In the shadow of war  

But events in the Gulf are unlikely to inspire the CHR to give human rights their place in the sun

THE looming war against Iraq, led by the United States with or without the United Nations' sanction, hangs heavily over the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The Commission is meeting in Geneva from 17 March to 25 April 2003, and unless the threat of war recedes it is unlikely that it will be business as usual. Even prior to the gathering of the storm clouds of war, it was doubtful that the 59th session of the CHR would adopt resolutions against the large number of countries which stand accused of human rights violations.

Moreover, reliable sources indicate that the Like Minded Group (LMG) has girded its loins for battle on the issue of country resolutions. Having tasted blood by excising country specific resolutions from the Sub Commission, they now hope to repeat the success at the only body in the United Nations where they can now be named and shamed for their human rights records. If (or when) the threat of war becomes an actuality, many worry that the difficult project of defending human rights from violator countries will be added to the list of the conflict's casualties.

Take the example of the LMG's plan to emasculate country specific human rights mechanisms. Many states, still committed to the liberal democratic framework, are aware of the LMG's designs on the CHR. However, this awareness has not led to concerted action to make the sessions more than the "talking shop" they are at the moment.

A calculated attempt to undermine the Special Procedures of the Commission is underway, and the most likely protectors of the Procedures seem incapable of mounting a worthy defence. National Human Rights Institutions are engaged in bargaining for speaking time at the CHR, having been given short shrift last year. A majority of the NGOs are - as usual - in blunder-land.

Yet, the LMG is hardly the only body which is engaged in activities that work to the detriment of human rights in the UN system. An accurate portrayal of the difficulties facing the CHR must acknowledge the political machinations of those countries that often portray themselves as being at the vanguard of global human rights defence.

The United States, for example, has been attempting to expand its "coalition of the willing" in the war against Iraq and thus neutralise key opponents of the war, namely China, France, Germany and Russia. If international human rights are subsumed by the rubric of international politics, then so be it.

In turn, the European Union has created its own double standard by failing to sponsor a resolution on the situation of human rights in China. This was acknowledged at the 58th session of the CHR by Kevin E Moley, the US Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, when he stated that the EU effectively hid behind the United States with respect to the issue. The US had sat out the 58th session of the CHR, having been voted off CHR membership in 2001.

The highly confrontational atmosphere between the North and South may further weaken the CHR mechanisms. For example, at the 58th session, despite no improvement of the human rights situation, Equatorial Guinea was taken off the hook after 23 years through the resolution on Assistance to Equatorial Guinea in the field of human rights (2002/11), sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. In his forthcoming report (E/CN.4/2003/67/Add.2) to the 59th session of the CHR, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr Ambeyi Ligabo, concludes after a December 2002 visit to the country that "human rights NGOs are still not allowed to register and function in Equatorial Guinea". NGOs such as the Bar Association and Press Association have been barred, yet the human rights approach to Equatorial Guinea's policies has been abandoned in favour of a far more forgiving focus on technical assistance.

The misguided conflation of regional solidarity with regional improvement has clear implications at the present session of the CHR. The European Parliament, in its resolution (P5_TA-PROV (2003) 0033) of 30 January 2003, "called on the EU presidency to sponsor or support resolutions during the upcoming session on: China, in particular addressing the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang; Russia, in particular addressing the situation in Chechnya; Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, the human rights situation in the Israeli Occupied Territories and in the area under the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Congo, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Cuba, Colombia, North Korea, Burma and Nepal". Yet if the track record of the 58th session of the CHR is any indication, the fraternity of geographical groupings will prevail.

As Libya, a key member of the Like Minded Group, chairs the 59th session of the CHR, the second review of "Enhancing effectiveness of the Commission on Human Rights" (resolution 2002/91) is further set to weaken the human rights mechanisms of the CHR. The Asian group's oral proposal on "biennialisation and clustering of agenda items, reduction of the number and length of resolutions through inter-alia, biennialisation of as many thematic resolutions as possible, and discontinuation of resolutions which are no longer warranted by existing circumstances, in addition to strict observance of speaking time limits" were fully reflected in the CHR resolution resulting from the review.

When the CHR starts its session, the discussion of provisional agenda item 3 on the Organisation of Work of the Session is likely to set the tone for the Commission.

Unfortunately, preliminary developments do not bode well for those who wish to take a hard line in the protection of human rights. Countries which oppose any international scrutiny on human rights violations provided their comments through submissions of the regional groups. In turn, the LMG has attempted to erode mechanisms for international scrutiny through its proposal to increase policing at the CHR. In their submission (E/CN.4/2003/11), the LMG recommends that the OHCHR should resume the practice of editing all contributions, including those of NGOs, in accordance with paragraphs 30 and 31 of resolution 1996/31. The comments and views of States should be reflected in the reports of the Special Rapporteurs, despite serious restrictions of the number of pages.

In an example of the LMG's covert practice of discouraging the use of a Special Debate in parallel meetings, it recommends that "as a rule, there should not be more than one meeting of this type held in parallel to the plenary. Such meetings will be announced orally in the plenary, as well as posted on the board, not less than three days in advance of their being held. The secretariat will make available to member and observer States the list of non-accredited persons invited."

Lastly, as the CHR becomes increasingly filled with Government Organized NGOs (GONGOs), the Asian group has taken advantage of the opportunity to recommend "more coordination and effective alignment and representation of like-minded NGOs". Having seen the work of the Like Minded Group of states to erode the CHR mechanisms, the Asian bloc now seeks to let loose the Like Minded NGOs (read GONGOs) to further destroy the credibility of the NGOs and the parallel meetings.

All of these developments occur within the context of the much-discussed selection of Libya as the chair of the Commission on Human Rights. Thanks to the unprecedented call for a vote by the United States, Libya can claim to be the first in this position to be democratically elected. Rather than being censured for its abysmal human rights record, Libya obtained legitimacy after it was elected with 33 countries in favour, three countries opposed, and 17 countries abstaining. The United States has indeed made an important point in its opposition to the election of Libya as the Chair of the CHR: respect for rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms should be key benchmarks to be a member of the CHR.

However, countries that preach the principles of the rule of law must do so themselves. Not only when dealing with other member states of the UN, but also when dealing with individuals-be they their own citizens or not. In this context, the call of the European Parliament resolution of 30 January 2003 to the EU presidency "to sponsor a resolution calling on the US immediately to clarify the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo, including those who have lately been transferred to other parts of the US, and to release prisoners against whom there are no retainable charges" is important. As the European Parliament asserted, "the fight against terrorism should in no way endanger the protection of fundamental human rights and must be based on international humanitarian law".

This year's session of the CHR is not without potential to affect much-needed changes for the defence of human rights. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio de Mello, can set the tone for the 59th session of the CHR. Specifically, he can attempt to halt the gradual but definite erosion of existing standards and efforts to make the CHR irrelevant. He and his office have their work cut out for them and the human rights community naturally wishes them well.