How politics subsumes the human rights agenda at the UN
By Mandeep S.Tiwana, Civil Society Watch Programme, CIVICUS

The 61st anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December provides occasion to reflect on the attitude of various UN member states in supporting one of the most important human rights institutions in the world – the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The UNHRC was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights which was largely viewed by many as a forum for selective finger pointing by countries seeking to advance their political interests. The then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan hoped that the new body would help in devolving politics from the human rights agenda at the UN. Although, the UNHRC has made some substantial gains, human rights concerns are being increasing subsumed by politics in this important forum.

Two pressing and urgent human rights issues that have come into sharp focus in 2009 are (i) the adoption of the UN fact finding report on the violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the war in Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009 and, (ii) the continued scrutiny of the situation in Sudan through an independent UN expert. Although, resolutions on both these issues have been passed by the UNHRC, the events leading up to their final passage illustrate once again how politics endangers human rights protection and promotion at the UN. An important condition for being admitted to the 47 member UNHRC is that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights”. The experience so far suggests that a number of Human Rights Council members are observing the above requirement more in breach than in practice.

In April this year, the President of the UNHRC appointed an independent fact finding mission with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after”. The high profile mission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, an eminent human rights defender and anti-apartheid activist submitted its report in September. The mission members after careful consideration concluded that Operation Cast Lead, as the Israeli forces termed it, was a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability”. The mission has called upon the UNHRC to endorse its recommendations urging the Israeli government to start criminal investigations in the national courts where there is sufficient evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions as part of Israel’s obligations under international law.

Voting patterns in the UNHRC on the resolution to endorse the mission’s report have revealed severe fault lines with regards to politicisation of the human rights agenda at this important forum. France, the Netherlands and the UK are three countries that have been extremely vocal on the need to advance human rights at UN forums. But when it came to adopting the Gaza fact finding mission’s report, the Netherlands voted against the resolution and the UK and France did not cast their vote. The United States – talk about being in a new era of engagement notwithstanding – challenged many of the report’s conclusions, terming them as “flawed”. UNHRC members who are also part of the Organisation of Islamic Conference as was expected, strongly supported the mission’s findings.

The vote in case of Gaza stands in sharp contrast to the equally important and pressing issue of rights violations in Sudan. Thousands of civilians have been killed in the civil war in Sudan between different ethnic and religious groups. Abuses by Sudanese government backed forces and rebels have been extensively and credibly documented by a number of organisations, which have led to the recommendation by the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court to investigate the violence regardless of who perpetrated it. Western bloc members of the UNHRC which did not support the imperative for justice for the victims of the Gaza operation have nevertheless stood united in their resolve to continue UN oversight of the events in Sudan. In June this year, they voted on a resolution to extend the mandate of the UN special representative on Sudan. On the other hand, UNHRC members such as Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia which have championed the need to address the violations of human rights during the Gaza war voted to protect the Sudanese regime from international scrutiny.

The above two cases demonstrate the double standards and schizophrenic behaviour of certain governments at this important UN body which has serious implications for the lives and rights of thousands of people subjected to human rights abuses by both state and non-state actors. Sadly, what held true for the UN Commission on Human Rights and was pointed out in the report of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan titled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all” now holds true for the UNHRC. “States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others”. Evidently, governments seeking justice for victims in one region of the world have been obstructing justice in another region. And governments are not the only ones doing this. A number of civil society organisations invited to speak at the UNHRC have also taken a patently biased and one sided approach, abandoning the values of independence and commitment to the pursuit of justice, which underpin civil society.

It is time that the international community holds up the mirror to governments that have pursued or abandoned serious human rights issues to serve their narrow political and economic interests. It is vital that civil society exposes the double standards being practised at the UN and urges these governments to follow the examples of the few that have imbibed the founding values of the UN in both word and deed.

Subscription to e-CIVICUS: 
Do you have a friend who works for a more just world? Would you like to share this newsletter with them? Why don’t you suggest they register for a free subscription?

They can send us an e-mail to subscriptions@civicus.org or fill out the subscription form click here. Alternatively, please forward their e-mail address to subscriptions@civicus.org and we’ll contact them on your behalf. 

Comments, Suggestions and Contributions:
Please send us your contributions no later than Monday every week to editor@civicus.org. All contributions must be focused on civil society issues or have a civil society angle.