Wednesday, March 01, 2006



When the perfect is the enemy of the good

The UN Commission on Human Rights has had a lot of well-deserved bad press over the past few years, due to the increasing representation of countries with appalling human rights records (such as Sudan and Zimbabwe) who use their presence on the council to stymie investigations into the abuses they perpetrate. Currently there's a reform plan before the UN, which would go some way towards easing this problem by imposing tougher membership standards, requiring countries to be elected by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, and allowing members to be suspended for "gross and systematic violations" of human rights. But there's one major hitch: the plan is opposed by the US as not being "tough" enough. Which means that rather than having a better system, we'll end up continuing with the old one. Talk about counter-productive...

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 3/01/2006 01:41:00 AM

6 comments:

> As not being "tough" enough.

They just don’t want the organization stacked with countries with poor human rights. And it may jsut be a negotiating strategy anyway.

I am concerned that the existence of the debate in a sense may disprove the argument "scrutiny of their human rights record would discourage countries with poor records from joining." after all the USA doesn’t seem to care about it and of all countries that would be a beat up session.

Also the geographical rules already demonstrate that you will have some dodgy countries elected to the council which tends to define a maximum level of standards they would apply.

it also raises the ugly implication that countries human rights records are not scrutinized.

also why is it a secret ballot? to assist with bribary and corruption?

 Posted by Genius : 3/01/2006 05:42:00 AM

It is highly debatable if the proposal is an improvement at all. It shrinks it from 53 to just 47 members and has no way of stopping the North Koreas going on.

It probably only has 10% of the features that Kofi Annan pushed for. I don't regard that as better. It is effectively no change

 Posted by David Farrar : 3/01/2006 01:50:00 PM

Genius: I don't think anyone wants those countries on the UNCHR (well, except them, of course). But then, that's what these rules are desinged to reduce.

Geographical rules are one of the UN's great weaknesses. They're also not something I see as disappearing easily, particularly given the abhorrence of western countries about population-based representation.

I've no idea why the ballot is secret in this case. While its a fundamental right wher eindividuals are concerned (it prevents intimidation), nation states must be able to be held accountable by their citizens, and this means their acts on the international stage must be public.

DPF: other than their having to win the support of more nations than they do at present. That is an improvement. It's a long way from perfect, but that's what happens when you start trying to get governments to agree on anything.

Kofi Annan may find the compromise a disappointment. But he supports it as an achievable improvement. Unfortunately, it seems the US would rather things remained as they are than see that happen...

 Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2006 04:41:00 PM

Intimidation of states isn't possible?

 Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 3/01/2006 05:40:00 PM

The UN is a lame duck.

It deosn't actually seem to achieve anything.

Half measures will not rescue the UN from failure.

There needs to be a complete overhaul - if neccesary to go back to step 1.

 Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 05:52:00 PM

CMT: It is, and the US isn't above trying it. Their comment to the Yemani ambassador to the UN that Yeman's opposing their invasion of Iraq was "the most expensive vote you would ever cast" being the classic example. But a nation's accountability to its citizens trumps that. And maintaining that accountability requires transparency.

 Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2006 08:51:00 PM

Post a Comment

(Anonymous comments are enabled).