Change at the UN? Will it be cosmetic only?

Just about everyone now knows the U.N. Human Rights Commission is a comfy place for dictators and Islamists to spout anti-Americanism while pulling in big bucks through corrupt "programs." So what to do about it?

The U.N. is thinking cosmetics. It's proposing a name change for the commission. That sounds just like the U. N.

Austin Bey writes:

What's in a name change?

At the United Nations, the answer is "not much" -- unless substantial structural and organizational change occurs.

Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

For years, the rancid smell of hypocrisy and shame marked the sorry trail of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, as human rights violators like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Libya used the commission as a propaganda forum.

Their big target was the United States. Old-line Stalinists and al-Qaida Theo-fascists applauded, but ultimately the spectacle of Sudan and Libya lecturing the United States and other democracies on human rights discredited the commission. Under the cover of anti-U.S. propaganda, the rogues used the commission to avoid criticism, investigation and sanction for their truly heinous rights violations.

Sudan's genocidal warfare in Darfur (which began in early 2003) sent a message even the politically correct "internationalista" crowd couldn't dismiss as "right-wing American assaults" on the United Nations....

So we get the name change proposal. But that's nothing more than a new paint job on a rotting house.

America's U. N. Ambassador John Bolton is saying substantial change is needed. Beys says:

In Bolton's view, "the opponents of reform have watered down" reform proposals and "we are now at a point where we have to decide if we are going to make significant reform or not." Reformers, Bolton said, "won't get another chance in the next two years to make the body 50 to 75 percent better."

According to Bolton, many countries "are very happy with the way decisions are currently being made. ... They don't want to be subjected to human rights scrutiny when appropriate." Bolton described a political game of lip service. Discussing rights abuses "in the abstract" is fine, just don't discuss and investigate verifiable real-world abuses.

"The HRC is the place where we can talk about human rights violations," he said. And in Bolton's view, the United States isn't exempt. " It's uncomfortable -- we face allegations ourselves. (But) if you want an effective human rights commission, you have to be able to conduct that kind of discussion (thoroughly and openly)."

Bolton wants significant change, not cosmetic swipes. An effective, responsive Human Rights Commission would be a major step toward genuine U.N. reform.

The people who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Bolton are the liberals and leftists in America who still tell us the U. N. is "our best hope."

But does anyone think most of America's liberals and leftists will demand the commission substantially change or that the U. S. withdraw its support if the commission doesn't?

Here's Bey's column.

Open post: Mudville Gazette