The U.S. record on human rights is far from perfect – but it is no Sudan. In fact, the atrocities we’re witnessing in Sudan are without rival in the world today, something we haven’t seen anywhere since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

That’s why it was ridiculous that Sudan was able to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. And that’s why, despite the United States’ loss of the moral high ground in recent years, U.N. ambassador John Bolton was right to criticize the creation of a new human rights body yesterday.

As one of four ambassadors to cast a vote against the new Human Rights Council, Bolton argued that the body likely won’t be a significant improvement over its predecessor, and the evidence bears him out. At the very least, the new body should have avoided the hypocrisy inherent in the Human Rights Commission by forbidding human rights abusers from becoming members — but no such prohibition is in place. Sudan, Burma, China and Cuba are free to serve on the Council, as if they have any right to tell other countries how they should treat their citizens. Of course, some would argue that the United States does not have that right either, but its “abuses” aren’t nearly as bad as what we see in those other countries.

Yet we can’t forget that 170 nations had enough faith in the new human rights body to support it. If Bolton is to oppose the Human Rights Council, the onus is on him to prove why it does not go far enough — to document continued abuse by the supposed defenders of human rights. If necessary, Bolton must back up his “No” vote by pressing for further reform in the United Nations.

Only when the United Nations stops overlooking blatant double standards will its words carry any weight. By voting against the Human Rights Council, Bolton and the United States now have the responsibility to make sure that U.N. hypocrisy comes to an end.