The benefits of reforming the UN's rights machinery

Muhammad Anshor, New York

"Which country, in the first instance, may benefit from the ongoing reform process of the UN human rights machinery?" a fellow diplomat asked me half-jokingly. His answer to his own question was Israel.

Why?

It is a fact, not widely known, that under the current system of the UN human rights machinery, Israel is the country most discriminated against.

First, Israel cannot in any way become a member of the Commission on Human Rights. Membership of the Commission is on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The 53 seats are distributed among five existing regional groups (Asia, Africa, Latin America and Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe and Other Countries). Israel is the only country in the world that does not belong to any regional group under the current system. The reform process would make options available concerning the composition of membership.

Second, under the current Commission's working methods, Israel is unavoidably a target of condemnation at every year's session of the Commission under at least one standing agenda item, namely the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories including Palestine.

No other country has been subject to as much scrutiny by the Commission every year. However, the peer review function that is now being pursued as a key feature of the reformed UN human rights machinery will subject every member state, without exception, to periodic examination. Unless an emergency session is called, violation of human rights by Israel in the occupied Arab territories will only be considered every four or five years, according to the agreed periodization of country reviews.

To assume, however, that the UN human rights reform process was triggered only by a motivation to address such Israeli concerns is an oversimplification of the matter.

There are valid grounds to reform human rights machinery in the context of strengthening the UN as a whole and making it more responsive to current and future challenges. The current Commission's ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the excessive politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. The Commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow over the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

In the new UN structure, human rights will be given a central place together with development and security as the three pillars on which this world organization is built. The UN Secretary- General described the close connection between these three pillars in these strong terms: that there will be no development without security, no security without development, and "we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights". Consequently the intergovernmental body dealing with human rights should have status, authority and capability commensurate with the importance of its work.

It is generally agreed by member states that the new UN human rights machinery should have a higher status rather than just being a subsidiary body of ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), as it is currently. However, there is still a divergence of views as to whether it will become a main body of the UN, or a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly.

Reform must be built on the major achievements of the current Commission on Human Rights, but it must also address the Commission's shortcomings, including the resort to double standards and the pursuit of narrow self-interests by certain member states, which have undermined the Commission's credibility.

A peer review mechanism in the reformed machinery may address the practice of selectivity in picking countries as targets of scrutiny. Whether this mechanism can deal with problems relating to politicization, however, remains doubtful. This would depend largely on the composition of the membership, the country reporting system and the criteria used for assessing national performance.

A general outline of a new structure of UN human rights machinery could be adopted by the High Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly in September this year when heads of state or government gather at UN Headquarters in New York for the 60th anniversary of this world organization.

Indeed some good proposals concerning reform of the UN human rights machinery were not taken on board by the on-going consultation and negotiation taking place at UN Headquarters.

One example of this is the proposal made by Foreign Minister N. Hassan Wirajuda of Indonesia. In his address to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva on March 15, 2005, the minister proposed to that Commission sessions be alternated between Geneva and other countries to ensure that the processes of the Commission are closer to the ground, and stated that Indonesia would gladly offer to host Commission sessions.

Echoing Wirajuda's proposal, Foreign Minister Ramos Horta of Timor Leste at the same forum went further, proposing that such UN conferences and UN offices concerning development be moved to developing countries. However, his suggestion did not receive proper attention from other countries because the focus of considerations was given to the proposal on the creation of the Human Rights Council.

The proposal is a visionary one. It will bring UN processes closer to people who are the subject of discussion. It will promote public education and foster dialogue among the relevant stakeholders.

It is particularly relevant as there is a wide gap between what is deliberated in conference rooms of the UN and the situation on the ground. Even advanced information and telecommunications technology often does not help. So many conventions and treaties are produced that people around the world are completely unaware of. This includes such fundamental conventions such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948 and that has been translated to more than 300 languages. Even when Indonesia chaired this year's session of the Commission, not many in Indonesia were aware of what was going on in the Commission.

The writer is currently working as an Indonesian diplomat at the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the UN at New York. The views expressed in this article are his alone. He can be reached at anshorm@yahoo.com.