State Domination of New UN Human Rights Council

At this time of critical United Nations reform, many Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are still skeptical of the power states hold to sway international decisions. Next week is the first session of the new Human Rights Council, a 47 member body elected to replace the former United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United Nations has a goal of improving UN action regarding humanitarian issues. This birth of the new council is supposed to represent a new start for an organization criticized for lack of international action in humanitarian situations. However, some NGOs are not sure whether the new-and-improved council represents real change. Representatives of the International League for the Rights and Liberations of Peoples (LIDLIP) doubt that the new Human Rights Council will be able to avoid agenda domination by superpower states.

The overshadowing of state interests in humanitarian affairs has long been recognized by NGOs and other groups as the major flaw in humanitarian aid. Groups such as LIDLIP work to get the voices of minorities and indigenous groups heard in the international realm. However, this process is increasingly difficult as state governments struggle for international power.

NGOs have formerly has access to the Human Rights Commission through various sub-commissions of independent experts who report to the group of states. This process is meant to avoid biased views and private interests overshadowing the NGO voice. According to LIDLIP, the sub-commission was a way for NGOs to communicate with the Human Rights Commission and allow minority voices to be heard. However, there are doubts as to whether this process will be preserved in the new Human Rights Council.

State superpowers would wish to silence NGO voices that will work hard to bring humanitarian issues to the agenda of the Council. Influential states have used their economic and political power to persuade members of the Human Rights Commission to overlook glaring humanitarian violations. The United States has long avoided human rights investigation in Guantanamo Bay. As this is being written, representatives from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) are at Guantanamo, but in a meeting last week, representatives were skeptical as to whether or not the US would ever allow a full investigation.

The LIDLIP secretary general, Verena Graf speaks of an instance in which she was threatened by Chinese representatives because she tried to bring human rights issues in China to the attention of the Commission. They pressured her to withdraw a LIDLIP statement concerning Tibet and asked to speak to her privately. Graf felt as if she was individually targeted and feared for her personal safety. In the end, the Chinese representatives backed off, but Graf still cites it as a glaring example of how superpower states have used force to persuade the Human Rights Commission to overlook violations.

The real test of the new Human Rights Council lies in the agenda. We have yet to see if the new Council will look past state interests and address issues like Guantanamo Bay and China. Next week I will witness a historic beginning to what many hope will be a reformed human rights system. I, along with many NGOS, am skeptical about how much real change will occur in the United Nations human rights process. As long as the Council is composed of government representatives, the agenda will continue to be shaped by state interests. Without significant change, groups like LIDLIP will struggle to maintain minority voices in a human rights system still dominated by superpower governments.

June 18, 2006

An abridge version of this article originally appeared as a letter to the editor in the Embassy, issue 109, June 21, 2006, page 7.