A heated discussion on a draft resolution on the United Nations Human Rights Council to replace UN Commission on Human Rights is underway in New York. UN General Assembly Chairman Jan Eliasson said the week's discussion is decisive for the fate of the Human Rights Council.

The UN decided to establish the Council as one of the main contents of the UN reform during its last year's summit. It reflects that the UN pays greater attention to human rights issue and member countries have a higher expectation on human rights protection. Although the summit didn't set a specific date, it's hoped that the Human Rights Council will be established before the start of the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights on Monday so that it will replace the commission by the end of the meeting.

After about 30 rounds of negotiations through half a year, the UN General Assembly Chairman announced the final draft resolution on February 23 hoping that the Assembly will vote for the formal establishment of the UN Human Rights Council.

However, on February 27, the US Permanent Representative to the UN John Bolton suddenly proposed a revision of the final draft, or it will vote against it. Although the US doesn't have veto right, it is still very important to have America to say yes to such an important issue. Thus, the Assembly delayed the voting and the Human Rights Council failed to be born.

Why did the US suddenly change its idea?

Analysts recalled why the US put up forward the reform of the commission: one was to think 53 member countries are too many and not efficient; the other was to think it is not right to have those who have bad human rights records as member state in the commission. In fact, to say too many is because there are too many developing countries whose views on human rights are not the same as the US. So the US can't easily impose pressures to some countries under the pretext of human rights. The US holds that if those who got human rights problems become members of the council, they will confront with the US. Thus, the US proposed to reduce the number of member countries and set higher standards for entering human rights council. However, after many rounds of negotiations, the US still didn't feel to have achieved what they want. The number has been cut to 47 from 53, but not enough. According to regions, the majority of the member states are still developing countries. The US request of two-thirds majority has been lowered to half of the majority to enter the council. The draft resolution didn't list obvious conditions for a membership, but mentioned that member country's human rights protection contribution and promise should be considered. Since the election is open to all the UN members, no country can be deprived of its right to be elected. Obviously, the US is not satisfied with this draft resolution.

Many believe the draft on human rights council has improved a lot compared with the human rights commission in terms of status, working time and methods. The current resolution has taken as many suggestions as possible. Eliasson says, "It is balanced and workable."

Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said frankly that it can't make everyone satisfied, but it is not a new bottle with old wine, but a new institution and can make human rights issue enter a new era. Therefore, most countries think there is no need to change the final resolution, but to pass it and establish the human rights council. And if one finds shortcomings during the work with new methods, then one can reform it again in five years because a review will be conducted then. If talks reopen on the final draft, other countries might put up forward some other requirements, then the talks will never come to an end. Now only the United States proposes to reopen negotiations, even the New York Times article thinks the US is in an isolated situation.

(People's Daily March 14, 2006)