I have said before on this blog, probably more than once, that the UN Human Rights Council is a joke. Nonetheless, I think it the right move for the US to seek a seat on that body, as it now will do:
The Obama administration and rights advocates concede that the Human Rights Council has failed to emerge as a powerful champion of human rights, saying it has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.
Last week, the rights council adopted a resolution sponsored by Pakistan and other Islamic states that condemns the "defamation of religion" as a violation of human rights, arguing that abuses against Muslims have mounted in the years following the 911 terror attacks. But European states criticized the Islamic resolution, saying it posed a threat to the right of free speech. However, the decision to seek a seat on the council is in keeping with what President Obama has called a "new era of engagement" with other nations to advance U.S. security interests and meet the global challenges of the 21st century.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said: "Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the council to be balanced and credible." She said the United States seeks election to the body "because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights."
Critics who say that US participation gives legitimacy to a body that should be treated as having none close their eyes to the fact that in politics it is sometimes impossible not to share memberhip of public and representative bodies of one kind and another with others who (and whose viewpoints) are uncongenial to you. The key question in such cases is whether participation or non-participation is tactically the most effective option. Participation does not confer legitimacy on policies you oppose, if you - precisely - oppose them, and oppose them vigorously, and if you have a chance of making more of a difference by doing this than you would by non-participation. It is not the same as campaigning alongside racist, anti-democratic, anti-human-rights, etc, organizations in umbrella movements where, for the sake of that cooperation, you silence or moderate criticism of them, and deny that they really have the reactionary characteristics that they do. (Via.)