Volume 4

July - September 2002

Backroom politicking, promotion of pointless resolutions, exclusion of NGOs - all raised to new levels...as 58th session builds on dubious legacy

THE 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was described as one of the most difficult ever by the Chairperson of the Commission, Mr. Kryzstof Jakubowski. That the CHR was able to discuss all the agenda items and adopt 118 resolutions and decisions, in light of a 30 percent reduction of its session time, was considered an achievement in itself. 

In view of the drastic reduction in the time allowed for discussions, the CHR was reduced to backroom politicking. Time constraints impacted all across the spectrum. NGO statements suffered greatly, particularly following the decision to close the debate on item 9 in the middle of NGO statements, which resulted in numerous NGOs losing their chance to speak. The worst affected were mandate holders of Special Procedures who had to present their annual reports as well as reports on their country visit, all within the allotted five minutes. The CHR did not hold its annual special debate as reportedly no agreement could be reached on whether the debate should concern human rights and terrorism or the rights of the disabled. 

The adoption of a resolution on the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health is a welcome move. 

The CHR nevertheless carried on as before when it came to adopting redundant resolutions - the one on "adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights," for example, is a long-time favourite. 

And if these types of already existing pointless resolutions weren't enough, Cuba was ready with a new one: "Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities (2002/26)". Presumably with a view to carrying out its publicly declared intention of sponsoring as many resolutions as possible on economic and social rights, Cuba has now ventured into cultural rights. Resolution 2002/26 requested the High Commissioner to consult with relevant actors concerning the implementation of the resolution and to explore the possibility of appointing a special rapporteur for the purpose. The poorly drafted resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba (2002/18) did little to halt the Cuban onslaught; it only inspired the Cuban delegation to continue to be as destructive as it usually is when it comes to civil and political rights. 

The situation of the Occupied Palestine Territories overshadowed the CHR. During a Special Sitting on Palestine the CHR authorised the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson to "head a visiting mission that would travel immediately" to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and "return expeditiously to submit its findings and recommendations to the current session of Commission on Human Rights." The visit however was thwarted by Israel, which would not permit the delegation entry. Similarly, the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing on his visit to Palestine in January 2002 was blocked from consideration under the relevant agenda item. The Palestine issue exposed States such as Australia, Canada and Guatemala, which supported the US-Israeli position. 

As the situation in the Middle East and the "war against terror" prevailed over the  CHR, the European Union (EU) failed to achieve results on a number of key resolutions. The most notable failure of the EU was the resolution on Assistance to Equatorial Guinea in the field of human rights (2002/11) sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. (see full story on page 11) For the last 23 years, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General has been monitoring the situation in Equatorial Guinea. 

The EU was caught off-guard by the African Group-sponsored resolution. The resolution was a win-win situation for Equatorial Guinea - even a defeat would have meant termination of the Special Representative's mandate by Equatorial Guinea unless amendments were proposed. Spain, on behalf of the EU, introduced an amendment which provided new wording for operative paragraph 5 for an Independent Expert to be appointed (to replace the mandate of the Special Representative). 

Equatorial Guinea protested and called for a vote. After a brief dramatic interlude by the Malaysian delegation, which encountered a "technical problem" with its voting machine while trying to change its vote from "in favour" to "against", a vote on a revote was conducted. Thirty-three States voted in favour of a revote, with 19 against and one abstention. The revote saw Malaysia voting against the amendment and the amendment's rejection with 26 in favour, 26 against and one (Venezuela) abstaining. 

Even the EU's balanced resolution on the situation of human rights in Chechnya (L. 29) and situation of human rights in Zimbabwe (L.23) failed, thanks to the machinations of the alliances in the name of "war against terror". 

Despite such politicking, member States agreed on another review of "Enhancing effectiveness of the Commission on Human Rights" (resolution 2002/91). The Asian group's oral proposal on "biennialization and clustering of agenda items, reduction of the number and length of resolutions through inter-alia, biennialization 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. The text proposed to discuss: (1) the duration of the annual session of the CHR; (2) the frequency of the consideration of agenda items and sub-items; (3) written contributions by members of the CHR, observer States and intergovernmental and NGOs; (4) the organisation of work during the annual session, including management of  interventions by delegations and the oral presentation of the reports submitted to the CHR. 

It is now to be expected, with the new formation of alliances and NGOs' reporting of human rights in all states, that the so-called neo-liberal States as well as the authoritarian ones will have similar views on the functioning of the Commission.

The fact that no State - Western or non-Western - objected to the text of resolution 2002/91 is an indication of the new understanding.