by Benny YP Siahaan[1]
The Human Rights Council will begin its 6th session in this September 2007, a session that is long awaited by so many quarters. Indeed, the Council has endured a tumultuous formative year since it met for the first time in June 2006 and this September session it will begin its operational phase.
As we might aware, on 19 June 2007, the Council has passed its one-year controversial institutional building process which resulted a compromised package of institutional mechanisms that expected to be applied in the work of Council’s second year.
The logical question that we might raise among others: what would be the prospect of the Council with its new institutional package? Is it really going to make difference from its predecessor, the defunct Human Rights Commission?
Since its inception, the Human Rights Council has been facing many challenges particularly the criticism that suggests it may end up like the Human Rights Commission, since it has many potentials inherited from the Commission. In short, the Council is predestined doomed to fail.
This criticism to some extent is valid, since there is still politicization and polarization between North and South, Non Align countries-African Group-OIC versus Western countries. However, these groupings are common in the UN system meetings. In the case of the Human Rights Council, in my opinion, this is started by the European Union who does this first which in turn provoke other groupings like African and OIC countries to do the same. However, this does not happen systematically or premeditated before but rather merely caused by the situation on the ground. The blocs mentality seemed to be automatically emerged in the debates of certain sensitive issues like on human rights violations in Palestine Israel Darfur .
Despite the said criticism, the Human Rights Council is considered one of the masterpiece products of the UN reform efforts. It is hoped that the Council would be more active and less political than its predecessor, whose reputation was tainted by the politicization and double standard.
Nonetheless, this we shall not forget that the Council is an intergovernmental body. How we can diminish politics from an institution that has a political nature? Thus, when a government, any government, talking about human rights it would be inevitable for them not to express or defend their foreign policy on human rights in their respective countries.
For me, therefore, the prophecy of born to fail would rather premature for the Council. In my opinion, the fate of Council should be tested first on the implementation of institutional package which would make the Council fully operational.
Recently there is another criticism which alleges that not all provisions in the institutional package are pro human rights since it has many elements of political compromised. Again, indeed this is the reality of diplomatic negotiations. Even the provisions in the “sacred” 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) itself is not fully reflected what the principal drafters wanted since it was built through a political negotiations. Worse, the UDHR was passed through a voting -- not a good start for a non-binding agreement.
Thus, in my opinion, regardless the political bargaining, the first Council’s President, Alfonso de Alba of Mexico Cuba Cuba Cuba Japan North Korea
Hence, at this stage it is crucial to set out progress to date, identifies issues that need to be addressed and provides recommendations to deliver expectations to the Council. In this limited space, these are, in my opinion, the most pertinent progresses and challenges inherited from the first year of the Council:
First, despite the political compromised, the package has made a foundation that will make the Council start operational in its second year. So far the package has covered a wide range of issues including the good legacy from the old Commission like complaint procedures, expert advice and special procedures mechanisms. So far, however, these mechanisms are currently operated in ad hoc basis until the institutional package provisions being implemented.
The jewel of the new mechanism in the Council might be the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Through this mechanism we will have an instrument for examining human rights situation everywhere in the world for the first time, without exception, since the creation of the United Nations. The doubt, that still currently lingering, is whether UPR would very much different with the mechanism of treaty bodies.
Second, the frequency of meetings of the Council is very much increased. Within a year, the Council held six regular sessions and three special sessions. From the average estimation the Council held 39 weeks of meetings in its first year. The current new Council’s President has a plan to hold almost 30 weeks of meetings during his one-year tenure (2007-2008).
In one aspect this situation is commendable since it has proven that the Council is very much active compared to the Commission which only held yearly six-week regular session and five Special Sessions during its 50-year career since 1946. In fact, such a big number of meetings also not in contravention with the founding resolution of the Council which only suggest that the Council shall hold meeting not less than 10 weeks a year.
But for countries, let alone NGOs, the huge number of meetings is a bad news. For countries, they have to increase their personnel to cover all Council’s meetings if they want to participate fully. This is not easy, particularly for developing countries, since Geneva Geneva Geneva
Furthermore, not all country has representation/diplomatic mission in Geneva
The question is for how long this artificial generosity will last. Thus, the suggestion that the Council’s meeting to be rotated to a place where all countries have their representation, like UN Headquarters in New York, still legitimate.
For NGOs, particularly local NGOs whose financial resources usually coming from donation of foreign sources, this means they have to make more proposals and find solid justifications to attract more donations. The most realistic way perhaps to choose the most relevant and most important session they have to attend.
In conclusion, one year on and there is much left to be done to materialize the expectations to the Council as the UN sole body responsible for the universal protection and promotion of human rights. At this juncture, it is pertinent to ponder again the beautiful words of Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the principal drafters of UDHR:
"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."
Thus, the Council may not change and may not be different from its predecessor since it is only a static creation of all UN member countries.
The council will be different if there is a change of mentality and attitude from all its stakeholders: its members, civil society and all UN member countries, all of us. The change should begin at each home first. The second year and onward will show us if there is any change of mentality and attitude of all its stakeholders.
Let us give the Council a chance.
[1] The writer is an alumnus of Tsukuba University Japan
No comments:
Post a Comment