【大紀元3月17日訊】－美國常駐聯合國代表約翰‧R. 博爾頓 (John R. Bolton)
英文原文在下面
2006年3月15日
謝謝，主席先生：
聯合國自1945年創建以來最有力的工作內容之一就是意義深遠地介入人權事務。美國駐第一屆聯合國人權委員會（UN Commission on Human Rights）的代表埃利諾‧羅斯福（Eleanor Roosevelt）也是起草《世界人權宣言》（Universal Declaration on Human Rights）的驅動者之一。美國一直站在促進我們自己的國家和全世界的人權與民主的前線。
創建聯合國的原則是各國應該相互合作以減輕人類的苦難。在即將來臨的若干年，我們將要判斷我們所建立的聯合國人權機器是否有效並強大。我們必須判定這個新的聯合國人權理事會（UN Human Rights Council）能否成為一個得到世界尊重和嚴肅對待的機構－那個舊的聯合國人權委員會已經不再具有這樣的地位。
聯合國秘書長科菲‧安南（Kofi Annan）作出了雄心勃勃又適度可行的改革聯合國人權委員會的努力。我們都承認聯合國人權委員會需要改變。秘書長組織了有關的討論，他指出「聯合國人權委員會履行職責的能力日益被它衰減的信任度和專業標準所損害」，而「這一狀況對整個聯合國體制投下了陰影」。
如同美國和其它一些聯合國成員國所作的那樣，為了在這方面幫助各成員國前進，秘書長提出了一些改進聯合國人權委員會的建議。我們讚賞聯合國大會（UN General Assembly）主席簡‧埃利亞松 （Jan Eliasson）、庫馬羅（Kumalo）大使和阿瑞爾斯（Arias）大使建立一個有效的聯合國人權機構的努力。在他們的領導下，這個決議實現了一些改革目標，決議的一些條款對現行的聯合國人權委員會作出了某些改善。但是，決議中仍然有太多的問題未能充分改進。
焦點在於新的聯合國人權理事會的成員資格－美國極其注重這一點。秘書長將此視為舊的聯合國人權委員會的基本問題，他指出：「一些尋求聯合國人權委員會成員身份的國家不是在增強人權而是在保護自己不受批評或是去指責別人」。我們十分贊同秘書長的這一看法，並且我們特別關注的也一直是聯合國人權機構成員身份的信任度。
秘書長還建議用一個強有力的手段去改進這一點－新的聯合國人權理事會選舉成員須經聯合國全體成員國三分之二多數通過。這個建議沒有包含在今天的決議中。但是它應該包含在其中。聯合國人權理事會成員身份的更高門檻能夠使那些不能可證實地履行人權承諾的國家獲取席位更為困難。這一高門檻有助於防止選出那種只是想從內部損害新的聯合國人權機構的國家。
美國還提出把粗暴踐踏人權的國家排除在聯合國人權理事會之外的標準。這一建議可以根據《聯合國憲章》第七章有關踐踏人權或從事恐怖主義的條款有效地排除相關國家。美國還表達了一個意願：願意考慮用一種替代方案去滿足建立一種強有力的人權機制的需要，以便將惡劣的侵犯人權的國家排除在聯合國人權理事會之外。
不幸的是，這些建議沒有包含在決議中。我們面前的這個決議僅僅要求聯合國成員國在投票時「考量」 聯合國人權理事會候選國的人權記錄。而且提交給聯合國大會的這一條款擱置了聯合國人權理事會成員國須經聯合國全體成員國三分之二多數投票通過，這個標準高於現行的選舉標準。
美國關於需要一種有力的可信任的聯合國人權理事會成員身份的立場是一項原則，並且我們知道今天這裡還有一些國家持有與我們相同的看法。我們讚賞同意我們的如下主張的那些聯合國成員國：新的聯合國人權理事會不應該存在有客觀證據證明系統地粗暴地侵犯人權的國家的位置，也不應該有聯合國對其侵犯人權實行制裁的國家的位置。一些聯合國成員國就此簽署了一個信件並計劃發表聲明。儘管這些承諾不能完全改變我們對決議草案的立場，它們仍然代表了許多在保障人權方面真心實意的國家的一種值得歡迎和恰當的努力。
我們有一個歷史性的機會在聯合國內建立一個基本的人權機構以便適應大量的人權需要並對有關政府實施《聯合國憲章》所說的「基本自由」提供幫助。聯合國人權理事會將成為我們的遺產。我們不應該讓全世界踐踏人權的受害者認為聯合國成員國將「到此為止」。我們不應該讓歷史記住我們這些聯合國人權理事會的設計師是「妥協者」，僅僅是「能作才作」而不是為了促進人權「盡力而作」。
主席先生，由於決議缺乏保證可信任的聯合國人權理事會成員身份的更有力的機制，美國不能夠認同這個決議。我們對這個決議能夠使新的聯合國人權理事會比舊的聯合國人權委員會更好沒有足夠的信心。
如同我們以前所言，美國願意與其它聯合國成員國合作以便使聯合國人權理事會儘可能有力並有效。我們願意支持加強聯合國人權理事會的努力並期待對聯合國人權理事會的結構和工作進行認真的評估。我們仍然承諾支持聯合國促進和捍衛全世界所有公民的基本人權的歷史使命。真正的測驗將是聯合國人權理事會成員身份的質量和聯合國人權理事會能否採取有效的行動去處理諸如蘇丹（Sudan）、古巴（Cuba）、伊朗（Iran）、津巴布韋（Zimbabwe）、白俄羅斯（Belarus）和緬甸（Burma）嚴重踐踏人權的案例。
在我們對即將到來的聯合國體制的改革努力作出承諾的同時，我們承諾一如即往地把支持推動民主和人權的一切聯合國機構作為高度優先的事項。
（譯文完）
（譯者方覺是在美國的中國政治活動人士）
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)
