Global Issues
POLITICS: Will U.S. Make a Difference on Human Rights Council?
Will the election of the United States to the 47-member Geneva-based Human Rights Council (HRC) make a significant difference to the cause of human rights worldwide, or will Washington be thwarted by the Council's politically-repressive countries accused of being serial abusers?
Both questions will be put to a test when Washington takes a seat on the HRC for a three-year term beginning Jun. 19.
Elizabeth Sepper, U.N. advocacy fellow at Human Rights Watch, told IPS: 'We expect to see the United States bring energy and enthusiasm to the Council's work.'
She said she was hopeful Washington will be able to build a coalition of rights-respecting countries committed to confronting rights abusers.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Asian diplomat told IPS that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice had rightly pointed out that the HRC may be flawed but it is better to work from within and with other members to improve the existing human rights machinery.
'It is not an impossible task. But it will not be easy,' he predicted.
On Tuesday, the 192-member General Assembly elected 18 countries for three-year terms: Belgium, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, the United States, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Uruguay, replacing outgoing members.
This was the first time the United States ran for a seat in the HRC since its creation three years ago.
The administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush refused to run for a seat on the ground that HRC had lost its 'credibility' for focusing primarily on one country Israel - and ignoring 'human rights abusers' such as Burma (Myanmar), Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea.
But at that time, some U.N. diplomats suggested that the United States avoided running for fear it would be embarrassingly defeated because of its own dismal human rights record, including the much-publicised abuses in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
When the United States ran for a seat back in May 2001, it was ousted from the former 53-member U.N. Human Rights Commission (the predecessor to the Human Rights Council) for the first time since the Commission's creation in 1947.
At Tuesday's election, Norway garnered the largest number of votes (179) while the United States and China received 167 each, falling behind Jordan (178), Belgium (177), Mexico (175), Kyrgyzstan (174) and Bangladesh (171).
Asked how effective the United States can be in the context of a possibly overwhelming majority of human rights violators holding seats in the Council, Sepper told IPS: 'A handful of spoilers at the Council at times have been highly effective at blocking Council action and persuading others to go along.'
Many Council members however are genuinely committed to promoting human rights, she added.
'The United States should go to the Council prepared to engage with these countries on pressing situations like Sri Lanka and Somalia,' Sepper noted.
The Asian ambassador had a different take on it. The HRC, he said, is not supposed to only include one school of thought on human rights. It has to reflect the diversity of views on human rights. 'So, I think it is not fair to criticise anyone as a human rights violator. Such branding doesn't help,' the diplomat said.
'All of us have room for improvement in the area of human rights and no one, including countries from the West, can claim to have unblemished human rights records,' he added.
Despite appeals by several human rights organisations to vote against 'human rights violators', the General Assembly Tuesday elected several countries that fall into that category, including China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
The Asian diplomat also said the HRC has been around for three years and has acquired some 'bad habits' which will be difficult to discard.
'But, we have no choice but to give it a try. The fact of the matter is that human rights is an important pillar of the U.N. machinery and if there was no HRC, we would be creating some machinery to deal with this important question of human rights.'
The United States, by participating, would have a voice in shaping some of these changes, he said. At the very least, it would be able to make clear its concerns about aspects of the HRC which it deems to be not functioning well.
And these concerns, as well as concerns articulated by other members, could be taken up during the five-year review in 2011.
'Hopefully, we can make some changes then to improve the HRC and the human rights machinery in general,' the diplomat said.
Sepper said: 'Representatives from countries around the world have expressed to me their enthusiasm at the candidacy of the United States and their willingness to work closely with the U.S. in Geneva.'
The HRC replaced the Human Rights Commission back in June 2006 and is the only inter-governmental body mandated to promote human rights worldwide.
© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service