【大纪元3月17日讯】－美国常驻联合国代表约翰‧R. 博尔顿 (John R. Bolton)
英文原文在下面
2006年3月15日
谢谢，主席先生：
联合国自1945年创建以来最有力的工作内容之一就是意义深远地介入人权事务。美国驻第一届联合国人权委员会（UN Commission on Human Rights）的代表埃利诺‧罗斯福（Eleanor Roosevelt）也是起草《世界人权宣言》（Universal Declaration on Human Rights）的驱动者之一。美国一直站在促进我们自己的国家和全世界的人权与民主的前线。
创建联合国的原则是各国应该相互合作以减轻人类的苦难。在即将来临的若干年，我们将要判断我们所建立的联合国人权机器是否有效并强大。我们必须判定这个新的联合国人权理事会（UN Human Rights Council）能否成为一个得到世界尊重和严肃对待的机构－那个旧的联合国人权委员会已经不再具有这样的地位。
联合国秘书长科菲‧安南（Kofi Annan）作出了雄心勃勃又适度可行的改革联合国人权委员会的努力。我们都承认联合国人权委员会需要改变。秘书长组织了有关的讨论，他指出“联合国人权委员会履行职责的能力日益被它衰减的信任度和专业标准所损害”，而“这一状况对整个联合国体制投下了阴影”。
如同美国和其它一些联合国成员国所作的那样，为了在这方面帮助各成员国前进，秘书长提出了一些改进联合国人权委员会的建议。我们赞赏联合国大会（UN General Assembly）主席简‧埃利亚松 （Jan Eliasson）、库马罗（Kumalo）大使和阿瑞尔斯（Arias）大使建立一个有效的联合国人权机构的努力。在他们的领导下，这个决议实现了一些改革目标，决议的一些条款对现行的联合国人权委员会作出了某些改善。但是，决议中仍然有太多的问题未能充分改进。
焦点在于新的联合国人权理事会的成员资格－美国极其注重这一点。秘书长将此视为旧的联合国人权委员会的基本问题，他指出：“一些寻求联合国人权委员会成员身份的国家不是在增强人权而是在保护自己不受批评或是去指责别人”。我们十分赞同秘书长的这一看法，并且我们特别关注的也一直是联合国人权机构成员身份的信任度。
秘书长还建议用一个强有力的手段去改进这一点－新的联合国人权理事会选举成员须经联合国全体成员国三分之二多数通过。这个建议没有包含在今天的决议中。但是它应该包含在其中。联合国人权理事会成员身份的更高门槛能够使那些不能可证实地履行人权承诺的国家获取席位更为困难。这一高门槛有助于防止选出那种只是想从内部损害新的联合国人权机构的国家。
美国还提出把粗暴践踏人权的国家排除在联合国人权理事会之外的标准。这一建议可以根据《联合国宪章》第七章有关践踏人权或从事恐怖主义的条款有效地排除相关国家。美国还表达了一个意愿：愿意考虑用一种替代方案去满足建立一种强有力的人权机制的需要，以便将恶劣的侵犯人权的国家排除在联合国人权理事会之外。
不幸的是，这些建议没有包含在决议中。我们面前的这个决议仅仅要求联合国成员国在投票时“考量” 联合国人权理事会候选国的人权记录。而且提交给联合国大会的这一条款搁置了联合国人权理事会成员国须经联合国全体成员国三分之二多数投票通过，这个标准高于现行的选举标准。
美国关于需要一种有力的可信任的联合国人权理事会成员身份的立场是一项原则，并且我们知道今天这里还有一些国家持有与我们相同的看法。我们赞赏同意我们的如下主张的那些联合国成员国：新的联合国人权理事会不应该存在有客观证据证明系统地粗暴地侵犯人权的国家的位置，也不应该有联合国对其侵犯人权实行制裁的国家的位置。一些联合国成员国就此签署了一个信件并计划发表声明。尽管这些承诺不能完全改变我们对决议草案的立场，它们仍然代表了许多在保障人权方面真心实意的国家的一种值得欢迎和恰当的努力。
我们有一个历史性的机会在联合国内建立一个基本的人权机构以便适应大量的人权需要并对有关政府实施《联合国宪章》所说的“基本自由”提供帮助。联合国人权理事会将成为我们的遗产。我们不应该让全世界践踏人权的受害者认为联合国成员国将“到此为止”。我们不应该让历史记住我们这些联合国人权理事会的设计师是“妥协者”，仅仅是“能作才作”而不是为了促进人权“尽力而作”。
主席先生，由于决议缺乏保证可信任的联合国人权理事会成员身份的更有力的机制，美国不能够认同这个决议。我们对这个决议能够使新的联合国人权理事会比旧的联合国人权委员会更好没有足够的信心。
如同我们以前所言，美国愿意与其它联合国成员国合作以便使联合国人权理事会尽可能有力并有效。我们愿意支持加强联合国人权理事会的努力并期待对联合国人权理事会的结构和工作进行认真的评估。我们仍然承诺支持联合国促进和捍卫全世界所有公民的基本人权的历史使命。真正的测验将是联合国人权理事会成员身份的质量和联合国人权理事会能否采取有效的行动去处理诸如苏丹（Sudan）、古巴（Cuba）、伊朗（Iran）、津巴布韦（Zimbabwe）、白俄罗斯（Belarus）和缅甸（Burma）严重践踏人权的案例。
在我们对即将到来的联合国体制的改革努力作出承诺的同时，我们承诺一如即往地把支持推动民主和人权的一切联合国机构作为高度优先的事项。
（译文完）
（译者方觉是在美国的中国政治活动人士）
英文原文在下面
Explanation of Vote on the Human Rights Council Draft Resolution
Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Statement in the General Assembly
New York City
March 15, 2006
Thank you, Mr. President,
Since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, the United States has been one of the strongest proponents for its meaningful engagement on human rights issues. Eleanor Roosevelt, the U.S. delegate to the first UN Commission on Human Rights, was one of the driving forces in the drafting of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The United States has been on the forefront of human rights and democracy promotion — both in our own nation and around the world.
The United Nations was founded on the principle that nations must cooperate with one another to help alleviate human suffering. In coming years, we will be judged on whether we created UN human rights machinery that was effective and strong. We must determine whether the UN Human Rights Council will be a body that the world will respect and take seriously – a status no longer characteristic of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan established ambitious but appropriate goals for the effort to reform the Commission on Human Rights. Though all of us recognized that the Commission on Human Rights needed changing, it was the Secretary General who framed the discussion by saying that “the Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism,” which “casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”
To help the Member States move forward, he made a number of proposals to improve the body, as did the United States and other Member States. We appreciate UNGA President Jan Eliasson’s efforts to create an effective human rights body, as well as the efforts of Ambassador Kumalo and Ambassador Arias. Through their leadership, some of these goals were achieved with this text, and there are provisions that make improvements over the existing Commission on Human Rights. But on too many issues the current text is not sufficiently improved.
In focusing on the membership of the body, the United States was in excellent company. The Secretary-General had targeted this as the fundamental problem with the Commission, noting, “states have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.” We strongly agreed with the Secretary-General, and our preeminent concern was always about the credibility of the body’s membership.
The Secretary-General also proposed a strong tool to fix this – he proposed that the Council elect its members by a two-thirds majority. This proposal is not included in the resolution before us today, and it should be. The higher hurdle for membership would have made it harder for countries that are not demonstrably committed to human rights to win seats on the Council. It would have helped to prevent the election of countries that only seek to undermine the new body from within.
The United States also proposed an exclusionary criteria to keep gross abusers of human rights off the Council. This proposal would have excluded Member States against which measures are in effect under Chapter VII of the UN Charter related to human rights abuses or acts of terrorism. We also expressed a willingness to consider alternatives to satisfy the need for a strong mechanism to exclude the worst human rights violators.
Sadly, these suggestions were not included in the new text. The resolution before us merely requires Member States to “take into account” a candidate’s human rights record when voting. And the provision for the General Assembly to suspend an elected member of the Council requires a two-thirds vote, a standard higher than that for electing members.
Our position on the need for a strong, credible membership is one of principle, and one we know that others here today share. We extend our appreciation to those Member States that agreed with our assertion that there should be no place on the new Council for countries where there is objective evidence of systematic and gross violations of human rights, or where United Nations sanctions have been applied for human rights violations. Some Member States have signed letters and plan to make statements to this effect. Although these commitments could not ultimately change our position on this draft resolution, they represent a welcome and appropriate effort on behalf of many dedicated Member States.
We had a historic opportunity to create a primary human rights organ in the UN poised to help those most in need and offer a hand to governments to build what the Charter calls “fundamental freedoms.” The Council that is created will be our legacy. We must not let the victims of human rights abuses throughout the world think that UN Member States were willing to settle for “good enough”. We must not let history remember us as the architects of a Council that was a “compromise” and merely “the best we could do” rather than one that ensured doing “all we could do” to promote human rights.
Mr. President, absent stronger mechanisms for maintaining credible membership, the United States could not join consensus on this resolution. We did not have sufficient confidence in this text to be able to say that the HRC would 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. We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the Council’s structure and work. We remain committed to support the UN’s historic mission to promote and protect the basic human rights of all the world’s citizens. The real test will be the quality of membership that emerges on this Council and whether it takes effective action to address serious human rights abuse cases like Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Burma.
As always, our commitment to support all UN institutions that advance democracy and human rights remains a high priority, as does our commitment to ongoing reform efforts throughout the UN system.
Released on March 15, 2006
[U.S. Department of State]
[FirstGov]
[U.S. Department of State](http://www.dajiyuan.com)
