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