Rights commission reform: Does quantity matter?

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.