The fate of human rights in the UN

Dede A. Rifai, Geneva

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva completed its 61st session on April 22. Does the end of this session mark the end of the commission?

This question is related to the address by UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan at the 61st session on April 7, in which he reiterated his proposal to replace the commission with a smaller human rights council.

Nevertheless, his proposal actually contradicts a previous proposal he made in a written report titled A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibilities released on Dec. 2, 2004. In the report, he stressed the urgency to reform the UN Commission on Human Rights and mentioned that "Membership of the Commission on Human Rights should be made universal".

His change of mind may be related to his new vision in realizing the main UN purposes in three main fields, i.e. security, development and human rights. The UN already has a council to deal with security and development issues. On the other hand, the UN has never had a council to deal with human rights issues. His recent proposal to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller human rights council is his effort to establish a council to deal with human rights.

He also recognizes that the Commission on Human Rights has weaknesses. He argued that the commission's ability to perform its tasks had been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. He further stated that the commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the UN system as a whole.

He visioned that the human rights council would be a standing body, able to meet when necessary rather than the commission's present six weeks each year. Its main task would be to evaluate the fulfillment by all states of all their human rights obligations. Equal attention would have to be given to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as well as the right to development. It should be equipped to give technical assistance and policy advise to states.

In this regard, he suggested that the council's members be elected by a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly, and that those elected should have a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards.

Currently, the Commission on Human Rights, which is only a subsidiary body of the UN Economic and Social Council, consists of 53 member countries.

Therefore, to replace the commission with a human rights council elected by the General Assembly may require amendment of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, according to Article 108 of the UN Charter, amendments to the present UN Charter may only be adopted through a vote of two-thirds of General Assembly members and ratified by two-thirds of the UN members, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

The situation in the latest session of the Commission on Human Rights may be useful in predicting whether a vast majority of UN members would support Kofi Annan's proposal in the next session of the UN General Assembly to be held at the UN Headquarters in New York.

The latest session of the Commission on Human Rights showed that the commission members still had vast differences in many issues, including the issue of country specific resolutions.

During the discussion and voting on the country specific resolutions on April 14, it seems that the commission was divided into two main groups -- one group led by the United States of America and European Union member countries and another group led by Russia and China. These countries are permanent members of the Security Council.

At the time of discussing the resolution of the human rights situation in Byelorussia, the sharp division between the two groups was clearly evident. Russia, supported by China, proposed "no action motion" to the resolution. To oppose this proposal, the Netherlands on behalf of the EU supported by the U.S. asked for a recorded vote of the "no action motion". In the vote, 22 were for the motion, 23 against and 7 abstained.

If this particular extreme situation in the latest session of the Commission on Human Rights does not change until the next session of the General Assembly, it would not be such an easy job for Kofi Annan to convince two-thirds of the UN members, including all permanent members of the Security Council, to support his proposal.

If this scenario eventuates, this year's session of the Commission on Human Rights, successfully chaired by Indonesian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Makarim Wibisono, will not be the ending session of the commission. And history will not note Indonesia as the last chair of the Commission on Human Rights.

The writer, a staff member at the Human Rights Directorate of the Indonesian Foreign Department, is currently studying at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. This article is strictly his personal opinion.