RIGHTS: NGOs Disenchanted with UN Commission’s Results

By Gustavo Capdevila Reprint | | Print |

Gustavo Capdevila

GENEVA, Apr 26 2002 (IPS) - The outcome of the annual sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which ended Friday, has left non-governmental groups disappointed, as they saw their once- active role in the discussions reduced to a presence they describe as “just for show.”

The Commission, the UN’s top human rights forum, wrapped up its annual six-week sessions with some participants saying this was the most contentious year since the body began operating in 1947.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), UN special rapporteurs and independent experts accused the Commission of curbing their freedom of expression during the sessions by reducing their formal presentation time to just a few minutes each.

Renate Bloem, head of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO), an organisation with UN consultative status, commented that the decision raised doubts about the true intentions of the Commission with respect to the role of civil society.

Bloem wondered if the Commission really means to work in conjunction with NGOs or if it simply “invited us on a whim just for show.”

But the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, focused on the achievements of the sessions, though she lamented the politicisation of some debates and the growing rift between the industrialised North and the developing South.

The crisis in the Middle East, which reached one of its most heated moments during the Commission’s sessions, required several conferences for debate on sending a Robinson-led mission to the region. In the end, the Commission’s green light was counteracted by Israel’s refusal to grant authorisation for the visit.

The Commission’s discussions of the human rights situation in individual countries fuelled a tense atmosphere at the sessions.

This was the case when a proposal by Uruguay criticising Cuba was debated and approved, even though the text was relatively moderate in tone and did not entail an outright censure as the motions against the Fidel Castro government had been in the past.

However, this year’s Commission did not reach agreement to adopt resolutions to censure Russia, in relation to abuses in Chechnya, or to censure Iran or Zimbabwe.

The normal mission of the Commission – to monitor the compliance of governments with the rules of the international human rights system – was altered this year as a result of a reduced budget and the escalation of the Middle East conflict.

The absence of the United States from the 53-member Commission on Human Rights this year – for the first time ever – also influenced the results.

Nevertheless, Washington was able to make its presence felt even with just an observer delegation, operating in the wings to oppose sending a mission led by Robinson to the occupied Palestinian territories.

Even with its limited participation, the United States launched an offensive against Robinson’s initiative and against the official herself, who in September will step down from the High Commissioner post she has held since 1997.

The chief of the U.S. mission to the sessions, ambassador Kevin E. Moley, stated before a group of NGOs that “Mary Robinson has a totally backward vision of human rights,” reported a representative of the International Federation of Human Rights.

The Commission’s hardships began immediately after sessions opened Mar 18, when the UN announced from New York that budget cuts would mean all evening and late-night meetings would have to be eliminated.

The solution implemented by the Commission’s executive panel, chaired by Krzysztof Jakubowski, of Poland, was to reduce the presentation time granted NGOs, special rapporteurs and experts, who traditionally have served the Commission as observers and witnesses of human rights violations committed in the UN member countries.

The reduced presentation time and the elimination of some 30 NGOs from the speaker lists on two crucial days ultimately turned the civil society leaders and the special rapporteurs against the Commission.

“If the special rapporteurs are eliminated, this Commission has no future,” warned Adrien-Claude Zoller, director of the Geneva- based International Service for Human Rights.

The North-South rift Robinson criticises was evident in the votes on resolutions on racism and on the right to development. The European members of the Commission refused to support those proposals.

An initiative by Mexico that called for requiring that member states’ anti-terrorism legislation conforms to international humanitarian law was withdrawn at the last minute as a result of pressure from the United States, say NGO representatives.

“From Illinois, in the United States, to Xinjiang, in China, counter-terrorist measures have placed human rights at risk,” said Rory Mungoven, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, in a joint statement by civil society groups.

The resolution presented by Mexico would have helped protect Muslim minorities and other vulnerable groups, but it found opposition from the governments of Muslim countries, including Algeria, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which utilise their anti-terrorism laws to suppress dissidents.

Robinson and the human rights NGOs did agree in stressing the importance of an approved resolution to create a committee of independent specialists with the mission to carry out surprise inspections of detention centres and prisons to determine whether countries that have ratified the Convention on Torture are in compliance.

The High Commissioner and the civil society representatives also pushed for a revision of the Commission’s make-up (currently based on a quota of countries from each region), so that the 53 member-states are characterised by their own adherence to international human rights treaties.