racism Conference, Israel was singled out as a racist state -- a logical outgrowth of the old UN resolution equating Zionism with racism.
The Durban spectacle continues, with planning for the UN Durban Racism Review Conference, scheduled for next year.

EVEN WHEN THE Council attempts to advance human rights, it does so only grudgingly. In October Vitit Muntarghorn, the Special Rapporteur on North Korea, painted an ugly picture -- "the human rights situation in the DPRK remains grave in a number of key areas," he explained.

Still, he made an extra effort to find good news on which to report. And the North remained unapologetic.

It is no wonder, then, that Robert Hagen, a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN, told the General Assembly in November, "Some appear more determined to use the Council to defend abusive governments than to protect the victims of human rights violations."

Equally appalling is the UN's willingness to routinely reward human rights abusers with leadership positions. Start with the Security Council -- China and Russia are permanent members, while a multitude of bad actors, like Libya, elected last year, have filled the rotating spots.

But this is merely a start. As Anne Bayefsky pointed out, last May "Zimbabwe was elected to chair the UN Commission on Sustainable Development."

As if any explanation was needed, she continued, "The government of Robert Mugabe vies for the title of the worst example of unsustainable development in modern times, having raped and pillaged the vast human and natural resources of the country for decades."
DESPITE ITS SOARING rhetoric, the UN does little to improve human rights around the world. Those who are more interested in improving human rights than in posturing should look for new approaches.

One possibility would be to more directly engage democratic members of the Human Rights Council, like India, Indonesia, and South Africa, which now often side with the oppressors. Another strategy would be to refuse to fund the Council.

Improved cooperation among democratic states in pressing human rights initiatives also would be a valuable step. Allied states could challenge the membership qualifications of serial human rights abusers in the UN itself. And Western states could create an entirely new organization, either as a substitute or supplement to the UN.

The failure of the UN to live up to its original billing is particularly tragic for those around the world who are oppressed by their governments. Some fairly nasty regimes now sit as full members of the UN and hold leadership positions there that enable them to thwart international condemnation.

Citizens in free and democratic states have an obligation to respond.

Bad treaties never die. Such is the lesson of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. The treaty would turn over all of the world's unclaimed natural resources to a second United Nations, yet is beginning to move towards ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on the treaty on Wednesday.

Three decades ago the Third World was busy campaigning for a so-called New International Economic Order (NIEO), which combined demands for more foreign aid, UN regulation of business, and collectivist resource development. LOST declared all seabed resources to be the "common heritage of mankind," levied fees and royalties on Western mining and oil companies, created a monopoly company to mine the seabed, and established a new international body to divvy up the spoils.

President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the LOST in 1982, after which no major nation bound itself to the treaty. The agreement seemingly sank beneath the waves.

But President George H.W. Bush decided to revive the LOST, reopening negotiations, which were concluded by the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright won a few small concessions and proclaimed victory. The U.S. signed, setting off an international stampede.

Although opposition in the Republican Senate prevented ratification, more than enough other countries assented, bringing LOST into effect. Now the LOST is before the Senate, backed by the Bush administration.

The president claims that the accord serves American interests. But even the State Department has acknowledged that the new "Agreement retains the institutional outlines of Part XI," that is, the treaty's original collectivist framework.

In broad sweep, LOST covers three subject areas. The first includes exclusive economic zones, fishing, marine research, ocean pollution, and oil exploration. These provisions, though generally noncontroversial, are not without adverse effect: for instance, energy companies will owe the International Seabed Authority royalties up to 12 percent on any oil produced from the Outer Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. This may be the first global tax imposed on Americans without congressional approval.

Moreover, advocates of a new kind of New International Economic Order hope to use the LOST for their own ends. William C.G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies calls LOST "a promising instrument through which such [legal] action might be taken, given its broad definition of pollution to the marine environment and the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its provision." A flood of international lawsuits under LOST could undermine U.S. prosperity and sovereignty.

Russia's well-publicized submarine voyage under the North Pole has led to suggestions that America cannot dispute Moscow's territorial claims outside of the treaty. However, the treaty respects the rights of nonmembers, while other interested parties, most notably Canada and Denmark, can resist Russia's claims within LOST. Moreover, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf rejected Russian arctic territorial claims in 2002 based in part on information supplied by the U.S., demonstrating that Washington need not be a member to protect American interests.

Similarly, LOST's affirmation of navigational freedom has won widespread support, including from the U.S. Navy. Yet most of the transit provisions incorporate existing customary international law. Moreover, there are ambiguities and uncertainties -- whether, for instance, Washington can define which of its military transit activities are exempt from LOST restrictions.

The Bush administration proposes various "understandings" restricting the treaty's reach. But other nations have issued their own reservations, thereby limiting American rights. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or alternative arbitration forums would uphold America's positions. Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason Law School points out that any administration would "find it very awkward (to say the least) to reject the interpretations that emerge from international arbitration of its disputed points."

In any case, paper guarantees would be of little aid in any crisis. Agreements with countries that control critical waterways, backed by a strong navy, offer the best protection of U.S. rights.

The most contentious issue is seabed mining. LOST establishes the International Seabed Authority, which is governed by a Council, Assembly, and various committees and commissions, and the Enterprise, to mine the seabed. Western mining operations will fund both their regulator, the Authority, and their competitor, the Enterprise. Monies collected will be handed out to Third World states, "liberation" movements, and whoever else the majority decides to shower with benefits.

Treaty supporters admit that the original accord, which limited production and mandated technology transfers, was flawed. But they claim that the LOST has been "fixed."

The Clinton administration did make a horrible treaty slightly less horrid. The governing philosophy, regulatory structure, and most of the rules remain the same, however. Where explicit redistributionist provisions, such as requiring technology transfer, were dropped, other, more ambiguous, language was left in place which could have the same effect.

Finally, LOST still enshrines the basic principles of the NIEO as international precedent. Maybe ocean mining will never be viable, so turning vast resources over to yet another inefficient, politicized, and corrupt international organization won't matter. But such a byzantine regulatory structure is likely to discourage entrepreneurship in related fields, especially the development of technology, software, and other products with multiple ocean uses. Further, applying such a principle to other unowned resources, such as outer space, would discourage private innovation in that field.

In fact, treaty proponents emphasize the treaty's precedential value. At the tenth anniversary celebration of the establishment of the ISA, Tanzanian Ambassador Joseph Warioba declared: "Above all the principle and concept of the common heritage of mankind has been firmly established. The provisions of Part XI of the Convention have been diluted and weakened by later action but there is no denying the fact that the Convention put a stop to the colonization of the seabed beyond areas of national jurisdiction and established global management and administration under the Authority." Just imagine where this precedent could be applied.

The LOST is not without benefits, but most can be enjoyed without ratifying the treaty. Unfortunately, the costs of joining are too high. We should have learned by now that dirigiste economics will always fail. Enshrining collectivism as international law through creation of a mini-me United Nations would be as foolish as it would be costly.

Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at American Conservative Defense Alliance. The author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press), he served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and deputy representative to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This article is adapted from a forthcoming study for the Institute for Policy Innovation.