Make This Council Work!

THE resolution passed on March 15 by the United Nations General Assembly, establishing a new Human Rights Council, should mark a historic new beginning for the UN’s human rights work.

Whether it does depends on the use that the UN’s member states decide to make of it. The resolution follows a proposal I made nearly a year ago.I recognised that the existing Commission on Human Rights had lost its way, becoming too much of a forum where human rights abusers conspired to shield each other, and too little of what it was meant to be – a body actively promoting respect for human rights throughout the world.Much attention has been paid to the differences between my original proposal and the resolution now adopted.But the main points of my proposal have not been changed.The resolution recognises, as I had argued, that development, peace and security, and human rights are “the pillars of the United Nations System – interlinked and mutually reinforcing”.As I proposed, the main body in which governments meet to discuss human rights will now be a full-fledged Council, chosen directly by the whole UN membership.Its status will be reviewed within five years – leaving open the possibility that it will become a “principal organ”, on a par with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, whose members have to be elected by a two-thirds majority.Meanwhile it has an explicit mandate – as the Commission did not – to “promote effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights” in all areas of the UN’s work.The new Council will, as I had urged, meet regularly throughout the year, and can respond promptly to human rights emergencies by holding special sessions at short notice whenever one third of its members so request.(In the Commission the procedure for this was much slower, and required a majority vote.) Instead of singling out some countries for attack while ignoring human rights violations in others, the Council will regularly review the human rights record of all countries.It is required to “be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity” – and the resolution stresses the importance of eliminating “double standards and politicisation”.The Council is also mandated to contribute to the prevention of human rights violations, whereas the Commission was entirely reactive.And the Council, while starting with a new agenda, is required to maintain the system of “special procedures, expert advice and complaint procedure” – including the use of independent experts as special rapporteurs, and the important role of non-governmental organisations – which some had feared might be dropped or watered down.In short, the new Council has the potential to combine the best features of the old system with some much-needed changes.Whether it succeeds will, of course, depend largely on its members.It is therefore natural that much attention has focused on the way these members will be chosen, and on the likelihood of notorious human rights violators being elected, as recently they have been to the Commission.The President of the General Assembly, who conducted the negotiations on the resolution with great skill and patience, came to the conclusion that there was not enough support among member states for requiring a two-thirds majority, as I had suggested, or for explicitly excluding any category of states.But by conceding these two points, he was able to win acceptance for many other, significant tripwires.Members of the Council must be elected “directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly”.In other words, countries will not get onto the Council, as they did onto the Commission, simply because there is no rival candidate from their own region.There will be a separate vote on each individual candidature, and any state that does not win the support of 96 countries – an absolute majority of all UN members, not just those present and voting – will not get in.Its region will have to put up another candidate instead.In addition, members are required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights”, and to submit themselves to the universal periodic review during their term.And if any of them do commit gross and systematic violations during their term, the General Assembly can suspend them (as it could not do from the Commission).No arithmetical barrier – not even the requirement of a two-thirds majority – could guarantee the election or non-election of any particular state.These are political decisions.It is up to the membership – and to world public opinion – to persuade enough states to vote the right way.If enough people really care about human rights, and put their backs into the diplomacy and persuasion that are needed, this Council can be a spectacular improvement on the old Commission.I very much hope that all member states – including the US, which historically has played a leading role in establishing and using the UN’s human rights machinery – will play their part in making the new Council work.* Kofi A. Annan is Secretary General of the United NationsThe resolution follows a proposal I made nearly a year ago.I recognised that the existing Commission on Human Rights had lost its way, becoming too much of a forum where human rights abusers conspired to shield each other, and too little of what it was meant to be – a body actively promoting respect for human rights throughout the world.Much attention has been paid to the differences between my original proposal and the resolution now adopted.But the main points of my proposal have not been changed.The resolution recognises, as I had argued, that development, peace and security, and human rights are “the pillars of the United Nations System – interlinked and mutually reinforcing”.As I proposed, the main body in which governments meet to discuss human rights will now be a full-fledged Council, chosen directly by the whole UN membership.Its status will be reviewed within five years – leaving open the possibility that it will become a “principal organ”, on a par with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, whose members have to be elected by a two-thirds majority.Meanwhile it has an explicit mandate – as the Commission did not – to “promote effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights” in all areas of the UN’s work.The new Council will, as I had urged, meet regularly throughout the year, and can respond promptly to human rights emergencies by holding special sessions at short notice whenever one third of its members so request.(In the Commission the procedure for this was much slower, and required a majority vote.) Instead of singling out some countries for attack while ignoring human rights violations in others, the Council will regularly review the human rights record of all countries.It is required to “be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity” – and the resolution stresses the importance of eliminating “double standards and politicisation”.The Council is also mandated to contribute to the prevention of human rights violations, whereas the Commission was entirely reactive.And the Council, while starting with a new agenda, is required to maintain the system of “special procedures, expert advice and complaint procedure” – including the use of independent experts as special rapporteurs, and the important role of non-governmental organisations – which some had feared might be dropped or watered down.In short, the new Council has the potential to combine the best features of the old system with some much-needed changes. Whether it succeeds will, of course, depend largely on its members.It is therefore natural that much attention has focused on the way these members will be chosen, and on the likelihood of notorious human rights violators being elected, as recently they have been to the Commission.The President of the General Assembly, who conducted the negotiations on the resolution with great skill and patience, came to the conclusion that there was not enough support among member states for requiring a two-thirds majority, as I had suggested, or for explicitly excluding any category of states.But by conceding these two points, he was able to win acceptance for many other, significant tripwires.Members of the Council must be elected “directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly”.In other words, countries will not get onto the Council, as they did onto the Commission, simply because there is no rival candidate from their own region.There will be a separate vote on each individual candidature, and any state that does not win the support of 96 countries – an absolute majority of all UN members, not just those present and voting – will not get in.Its region will have to put up another candidate instead.In addition, members are required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights”, and to submit themselves to the universal periodic review during their term.And if any of them do commit gross and systematic violations during their term, the General Assembly can suspend them (as it could not do from the Commission).No arithmetical barrier – not even the requirement of a two-thirds majority – could guarantee the election or non-election of any particular state.These are political decisions.It is up to the membership – and to world public opinion – to persuade enough states to vote the right way.If enough people really care about human rights, and put their backs into the diplomacy and persuasion that are needed, this Council can be a spectacular improvement on the old Commission.I very much hope that all member states – including the US, which historically has played a leading role in establishing and using the UN’s human rights machinery – will play their part in making the new Council work.* Kofi A. Annan is Secretary General of the United Nations