• by Thalif Deen (united nations)
• Friday, May 08, 2009
• Inter Press Service

When the 192-nation General Assembly meets next week to elect 18 new members to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council (HRC), most of the candidates will win their seats without breaking a political sweat because of the almost entirely non-competitive nature of the vote.

With the make-up of the 47-member HRC based on geographic composition, three out of five regional groups are fielding candidates to match the number of vacant seats, thereby 'eliminating any meaningful competition and comparative scrutiny of candidates,' according to a coalition of over 30 international non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

In the Asian group, five countries are running for five seats: China, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan and Jordan, ensuring victory for all five.

In the Latin American and Caribbean group, the three candidates for the three seats (and facing no competition) are Cuba, Mexico and Uruguay.

In the Western European group, the three candidates for non-competitive elections are Belgium, Norway and the United States.

Although New Zealand was originally a candidate, it withdrew after the United States declared its candidacy, ensuring three seats to the remaining three candidates.

'The lack of competition sets a very poor precedent and risks a return to the regional endorsements and rubberstamping that allowed Zimbabwe and Sudan to sit in the Council's predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights,' Elizabeth Sepper, U.N. advocacy fellow at Human Rights Watch, told IPS.

This year, she said, 'Western countries took the easy way out, a decision that will come back and bite them.'

'By failing to compete, countries in Western Europe have undermined their own ability to encourage rights-respecting countries to compete with abusive regimes - a consideration that will be important next year when Iran reportedly will run for election,' Sepper added.

Yap Swee Seng, executive director of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, says the lack of real choice in so many regions suggests that many countries have gone back to 'putting politics and vote trading ahead of human rights and an effective Human Rights Council.'

Dokhi Fassihian, executive director of the Democracy Coalition Project, says it is 'especially disappointing that for the first time, the longstanding democracies in the Western Group have chosen to run a non-competitive election.'

All three are members of the NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council.

Still, each candidate must secure an absolute majority of the General Assembly - 97 votes - in order to win a seat in the elections scheduled to take place May 12.

Meanwhile, in the African group, there are six candidates for five seats: Cameroon, Djibouti, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria and Senegal.

But the speculation is that one of the candidates will withdraw, ensuring five seats for the five candidates, further reflecting this year's non-competitive elections.

The only likely competition is in the Eastern European group where three candidates, Hungary, Russia and Azerbaijan, are vying for two seats.

In a letter to the 192 U.N. member states, the NGO Coalition has expressed concern that the human rights records of at least five countries - Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia - fall far short of the required 'highest' standards of human rights.

The coalition, which also includes Freedom House and the International Federation for Human Rights, has appealed to member states not to vote for these countries.

A Council report on the status of human rights in Cuba in February reflected solid support for Havana from an ample majority of countries, but also took note of objections raised by a smaller number of governments. Cuba ultimately accepted 60 out of the 89 recommendations in the report.

Asked the success rate of such appeals, Sepper of Human Rights Watch told IPS that human rights groups campaigned against Belarus in 2007 and Sri Lanka in 2008. Both were ultimately defeated, she said.

In 2007, when Belarus was running, Bosnia and Herzegovina came forward less than two weeks before the election and was elected, proving that that when rights-respective states come forward and challenge abusers, the international community will elect them.

This year, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are all running in non-competitive slates. 'But countries still have the choice of withholding their votes,' she pointed out.

Delegations often complain that votes are cast based on politics not human rights, but only they can choose to become part of the solution and withhold votes from rights abusers, Sepper added.

She also said that countries that care about human rights should not vote for abusive regimes even where there is no alternative candidate.

'If the international community rewards China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia with high numbers of votes, countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe and Iran will take it as a sign to run uncontested,' she said.

Still, each candidate must receive 97 votes to be elected even without competition, and the international community must not allow persistent, systematic rights abusers to meet this threshold, she added.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement