Human Rights: A needed UN Reform by Mary Robinson, Jimmy Carter, Oscar Arias.. New York Times / International Herald Tribune 11:51am 3rd Mar, 2006   March 5, 2006    Principles Defeat Politics at the U.N. by Jimmy Carter, Óscar Arias, Kim Dae Jung, Shirin Ebadi and Desmond Tutu. (New York Times)    In the global struggle for the advancement of human rights, the United Nations has reached a defining moment. The president of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden, has led five months of negotiations to develop a proposal to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Although the commission has accomplished many things, including the adoption of human rights standards, treaties and fact-finding mechanisms that measure the performance of governments, it has become more of a political battleground than a meaningful force for protecting victims of human rights violations, and it must be reformed.    Last year, Secretary General Kofi Annan boldly proposed that the United Nations replace the commission with a new more elevated and effective body. His visionary proposal started a very creative process through which governments have thoroughly examined and debated the features of a new body that a large majority could embrace. Mr. Eliasson has now produced a draft resolution with many positive elements that has gained the support of the vast majority of the membership of the United Nations.    Some have asserted that the proposal is just a weak compromise. We challenge this claim.    The new council creates new expectations that members will uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council, and undergo additional scrutiny through a peer review. Most significantly, a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can be suspended from the body.    The council includes a new requirement that members be approved by a majority of the General Assembly — or 96 countries — rather than simply being appointed by their regional groups. With these new procedures and the articulation for the first time of standards for membership, we believe the new body will be led by countries with a greater commitment to human rights.    Instead of having one highly politicized meeting per year, the council will meet throughout the year so that it can address urgent human rights issues in a timely way. This will create a more regularized, constructive and professional process. The politics and double standards of the existing commission will be redressed by providing for periodic review of the human rights records of all 191 members, including the most powerful.    In addition, the proposal ensures robust participation by human rights organizations and activists in the deliberations and secures the system of special rapporteurs and other fact-finding mechanisms — the best feature of the commission.    The draft before United Nations members represents a very significant and meaningful improvement over the existing commission, and to reopen negotiations would put at risk these gains and give those who would prefer a weaker system another opportunity to do mischief. This risks reintroducing very damaging proposals, like giving politically motivated member states control and oversight of the high commissioner for human rights, now an independent office and important voice for victims; new restrictions on special rapporteurs, nongovernmental organizations and news media; elimination or new high thresholds for passing country resolutions, and so forth.    Our aim must be to build a solid foundation for protecting human rights and coming to the aid of victims within the only truly global organization of governments on the planet. Mr. Eliasson has found a way forward that can bring everyone on board. Nearly 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he has finally brought us to where we can begin to put principles over politics for the betterment of all.    (Jimmy Carter, Óscar Arias, Kim Dae Jung, Shirin Ebadi and Desmond Tutu are Nobel Peace Prize laureates).    March 3, 2006    Human Rights: A needed UN Reform, by Mary Robinson. (IHT)    During my time as UN high commissioner for human rights, I saw first-hand the weaknesses of the United Nations main human rights body, the Commission on Human Rights, which governments now plan to replace with a Human Rights Council.    The commission has a proud history. Under its first chairperson, Eleanor Roosevelt, it gave the world the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and went on to develop the body of international human rights law we have today. It was therefore deeply frustrating to see its work increasingly undermined by block voting and procedural maneuvers that prevented some of the world"s worst human rights violators from being held to account for their abuses.    I agreed with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he proposed a body that would ensure higher standards of membership and accountability, and I shared his disappointment - and that of human rights organizations around the world - when, last September, governments did not take forward an initial proposal for creating the new council. The failure of that first initiative was due in part to demands for sweeping changes to the text that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton put forward at the last minute.    More than five months later, a new proposal has been negotiated - weaker than the original one, but with significant improvements on the current commission - and yet again the opportunity to implement it is hanging in the balance.    Some suggest that a stronger, new institution could be created by further negotiation, and that nongovernmental organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the secretary general himself, have acted feebly by declaring their support for the proposal as it stands. It is far more likely, however, that Annan and General Assembly President Jan Eliasson are simply being realistic and that this is why most diplomatic observers agree that the proposal should be approved now as it stands. More talk will almost certainly produce a weaker council.    While the new proposal is not all that human rights advocates hoped for, it is a clear improvement on the commission and has many positive aspects that can be welcomed. For example, members would be elected directly and individually by secret ballot - irrespective of regional slates. To be elected, candidates must win an absolute majority - that is at least 96 positive votes in the General Assembly - and abstentions would count as negative votes. In practice this could be a higher standard than the two-thirds majority initially proposed.    Those elected would be expected to respect the council"s rules and their performance would be reviewed during their term of service. No state would sit for more than two three-year terms without a break, and members found guilty of poor human rights performance could be suspended. Moreover, the council would meet more often and for more weeks in the year, and would be able to call additional meetings in order to address human rights crises. The special role accorded by the commission to nongovernmental organizations and experts has been retained, preserving some of the checks and balances that help hold states properly accountable for their human rights conduct.    It is essential to understand that the vote to create the new council is just the beginning. UN officials, diplomats and human rights NGOs realize that the first year of the new body would be vital. During this time, the council would determine its agenda and working practices, review the mandates of experts and establish arrangements for a new periodic review mechanism that would be introduced. Establishing the council is only half the story: We should also be asking what governments would do after the vote to make the new body effective.    It is more than an unfortunate coincidence that many of the countries that were able to secure membership on the commission in an effort to shield themselves from scrutiny would favor the detailed review of the council proposal that Bolton now seeks. Equally troubling, the United States is no longer perceived to be the standard bearer on human rights. Its authority on such matters is much weaker due in part to post-9/11 policies.    If the United States presses for further negotiation, the U.S. media and Americans should ask themselves what sort of Human Rights Council they want and whether they prefer to stand beside the U.S. administration and countries like Cuba and Sudan as they search for it, or with human rights organizations and the majority of UN member states, including those in the European Union, calling for the current resolution to be adopted without further delay.    (Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is president of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative.)    2/3/2006    European Union backs New UN Human Rights Council. (EU Observer)    The European Union has backed a plan to strengthen the UN"s work on human rights through the launch of a Human Rights Council - but Britain has warned the new body risks isolating the Americans.    The EU"s support for a UN Human Rights Council became known on Wednesday (1 March). Unlike the current UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the new Council would be required to review on a periodic basis the human rights records of all countries, beginning with its members.    The Americans are opposed to the idea of replacing the existing commission in Geneva with a new council. EU consent with the council was only achieved after British reluctance to isolate the Americans had been overcome. Britain"s UN ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, told Reuters that Europeans, while supporting the draft, also recognised "that adopting that text without United States support isn"t good for human rights and it"s not particularly good for the council." The existing Geneva Commission has been criticised for allowing some of the worst human rights abusers to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.    UN welcomes EU support    President of the UN General Assembly Jan Eliasson said the EU"s backing was "very good news." "I"m very grateful for this support, and I hope we will move closer to taking a decision on this important matter," he said according to the Washington Post. Mr Eliasson, a Swedish diplomat heading the UN general assembly since September 2005, is still consulting with member states over the blueprint to set up the Human Rights Council. He told reporters that he hoped to see it agreed upon "as soon as possible" and preferably before the Commission is due to open its annual session on 13 March.    The proposal would reduce membership from 53 members to 47 and distribute seats among regions: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean and 7 for a bloc of mainly Western countries, including the United States and Canada. Members of the new Council would be elected by a majority of all the 191 members of the UN General Assembly. States that are elected must rotate every two terms, allowing the US, which has been a member of the Commission every term since 1947, with one exception, only to be eligible for Council membership every six years.
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item