Reforming human rights: challenges facing new Human Rights Council.

BLAISE GODET is the current head of the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office in Geneva. He served as vice president of the UN Human Rights Council from its inception in 2006 to the summer of 2007.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The United Nations has several bodies that address the issue of human rights either directly or indirectly. What is the role of the Human Rights Council within this bureaucratic structure?

It is vital that UN bodies deal one way or another with human rights, since this is an issue that affects practically every activity undertaken by the UN. You cannot, for instance, devise development projects without taking into account human rights. In this context, Switzerland has consistently supported efforts to "mainstream" human rights within the UN system and always tries to ensure that UN agencies apply a human rights-based approach to their activities.

Human Rights Council (HRC) is the main UN body dealing with human rights, and it does so exclusively. The Council is responsible for the promotion and the protection of human rights. It is the body that addresses situations of violations (including gross and systematic ones) of human rights. The HRC also has the responsibility to promote the mainstreaming of human rights within the UN system. It is composed of 47 governments that meet regularly throughout the year to discuss the state of human rights and has the unique ability to convene for special sessions whenever one-third of the membership deems it necessary.

The now-defunct Human Rights Commission was criticized for selecting states with poor human rights records as members. How does the newly formed Human Rights Council propose to overcome this criticism?

In order to overcome the criticisms concerning membership, the resolution establishing the Human Rights Commission foresees several mechanisms that will contribute to a better selection of members who uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. First, members must fully cooperate with the Council and be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review and candidates have to make pledges and voluntary commitments in advance of the elections, a completely new feature of the HRC. These pledges and voluntary commitments shall be assessed by UN Member States when electing the members of the HRC. In order to be elected, states need 97 votes of the General Assembly, as opposed to a mere majority of the Member States present. Lastly, members of the HRC can also be suspended by the General Assembly if they commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.

How does the election of such countries as China, Pakistan, and Cuba conform to the requirement of upholding "the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights"?

Each of these countries made voluntary pledges before it was elected, and each will be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review in the coming years. This will be an opportunity for the Council to assess each state's human rights situation and whether it has upheld the commitments made. Quite frankly, it is a good thing that the Council is composed of countries whose obligations toward the implementation of human rights varies. It is through cooperation within the Council that countries can be helped to advance in the execution of their obligations. Moreover, none of the countries sitting currently on the Council have a perfect human rights record, including my own country.

What is the impact of the US' refusal to seek a spot on the Council?

In our opinion, US membership in the Council would have been greatly beneficial. The power and the influence of the United States would be a valuable asset to counterbalance the influence of powerful regional groups such as the Organisation of the Islamic Council (OIC). Having said that, the US delegation has been engaged as an observer and is actively participating in the work of the Council. The United States has pledged to "work cooperatively with the Council," and its commitment can only contribute to the strength and credibility of this new UN organ.

The most current and visible example of human rights violations is the situation in Darfur, for which the Council established a Group of Experts (GE). What options are available within the Council's mandate for action in Darfur, and what plan of action is the Council taking?

The Group of Experts has been quite active since its establishment last December and has established a constructive relationship with the authorities in Khartoum. GE presented a mid-term report at the September session of the HRC, which was quite encouraging. Further action shall be decided following a final report, which will be presented in December. Among other things, the report will present concrete recommendations on how the situation can be improved and how other states can contribute to the improvement by extending technical cooperation. We are hopeful that these concerted efforts will help redress the human rights situation in Darfur.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Human Rights Council has been criticized for focusing on the human rights violations of Israel and for mitigating the responsibility of Hezbollah and Hamas with regards to the Arab-Israeli crisis. Are these criticisms valid, and do you agree that a focus on the Arab-Israeli crisis distracts the Council from examining human rights abuses elsewhere?

The Arab-Israeli crisis cannot be ignored by the Council. It has to be looked at in a comprehensive way, taking into account the abuses by all sides. Switzerland has in this respect always expressed its preoccupation with regard to the deteriorating human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as with regard to the indiscriminate firing of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians.

While the situation in the Middle East has received great attention from the Council, it has not prevented the Council from addressing other human rights situations which deserve its attention. The Council has convened special sessions on Darfur and on Myanmar and situations such as those in Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Iran, Iraq, and others have continuously been raised in the plenary. From civil society sources we know that such interventions in the Council have an impact in the concerned countries, thanks to live transmission by webcast and media coverage.

Many countries have stated that the HRC should not take up "country situations," due to the politicization of the process in choosing the countries in question. They cite the Council's decision to cease monitoring Iran and Uzbekistan as an example of this problem. Do you believe that the country-specific approach is a viable one, and is there a procedure that the Council can follow in objectively selecting countries to investigate?

The Council should always strive to engage states in a dialogue that can bring concrete solutions to a particular human rights issue. Cooperation and dialogue should, therefore, be the first option. This is also one of the reasons why the Universal Periodic Review was created. However, the Council cannot dismiss resorting to other tools, such as a country-specific resolution or a country-specific special procedure, in case of lack of cooperation. I strongly believe that we have to creatively use all the tools that are available to the Council when engaging with any country. When applying its tools in fulfilling its mandate, the Council should follow a gradual approach.

How have the events of 9/11 altered the debate on human rights? To what extent have governments redefined their policies to legitimize "security measures" that might previously have been illegal police actions, and what danger does this trend pose to human rights?

The events of 9/11 have triggered changes in states' security policies and have, as a consequence, raised challenges in terms of human rights protection. The human rights community has reacted by devoting more attention to the issue of protection of human rights while countering terrorism. New initiatives have been tabled in the General Assembly, in the Commission on Human Rights, and now in the Council. These new efforts seek to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are taken in accordance with international law and that they do not deprive people of their fundamental human rights.

The infamous Danish cartoon controversy of 2005 seemed to identify a discord between free speech and religious tolerance. How has the Council responded to this dilemma?

The controversy certainly incited debate on the issue of religious defamation, a debate which is still ongoing. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has brought this issue to the forefront of the Council, extensively debating limitations to the freedom of expression. We in the Western world have particular sensitivities with regard to the protection of the freedom of expression, and it is difficult to find a middle ground with those who want to limit it. Such a middle ground can only be found if we continue an open and transparent dialogue, taking into account the sensitivities of both sides.

Kofi Annan has cautioned the Human Rights Council on the dangers of internal division between developed and developing countries. A recent condemnation of unilateral coercive action, for example, drew support from 32 developing countries, but was voted against by every member of the Western European bloc. Do you observe any of this dialectic within the Council, and does it hinder the Council's productivity on key issues?