Yesterday, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution to make access to clean drinking water and sanitation a human right. The vote was 122-0, with 41 abstentions. Why is this a bad thing? Check out the United States’ justification of its abstention, from the UN’s summary of the proceedings:
The representative of the United States expressed his Government’s deep commitment to finding solutions to global water challenges, noting that water and sanitation would be an important focus at the upcoming Millennium Development Goal Summit. Safe and accessible water supplies furthered the realization of certain human rights, he said, noting that his country supported the work of the Human Rights Council’s Independent Expert on human rights obligations relating to access to safe drinking water and sanitation. The United States looked forward to receiving her next report, and to a more inclusive, deliberative approach to such vital issues in Geneva than had been seen in New York.
He said his delegation had hoped to negotiate and ultimately join the consensus on a text that would uphold the process under way at the Human Rights Council. Instead, the text fell far short of enjoying unanimous support among States and might even undermine the work under way in Geneva. It described the right to water and sanitation in a way not reflected in existing international law since there was no “right to water and sanitation” in an international legal sense, as described by the resolution.
Expressing regret that the text had diverted the Assembly from the serious international efforts under way to promote greater coordination on water and sanitation issues, he said it attempted to take a short cut around the serious work of formulating, articulating and upholding universal rights. It had not been drafted in a transparent, inclusive manner, and neither the Assembly, nor the Geneva process had yet considered fully the legal implications of a declared right to water. For those reasons, the United States had called for a vote and would abstain in the voting, he said.
Or Australia’s:
Australia nevertheless had reservations about declaring new human rights in a General Assembly resolution. Indeed, when new rights were recognized, consensus was essential.
John Sammis, U.S. Minister Counselor to the Economic and Social Council, elaborates on these concerns in a letter that you can find here. He writes:
This resolution describes a right to water and sanitation in a way that is not reflective of existing international law; as there is no “right to water and sanitation” in an international legal sense as described by this resolution… It was not drafted in a transparent, inclusive manner, and the legal implications of a declared right to water have not yet been carefully and fully considered in this body or in Geneva.
Translation: It’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. Regardless, here’s the full list of abstainers for you to peruse with disdain:
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Ethiopia
Greece
Guyana
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lesotho
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Poland
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Slovakia
Sweden
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania
United States
Zambia
