ROUND THE WORLD
New Delhi, 18 April 2006
United Nations Reform
Birth
of New Human Rights Council
By Dr. Chintamani
Mahapatra
School of International Studies, JNU
Who is violating human rights of innocent people in Nepal? Who is
responsible for mass killings in
Dafur region of Sudan?
Does the reported Abughraib and Guantanamo
incidents of torture mean that the US practices torture as a policy in
tackling law and order problems? Is the Government of India or the Indian
security forces responsible for alleged violation of human rights in Kashmir? Did the Chinese Government protect national
cohesion or violated human rights by killing pro-democracy advocates at Tiananmen Square in 1989? Are the insurgents in Iraq equally responsible for violation of human
rights as the international coalition forces led by the US?
Scholars, lawyers and Government officials around the world
continually face such questions, but fail to come to a consensus view on the issue of human rights. The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations was in charge of
debating such issues and pass resolutions. But the UN Secretary General, Kofi
Annan in a recent report on the UN Reform pointed out that the Human Rights
Commission had lost “credibility and
professionalism” and needed urgent
reform. Countries around the world, including the United States, responded positively
to the suggestion of the Secretary General.
After months of deliberations and debates, members of the UN
General Assembly voted a Resolution
bringing into life a new Human Rights Council last month. And next month in May
2006, elections will take place to select members to this new Council, which
has been scheduled to convene its first meeting in June. Many people ask what
was the urgency to create a new Council? Was it not possible
to just reform the existing Human Rights Commission?
What was so terribly wrong with the existing Commission
that a new body had to be created?
The Western bloc of nations, particularly the group led by
the US,
had lodged a series of complaints against the Human Rights Commission. First of all, the membership in the selected had
informally no accountability. Secondly, countries with worst human rights
record could found a place in the Commission
and brought disgrace to the august body. Thirdly, such countries worked against
any discussion of their human rights
record. Fourthly, China,
known for its persistent violation of human rights, never allowed a vote on its
human rights record. Fifthly, the US, which brings out an annual
report on human rights across the
globe, and plays a self-assumed role
of the protector of human rights found itself ejected from this body in 2001.
Incidentally, the same year, Libya
with questionable human rights record, was elected as the chairman of the Commission.
Irrespective of other negative factors characterize US
policies, there was no doubt that exclusion of the US
and inclusion of Libya
was an unfortunate development. It certainly angered the United States
policy makers. The Republican Party subsequently introduced a resolution
predicating US
contribution to the world body with reform of the Human Rights Commission. The development that brought concerns in the
international community was the inability of the Commission
to take any step to deal with mass
killings in Dafur region of Sudan.
Sudan’s
election to the Commission after
this failure spoke volumes about the state of affairs in the Human Rights Commission.
As the UN Secretary General proposed, the creation of new
Human Rights Council, the US
came out with its own set of proposals. It asked for the following: All the
five permanent members of the UN Security Council should be part of the Human
Rights Council; no country with negative human rights record should be part and
parcel of the Council; as per the suggestions of the Secretary General, the
size of the Council should be smaller to make proceedings and decisions
effective; and the members of the Council should be elected by the two-thirds
of the members of the UN General Assembly.
The final draft adopted by the General Assembly last month failed to satisfy the United States,
which found itself among the microscopic minority of three countries, which
voted against it. A massive majority
of 107 members of the General Assembly
approved the draft creating a new Human Rights Council. The US Ambassador to the United Nations dubbed the new Council
as “unacceptable” as it has no safeguards against preventing the election of
dictatorial and authoritarian countries with worst human rights record.
Other critics dubbed it as old wine in old bottle. The total
number of members in the new Council is going to be 47, which is just six down
from the Human Rights commission. However, one needs to point out that there
are other positive aspects of the new Council, which makes the above
observation incorrect. Unlike in the past, members to the Council will be
elected by majority votes in the General Assembly.
The elected members will have to undergo a review of their
human rights performance. A member country can be evicted from the Council by
two-thirds vote in the General assembly.
Unlike the Commission, the Council
will meet for a longer time and more number of times every year to discuss the human rights conditions around the globe.
More significantly, member countries of the Council will have to go through a
process of review of their human
rights record.
It is noteworthy that the Secretary General, nine Nobel
Laureates, and several countries have endorsed the new developments. Although
the Bush Administration has opposed it, former President Jimmy Carter and other
influential Americans have backed it. The US interestingly has not put forth
its candidature for coming election for membership in May. India is one of the candidates and so are Bangladesh, Pakistan,
and Sri Lanka.
To American dismay, countries like Iran are also seeking election to
the Human Rights Council.
It is certain that the Human Rights Council, like other UN
organs and specialized agencies, will also be affected by politics. But if it
can function in a way that would contribute towards reducing human rights
violations and protecting human rights in vulnerable countries, the purpose
behind its creation will be fulfilled.
It remains to be seen whether the Council is an improvement on the Commission.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|