Home arrow Archives arrow Round the World arrow Round the World 2007 arrow United Nations Reform:Birth of New Human Rights Council,by Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra,18 April 2006
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
United Nations Reform:Birth of New Human Rights Council,by Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra,18 April 2006 Print E-mail

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)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT