U.N. Vs. U.N.(ISSUES & INSIGHTS)(EDITORIALS)(Editorial)

United Nations: The world body is proposing a new U.N. "human rights council." But there's very little new about it, and the U.N. can't stop its own personnel from committing human rights abuses.

Scandal-plagued Secretary-General Kofi Annan is trying the sell the U.S. on the idea that a new council on human rights, while flawed, would be an improvement over the U.N. Human Rights Commission. "We should not let the better be the enemy of the good," Annan said this week.

Without doubt, better is needed -- since the commission has zero credibility. Some of the worst human-rights violators -- including China, Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe -- are allowed to sit on the panel, use it to propagandize against the U.S. and obstruct investigations into their own abuses.

The draft proposal for a new council, supported by the likes of Amnesty International and Jimmy Carter, is little more than a fancy name change. The "new" body could suspend members who commit gross and systematic human rights violations, and it would meet year-round instead of holding one six-week session annually, like the commission.

But how a country's human-rights abuses would be assessed is not specified, and yanking a council member for its own violations would require a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Meanwhile, only a simple majority is needed for admission to the council.

It all falls far short of what the U.S., other Western democracies and even Annan called for last week: two-thirds majority support before a country can be admitted to membership, plus clear standards for scrutinizing human rights performance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton ...