Reforming the UN Human Rights commission

Reforming the UN Human Rights commission

Jonny Sinaga and Mulyadi, Jakarta

On Dec. 2, 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a
report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, in which
he proposed, inter alia, a reform of the UN Commission on Human
Rights. Kofi Annan said, "Membership of the Commission on Human
Rights should be made universal."

However, almost all of the UN member states agreed that the
universalization of the commission was not the answer to its
problems.

A counterproposal was put forward for a smaller standing
rights council, almost the opposite of the universalization of
the commission. Would this new proposal solve the commission's
problems, or was Kofi Annan's approach superior? The answer to
this question should be based on a thorough and objective
analysis.

However, there is a consensus on the need to reform the
Commission on Human Rights, so that it will function as a UN body
able and capable of helping member states promote and protect
human rights, as mandated by the UN Charter.

Expanding the commission would broaden its obstacles. The
problems lie in politicizing the work of the commission, double
standards, and the confrontational and selective approaches of
member countries. Concern is more broadly given to civil and
political rights than economic, social and cultural rights, and
developed countries use the commission to shame and bash specific
countries.

As a result, many UN member countries and the secretary-
general are of the view that there must be reform to improve the
quality and credibility of the commission.

Currently, the work of the commission is too politicized.
There is a tendency for some countries, or groups of countries,
to use the commission to criticize other countries they believe
are not doing enough to respect human rights. While others
believe there is a tendency for some countries to use the
commission to protect themselves from criticism, despite the
rights violations taking place in their territories.

In the jargon of the UN, the most controversial issue is the
introduction of "country-specific resolutions", usually proposed
by developed countries, vis-a-vis "no-action motions" on those
resolutions, usually proposed by developing countries. In this
way, the commission has become an arena for confrontations
between developed and developing countries.

Expanding the commission to include all UN members would avoid
the exclusivity of the body. All member countries, not just the
current 53 members of the commission, would have the same rights
and obligations in the debate on human rights.

However, there are problems associated with this proposal.

Firstly, the commission would then duplicative other UN bodies
like the Third Committee or the General Assembly.

Second, the decision making process of the commission with 53
members has been criticized as too slow and ineffective. Opening
the commission to all 191 UN member states would just make the
process slower and more complicated.

Neither would reducing the size of the commission and
transforming it into a council solve the real problems.
Initially, the Commission on Human Rights, when it was
established by the Economic and Social Council in June, 1946,
included only 18 members.

So what is the best solution? The best way to reform the
Commission on Human Rights is not expanding or reducing
membership, but returning it to its function as a UN body that
helps the international community better respect and protect the
human rights of all.

We need a commission that is able to accomplish something like
it did in 1947, when it completed the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. A subcommittee consisting of eight member states
from different regions, namely France, China, Chile, Egypt,
India, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, were
tasked to prepare a final draft of the Universal Declaration to
be considered by the commission, and subsequently by the Third
Committee and the General Assembly of the UN. This subcommittee
did a wonderful job and we still use the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights today. If those countries could work together in
1947, why not in 2005 and ahead?

Second, all member states need to refrain from using the
commission as a political tool to defend their national
interests. Rather, they need to use it as an opportunity to
explore creative efforts in the promotion and protection of human
rights for all.

This should be the theme for reforming the UN Commission on
Human Rights, especially during a meeting of almost all the heads
of state and government of the world in New York this coming
September.

The writers work at the Directorate of Human Rights Affairs at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed here are
personal.