This according to the (Melbourne) Age:
Australias selection passed relatively smoothly compared with last year, when the United States called a precedent-setting vote to elect the new chair due to its opposition to Africa's nomination of Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji.
The vote marked a break from the practice of agreeing to appointments by consensus, and underscored US opposition to Tripoli's candidacy, mostly over the 1988 bombing of a PanAm jetliner over Lockerbie in Scotland.
This year, however, countries agreed to return to the traditional method of appointment, despite fears that Africa would call a tit-for-tat vote.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360724454.htmlThe Age story is from the "Australian Associated Press"
This very different version according to the Guardian:
GENEVA (AP) - The Australian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Mike Smith, was appointed Monday as chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission for 2004.
Smith's appointment was not entirely plain sailing, however. The meeting was delayed for 2 hours after the African group demanded a vote on the next chairman.
The Africans acted because they were angry that the United States forced a vote on their nominee last year. The Africans selected Najat Al-Hajjaji, the ambassador of Libya - a country the U.S. ambassador described as having ``a horrible human rights record.'' She won the vote and served as chairman for 2003.
After long negotiations Monday, the Africans agreed to drop their demand for a vote.
The Guardian story is from the "Associated Press"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3643012,00.htmlI wonder which AAP editor made the decision that Australians prefer to hear that everyone loves them.