ABA-UN Panel Series on Human Rights

Today, I attended a panel that I co-organized entitled "First Priorities of the UN's New Human Rights Council" at the UN Foundation in Washington, D.C. The panel discussed the March 2006 vote by the United Nations General Assembly to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights with a UN Human Rights Council and the subsequent May 9th election by the Assembly of the countries to serve initial terms on the Council.

This first of a three-program series, “The New UN Human Rights Council: A Fresh Start?,” focused on what differences the changes in scope, members, and operations may make in UN responses to human rights concerns and what can be learned about the new UN body’s agenda and priorities from observations of its initial session beginning June 19. The second and third programs will take place in September and October to assess the Council’s inaugural session and examine the United States’ role in human rights advancement as a non-member of the Council.

The determination of whether the Council is a fresh start depended on whether the speaker took an optimistic or pessimistic outlook, with justification for each approach. Several of the fundamental questions raised were:

1. Will China and Russia continue to prevent a proper response to Darfur. As Security Council members, the two countries have routinely blocked resolutions and action to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. As new members of the Human Rights Council, China and Russia have pledged to promote and protect human rights. These two countries, along with Algeria and Pakistan, which also abstained on taking action in Darfur, will be confronted with a test of showing that they take human rights issues seriously.

2. Will the new Council end the practice of unfairly singling-out Israel for a specific special agenda item, something never imposed for another country? The previous Human Rights Commission hounded Israel while ignoring gross abuses in other countries. Arab countries and other members of the new Council have tried to reestablish the tradition of focusing on Israel, but have received a backlash from the European countries, which indicated that every time Israel is brought up, they will bring up the failures to act in Darfur. The current negotiations suggest that there will be a more general agenda item on pressing issues.

3. With a first priority of establishing universal periodic review of all UN members, can the Human Rights Council develop an effective mechanism that will properly examine the records of all countries in the mandated time period? This will be an enormous undertaking that will encompass much of the Human Rights Council’s activities. The success, and proper handling of negative human rights reports, will likely determine whether the Council is viewed as a success.