I argued ten days ago, contra Ivo and with Steve Clemons, that we should not oppose the compromise proposal for a new Human Rights Council on the grounds a) that this was a case of the best (the Secretary General's original proposal for a new Human Rights Council that would have required a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly for membership) being the enemy of the good (the current proposal requires only a majority vote); and b) that in light of John Bolton's failure to make it clear to General Assembly President Jan Eliasson that the 2/3 requirement was a dealbreaker, opposing the compromise now would look like either pure political grandstanding for domestic purposes or an effort to sabotage any serious UN reform, or both. Yesterday morning the U.S. once again managed to isolate itself diplomatically, standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau in voting against the new Council, with 170 other nations, including all of our closest allies, voting for. And this when the Administration claims to be once again placing a priority on diplomacy.

If the story ended there, it would be a disaster. In fact, however . . .

Read more »