Lauren Fulton is the senior editor for Perspectives.
Finally Exclusive: the Human Rights Club
When the United Nations Human Rights Council elected new member states several days ago, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from around the world won a small victory with the rejection of Belarus on the grounds of the country’s noncompliance with UN human rights specialists. However, the problem facing the Council remains: the scarce competition for seats creates an inability to screen countries with signifcant past human rights violations, and the Council’s integrity suffers as a result.
Over 40 nongovernmental organizations, and the Human Rights Watch in particular, rallied to prevent Belarus’ acceptance to the Human Rights Council. As recently as last January, the Special Rapporteur of Belarus expressed concern over the country’s lack of compliance with the Council, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative on human defenders both noted Belarus’ refusal invite them into the country. Along with these specific citations, the NGOs also demonstrated disfavor toward Egypt, Qatar, and Angola, but these three countries were admitted. The difference is that Egypt ran in a ‘closed bracket’ of four African countries for the four available spots in the African region, whereas Western powers apparently compelled Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as an alternative to Belarus. Of the five geographic regions, three introduced the same number of applicants as they had seats, effectively preventing selectivity among nations.
Are countries really not interested in being part of the Council? Perhaps they are, because the United States is outwardly very concerned with human rights yet refused to apply for a position two years in a row; its actions were a response to alleged bias within the Council, which produced legislation last year that included eight resolutions criticizing Israel yet only one chastising Sudan. Other than the possibility of internal politics, the Human Rights Council also must face the disillusionment of many countries because of its ineffective predecessor, the Human Rights Commission. In an attempt to prove its commitment to reform, the Council announced last year that it would avoid hypocrisy by upholding human rights as a standard for admissions of member nations. With the scarcity of an applicant pool, however, it is caught in a vicious cycle of disillusioned nations desiring reform yet not providing enough support to enact it. Because of this, many (but not all) of the applicants to the Council are attempting to prove a commitment to human rights in words and resolutions rather than actions.
In an effort to show its desire for change, the Council is meeting in June to decide a way to evaluate the human rights records of UN member nations. It is imperative that the Council provide a way to assess its own members as well, and if politics (of the wrong sort) prevent the development of an effective system, the Council will have no way to regain face and attract more members. For now, we can just wait and hope that the Human Rights Council can prove its effectiveness to the UN and thereby persuade countries that are genuinely committed to human rights to become its leaders and advocates for change.