Can you guess what these countries have in common?

None are known for their abundance of freedom. Authoritarianism would be a good guess.

What about cronyism and corruption?

Pitiful human rights records?

What you decide is the right answer, after yesterday, these countries are linked in a new way: they all sit on the UN's new-ish UN Human Rights Council, which, you'll remember, was created to replace the horribly discredited and hypocritical Human Rights Commission.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of smart commentary from webloggers.

Writes Heritage's Brett Schaefer,

The May 9 elections have made clear that the HRC is not fundamentally different from the Commission. Following the May 9 election, about half of the countries elected to the new Human Rights Council are considered “free” according to Freedom House. Slightly less than a fifth of the 47 new members of the Council are considered “not free”, including noted human rights abusers Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Although the representation of abusers on the Council is less than the membership of the most recent Commission, the successful election of these states again places abusers in position to hamstring the Council as they did the Commission.

Schaefer recommends that Congress think seriously about dinging UN appropriations if the Council's performance isn't up to snuff, as measured by its willingness to confront repeat human rights abusers such as, er, many of its members.

Posted by Andrew Grossman at 02:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Reuters reports some chilling news:

Iranians will hear "good news" on Tehran's nuclear programme on Tuesday night, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, and Iranian media said this would mean Iran had enriched uranium for use in fuelling atomic reactors.

This development was not entirely unexpected, what with Iran’s recent saber rattling and the toothless United Nations action on the issue:  Russia and China’s close economic ties to Iran continue to block the Security Council from taking any decisive action.

However, there are still options available to the United States. Here, we’ll quote liberally:

1. U.S. and EU-3 support for referring the Ira-nian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council. Unlike during the Iraq crisis, the West will speak with one voice.
2. Targeted Economic Sanctions. If, as is likely, Russia and China thwart a Security Council res-olution against Iran and the process does not come to an end, the EU-3 should immediately adopt a policy—at the EU level if possible or as individual states if necessary—of targeted sanc-tions against the Islamic Republic. Given the relative economic weight of Germany, France, and Britain, and given Iran’s desperate need for further European foreign and direct investment to deal with its population explosion, the potential effect of this economic stick should not be underestimated.
3. A Common Interdiction Policy. The EU-3 and the U.S. should agree to a common inter-diction policy to ensure that no prohibited nuclear material moves into or out of Iran. If necessary, they should also agree on a common blockade to enforce this policy.
4. A Joint Declaration on “Loose Nukes.” The U.S. and the EU-3 should jointly make it clear to the Iranian leadership that Iran, not just the West, has a proliferation problem. That is, any proliferation of nuclear technology in the region that is suspected to involve Iran will trig-ger the harshest countermeasures against Iran. Common diplomacy must again make it clear that the onus of “loose nukes” falls squarely on Tehran.
5. A Military Option. Barring an agreement, the U.S. reserves the right to protect its vital national interests and protect Americans and their allies, including through the use of mil-itary force if necessary. If Tehran is caught red-handed sponsoring terrorism against the U.S., any agreement on the nuclear front should not be interpreted as giving it immu-nity from U.S. military reprisals or counter-terrorist attacks.

Given the failure of the carrot, the United States and its allies must turn to the stick to deal with Ahmadinejad. Though it should attempt to go through the Security Council, the U.S. should not be limited by the near-impotent United Nations either. The consequences are too serious for that.

Posted by Andrew Grossman at 03:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)