The old United Nations Human Rights Commission was widely pilloried, not just by the American far right, for irrelevance. Even the last person to head the Commission, the widely respected Canadian Louise Arbour, derided it as useless. Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the Commission for harming the image of the UN as a whole.
The Commission famously comprised some of the world's most infamous human rights abusers. Not surprisingly, the human rights abusers conspired to make sure the body didn't criticize any of them.
Widespread international derision forced the UN to scrap the Commission and replace it with a new Human Rights Council.
The Bush administration's position on the Council is what you'd expect. It wants the body to be powerful enough to sanction enemies of the US but not independent enough to criticize US abuses in the 'war on terror.' As long as global human rights' standards only apply Axis of Evil or Outposts of Tyranny countries, the Bush administration is happy.
But even those who actually care about human rights have reason disturbed by this new Council. As I pointed out earlier, the Human Rights Council is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle.
The human rights body needed to be made much smaller in order for increased efficiency. But it was reduced from 53 members to only 47.
The new Council was touted as 'reform' because now members would be forced to have their human rights records subjected to scrutiny. But how effective can that scrutiny be when its done by other human rights abusers? How does this change the fundamental problem of oppressive regimes protecting each other?
The the new Council was elected recently. While Iran's and Venezuela's candidacies were rejected, the supposedly high new standards didn't prevent several prominent countries with notorious records from being elected. Notably China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. But just as infamously, there was also Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Gabon, Cameroon, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and Guatemala weren't exactly inspiring choices either. The Bush administration, perhaps still in a hissy fit for not getting a more maleable body or perhaps not wanting to subject its abuses in the name of the 'war on terror' to any more scrutiny, did not put the US up for a seat.
The Washington Post is optimistic that the Council can still do its job despite a third of it being controlled by countries with dubious human rights records. The San Francisco Chronicle is not.
The non-governmental organization (NGO) Human Rights Watch praised the new Council as “significantly better” than the old Commission because its membership criteria were supposedly far more stringent. UN members then proceded to approve 5 of the 7 candidacies that HRW had specifically urged them to reject.
A once in a half century opportunity to bring human rights into the forefront of the international agenda, an advance badly needed in an era dominated by Islamic extremism and the 'war on terror,' was tragically wasted. The new international human rights body is virtually indistinguishable from the old one.
What needs to happen is a change in paradigm. As now, all UN bodies have comprised exclusive UN members, which is to say countries. However, the UN is seen as an international body with international legitimacy who purports to speak for the international community. The challenge a human rights body comprised of countries is that countries care fire and foremost about advancing their own perceived interests.
The mere fact that there is a United Nations is a historic break with the past. The mere fact that we speak of international law and the international community and international human rights norms is a historic break from the past. However imperfect the execution may be, getting governments to at least adopt the rhetoric of global standards is not to be underestimated.
Yet progress requires constant innovation, not complacency. As an international organization, the UN needs to move beyond simply being a talking shop for governments. The Human Rights Council should be a first step. It should be completely scrapped in its current form. It should be revamped to include human rights NGOs.
NGOs are increasingly influential in shaping global public opinion. They have far more international respect than the any government.
Amnesty International, for example, has far more global credibility on human rights than the US, Russian and British governments combined. They aren't seen as having entangling alliances or external calculations that compromise their objectivity on human rights. Human rights isn't a part of what they do; it's all they do. That's why they apply the same standards to Saudi Arabia as to North Korea while many governments choose not to. That's why they can criticize both Saddam's regime and the US occupation of Iraq. That's why they can criticize Kim Jong Il's prison camps and Guantanamo Bay's prison camps. It's that even-handedness that ensures their credibility in a way that's impossible for national governments.
(A great illustration of this was how the US government used Amnesty's data on Saddam Hussein's vileness to justify the Iraq aggression but then lambasted Amnesty when the organization criticized the Bush administration's handling of the 'war on terror.' It went from credible to anti-American depending on who it was criticizing, which meant it was credible all along.)
In addition to making it smaller, I would have the Human Rights Council's membership be made up not of countries but of NGOs. NGOs like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross (if they wanted to take part), the Committee Against Torture, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, etc. The Secretary General could provide a list of competent, relevant NGOs and UN members would vote on it. A Council comprised on NGOs would help ensure an independent, impartial analysis of human rights unclouded by external factors.
(An inferior alternative could be a small Council with 50-50 mix of countries and NGOs)
Furthermore, individuals should be allowed to raise cases before the Council. This would be less crucial if Council were made up of NGOs since NGOs tend to take up these cases anyways. But it should be part of the protocol that the Council is accessible to the people, not just the governments.
Additionally, the Council should be given the authority to impose punishments on human rights abusing regimes or groups. This would start with suspension of UN voting privileges and other perks of membership (for countries) but could extend to targeted sanctions (travel bans, freezing of assets) against the leaders of countries or the malefactors in question. The Council should also have the authority to refer cases to the International Criminal Court.
It's a long shot that such fundamental changes will ever occur. Powerful countries, like the US and Russia, don't want an independent human rights body. The smaller, abusive countries, as well as anti-UN types, don't want one with actual authority. But the status quo, even if slightly repackaged, is unacceptable. Those who don't want human rights standards degraded even further must demand real changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment