Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights

POLITICS: Human Rights Council Back in the Spotlight

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, May 15 2008 (IPS) - When the United States was ousted from the Geneva-based Human Rights Commission (HRC) back in May 2001, a right-wing Republican politician was livid that “one of the world’s greatest human rights defenders” couldn’t find a seat in a body dominated by countries such as Libya, Cuba, Sudan and China.

“The inmates have taken over the asylum,” grumbled Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Republican of California), criticising the election of “some of the world’s worst human rights violators” – but not his home country, the United States – to the Commission.

“When the lunatics take over, responsible people are forced to act,” he warned. “I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with,” said Rohrabacher, threatening to cut off funds to the United Nations.

The U.S. media came out strongly on the ignominious defeat of the United States. “Revolt at the U.N.”, cried the New York Times editorial. “Tyrants Take Over,” shouted the Wall Street Journal. “Commission of Rogues,” said the Washington Times.

But since that politically devastating defeat seven years ago, the United States has diplomatically kept away from elections to the Human Rights Council, the successor to the Human Rights Commission.

According to diplomats here, the United States, which usually attempts to take the moral high ground at the United Nations, fears a repetition of its former defeat – particularly in the context of its own dismal human rights record in Iraq and Afghanistan where U.S. military forces are accused of torture and prison abuses.

The administration of President George W. Bush has also come under fire for transgressing civil and human rights in its fight against terrorism – both at home and abroad.

At the last elections, the United States went before the General Assembly with “43 solid written assurances” of promised votes.

But at vote count it ended up with only 29 votes, while three members of the European Union, namely France (52 votes), Austria (41) and Sweden (32) beat Washington to obtain seats in the Human Rights Commission that year.

Since the voting has always been by secret ballot, it was virtually impossible to track down the member states who reneged on their promises and written pledges to the United States.

Asked about the credibility of pledges, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam, told IPS that while he was confident of his own country’s re-election, there was always a 10 percent plus or minus factor in confirmed votes and pledges by member states.

He pointed out that the elections to the Human Rights Council were “capital based” – meaning that decisions are taken in various foreign capitals, not at the U.N. missions in New York.

There was also another uncertainty that has to be factored in: the preference of individual ambassadors (who may or may not flout instructions from their capitals), he added.

Since the balloting is secret, the reality of the individual vote exercised by ambassadors is also a factor to be reckoned with.

A former Asian ambassador once confessed that irrespective of instructions he received from his home government, he would occasionally strike out on his own and cast his vote purely on his own judgment.

“How I vote at a U.N. election,” he told IPS, “will depend to a large extent on the friendships I have built with other ambassadors.”

All this will be put to a test next week when the 192-member General Assembly will elect 15 members to the 47-nation Human Rights Council. The seats have been allocated on the basis of “equitable geographical distribution”. The elections are scheduled for May 21.

The only countries assured of seats are from the two regional groups, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, because they have the requisite number of candidates for the seats earmarked for the two regions. In U.N. jargon, they are called “clean slates”.

Africa has four candidates – Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana and Zambia – for the four seats earmarked for that region.

The Latin American and Caribbean Group has three candidates – Argentina, Brazil and Chile – for the three vacant seats.

As a result, all seven are expected to be elected. Still, these seven countries have to receive the mandatory 96 votes each, out of the 192 in the General Assembly, in order to be elected to the Council.

But the remaining three regions – categorised as Asian States, Eastern European States, and Western European and Other States – remain split because there are more candidates than available seats.

The four vacant seats in the Asian region are being contested by six countries: Bahrain, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Sri Lanka and East Timor.

The two vacant seats in the Eastern European region are being contested by four countries: Czech Republic, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine, while the two vacant seats for Western European and Other States are being contested by three countries: France, Spain and Britain.

In a report released last week, U.N. Watch and Freedom House said that a quarter of the countries vying for seats on the Human Rights Council have “dismal human rights records that should disqualify them from membership”.

According to the study, five countries were “not qualified” judging by their human rights records: Gabon, Bahrain, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zambia. All of these countries, except Bahrain, are incumbent candidates and running for re-election.

In addition, the report questioned the eligibility of Brazil, East Timor and Burkina Faso, “whose human rights records are mixed”.

Freedom House Advocacy Director Paula Schriefer said last week that the Council’s membership already includes three countries – China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia – listed on Freedom House’s “Worst of the Worst” report on human rights.