Reforming the UN Human Rights commission<\/p>\n
Jonny Sinaga and Mulyadi, Jakarta<\/p>\n
On Dec. 2, 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a
\nreport, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, in which
\nhe proposed, inter alia, a reform of the UN Commission on Human
\nRights. Kofi Annan said, \"Membership of the Commission on Human
\nRights should be made universal.\"<\/p>\n
However, almost all of the UN member states agreed that the
\nuniversalization of the commission was not the answer to its
\nproblems.<\/p>\n
A counterproposal was put forward for a smaller standing
\nrights council, almost the opposite of the universalization of
\nthe commission. Would this new proposal solve the commission's
\nproblems, or was Kofi Annan's approach superior? The answer to
\nthis question should be based on a thorough and objective
\nanalysis.<\/p>\n
However, there is a consensus on the need to reform the
\nCommission on Human Rights, so that it will function as a UN body
\nable and capable of helping member states promote and protect
\nhuman rights, as mandated by the UN Charter.<\/p>\n
Expanding the commission would broaden its obstacles. The
\nproblems lie in politicizing the work of the commission, double
\nstandards, and the confrontational and selective approaches of
\nmember countries. Concern is more broadly given to civil and
\npolitical rights than economic, social and cultural rights, and
\ndeveloped countries use the commission to shame and bash specific
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
As a result, many UN member countries and the secretary-
\ngeneral are of the view that there must be reform to improve the
\nquality and credibility of the commission.<\/p>\n
Currently, the work of the commission is too politicized.
\nThere is a tendency for some countries, or groups of countries,
\nto use the commission to criticize other countries they believe
\nare not doing enough to respect human rights. While others
\nbelieve there is a tendency for some countries to use the
\ncommission to protect themselves from criticism, despite the
\nrights violations taking place in their territories.<\/p>\n
In the jargon of the UN, the most controversial issue is the
\nintroduction of \"country-specific resolutions\", usually proposed
\nby developed countries, vis-a-vis \"no-action motions\" on those
\nresolutions, usually proposed by developing countries. In this
\nway, the commission has become an arena for confrontations
\nbetween developed and developing countries.<\/p>\n
Expanding the commission to include all UN members would avoid
\nthe exclusivity of the body. All member countries, not just the
\ncurrent 53 members of the commission, would have the same rights
\nand obligations in the debate on human rights.<\/p>\n
However, there are problems associated with this proposal.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the commission would then duplicative other UN bodies
\nlike the Third Committee or the General Assembly.<\/p>\n
Second, the decision making process of the commission with 53
\nmembers has been criticized as too slow and ineffective. Opening
\nthe commission to all 191 UN member states would just make the
\nprocess slower and more complicated.<\/p>\n
Neither would reducing the size of the commission and
\ntransforming it into a council solve the real problems.
\nInitially, the Commission on Human Rights, when it was
\nestablished by the Economic and Social Council in June, 1946,
\nincluded only 18 members.<\/p>\n
So what is the best solution? The best way to reform the
\nCommission on Human Rights is not expanding or reducing
\nmembership, but returning it to its function as a UN body that
\nhelps the international community better respect and protect the
\nhuman rights of all.<\/p>\n
We need a commission that is able to accomplish something like
\nit did in 1947, when it completed the Universal Declaration of
\nHuman Rights. A subcommittee consisting of eight member states
\nfrom different regions, namely France, China, Chile, Egypt,
\nIndia, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, were
\ntasked to prepare a final draft of the Universal Declaration to
\nbe considered by the commission, and subsequently by the Third
\nCommittee and the General Assembly of the UN. This subcommittee
\ndid a wonderful job and we still use the Universal Declaration of
\nHuman Rights today. If those countries could work together in
\n1947, why not in 2005 and ahead?<\/p>\n
Second, all member states need to refrain from using the
\ncommission as a political tool to defend their national
\ninterests. Rather, they need to use it as an opportunity to
\nexplore creative efforts in the promotion and protection of human
\nrights for all.<\/p>\n
This should be the theme for reforming the UN Commission on
\nHuman Rights, especially during a meeting of almost all the heads
\nof state and government of the world in New York this coming
\nSeptember.<\/p>\n
The writers work at the Directorate of Human Rights Affairs at
\nthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed here are
\npersonal.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reforming-the-un-human-rights-commission-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}