Geneva, November 3, 2010 — The U.S. is trying to stop the Cuban delegation from organizing the list of countries at the Human Rights Council that will review America's human rights record on Friday.
"We are concerned that Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other non-democracies are planning to hijack the session to score propaganda points and drum up anti-American sentiment worldwide," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental monitoring group. "We applaud the U.S. for setting a model for openness in its approach to the UN review, and it's tragic that many states are seeking to misuse and politicize the process."
UN Watch Background on UPR
The peer review sessions of the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council are often misused by countries to praise allies and criticize enemies instead of highlighting genuine cases of abuse, a non-governmental human rights group said today.
The Chinese media hailed the U.N.'s UPR process for the praise heaped on China by many of its allies including Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Pakistan. Click here to see more on how non-democracies use the UPR's mutual praise to create legitimacy for their rule.
See below UN Watch's key findings on UPR.
MUTUAL PRAISE SOCIETY
1. The primary innovation of the UN Human Rights Council is its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism, which is meant to review the human rights records of all 192 UN member states, once every four years. According to the Council’s Institution-Building Package of 2007, UPR’s objectives are to achieve “the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground” in the country under review, and “the fulfilment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments.” Reviews are to be conducted in an “objective,” “non-selective” and “non politicized” manner.
2. The substantial data compiled in this study reveals, however, that the reviews conducted by the vast majority of countries participating in the UPR process are failing to achieve its stated purpose. More than 300 UPR interventions were analyzed and evaluated, as detailed in 12 country charts. Out of 55 countries examined—including all 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council—only 19 had average scores indicating that they contributed positively. Tragically, a majority of 32 out of 55 countries acted as a mutual praise society, misusing the process in order to legitimize human rights abusers, instead of holding them to account. (Four were neither positive nor negative: two with average scores of 0, and another two having made no interventions in any of the country reviews examined.)
3. As shown in Table 1, of the 19 countries with overall positive scores—who properly used the UPR process to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms—Canada was the only country that ranked as VERY CONSTRUCTIVE. It was the most consistent in vigorously challenging countries on specific human rights issues, with strong interventions that support the UPR’s purpose of reminding countries of their responsibilities in order to help victims and address human rights violations wherever they occur. We recommend that Canada continue to hold all countries to account, particularly the world’s worst abusers, and that other countries follow.
4. Close behind were France, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom were rated as CONSTRUCTIVE. We recommend that these nations—which include some the world’s leading democracies—undertake to do better. While it is in the nature of governments to balk at confronting other countries for fear of affecting friendly diplomatic relations, human rights cannot be neglected, and countries must live up to their obligations as participants in the UPR process. The UN member states that conduct UPR will only engender accountability from the country under review, and thereby protect human rights victims, to the extent that they pose tough and specific questions for each country under review.
5. Another 10 countries were found to have made contributions to the review process that were positive, yetWEAK: Argentina, Australia, Bosnia, Brazil, Chile, Italy, Japan, Slovakia, South Korea andZambia. That so many respected democracies choose to ask soft questions, shying away from pointedly addressing violations and ensuring scrutiny, is unacceptable. We urge a dramatic shift in approach by countries that should be leading by example. (Included also in this same category were two countries whose contributions were neither positive nor negative: Cameroon and Ukraine.)
6. The rankings in Table 1 reflect only the average quality of interventions made. They do not measure the quantity of statements, the statistics for which are available in Tables 2 and 3. Switzerland, for example, spoke only in 6 out of the 12 country reviews examined in this report. Similarly, the United States spoke in only 7 of the 12 reviews, and of late has been silent at UPR sessions. Argentina, Bosnia, Chile and Slovakia spoke only a handful of times. We recommend that all countries—in particular, those who are members of the Human Rights Council—fulfill their duties by participating meaningfully in the UPR process.7. Regrettably, a majority of the countries examined in this report not only failed to fulfill the stated objective of UPR, but acted to undermine it. Their interventions praised and covered up for the country reviewed, effectively blocking, undermining and spoiling genuine scrutiny of violations. When violators are granted impunity, victims are let down. This group includes five countries whose interventions were rated asDETRIMENTAL: Bolivia, Ghana, Russia, South Africa and Uruguay. Even worse, 11 countries were rated in their performance as VERY DETRIMENTAL: Angola, Egypt, Jordan, India, Iran, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Senegal.
8. The 16 worst UPR performers of all, however—countries that specifically praised, legitimized and encouraged country policies and practices that violate human rights—were rated as DESTRUCTIVE: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Syria, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
9. The report demonstrates that bloc affiliations played an important role in determining how countries reviewed each other. For example, as a rule, members of the 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference strongly praised each other’s records. As a result, some of the poorest overall reviews were those performed on Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco and Tunisia, closely followed by Pakistan and Uzbekistan. We urge all UN members states not to allow bloc politics to override their obligation to conduct UPR reviews in an objective, non-selective and non-politicized manner.
10. While almost all of the countries that acted positively in UPR rank as free democracies under the annual survey by Freedom House, not all free democracies acted positively. On average, the UPR interventions of Ghana, India, Indonesia, Mauritius, Senegal, South Africa and Uruguay undermined human rights, while those of Ukraine were neither negative nor positive. It is time for democratic countries at the UN to act like democracies.
11. Each of the 12 country charts in this report begins with a list of human rights violations committed by the country under review, as documented by respected human rights NGOs, along with a link to the official UN compilation of NGO submissions on that country’s record. Regrettably, as the charts show, most country interventions failed to consider this NGO information, and failed to address the most prevalent human rights violations.The Obama Administration's representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council said today that UN Watch'seight-point plan for U.S. action at the 47-nation body provides "excellent benchmarks for where progress is needed," and outlined in detail how the U.S. is meeting each one.
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe delivered her remarks at the annual human rights luncheon of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights organization that monitors the United Nations.
"We take your recommendations to the U.S. government on how to refocus the work of the UN Human Rights Council seriously," said Donahoe. "We agree that the U.S. must assume leadership for changing the dynamics at the Council and we take that responsibility to heart."
"UN Watch is gratified that our recommendations for the defense of core human rights principles and mechanisms are being taken seriously by U.S. decision-makers," said Executive Director Hillel Neuer. "While the process that began this week to review and reform the council will require multilateral action, U.S. leadership will be essential."
The full text of Ambassador Donahoe's remarks as delivered follow below.
I would like to express my appreciation to UN Watch and especially Hillel Neuer for inviting me to speak with you this afternoon. I took up my position as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council just seven months ago, so I see this as a wonderful opportunity to exchange views on our common values and compare notes on how we can work more effectively at the Council, so that those values are better reflected in the output of the Council.
In preparing for today, I went back to the UN Watch mission statement – which obviously reflects the great intellect and deep commitments of your founder, Morris Abram. It reads as follows:
The UN Watch mission statement aligns very closely with the reasons behind President Obama’s decision to seek membership at the Council. Well aware of the weaknesses of the Council, the
Admittedly, these are ambitious pledges in the context of the current work and functioning of the Human Rights Council. While the
Notwithstanding some great challenges, my experience representing the United States at the Council over the course of the past seven months has only strengthened my belief that groups of committed states and NGOs, working together, can make a very significant difference in outcomes at the Council; and that the Council can have a positive impact on the promotion and protection of human rights on the ground.
For our conversation today, I thought it would be useful to look at the eight-point action plan outlined by UN Watch earlier this year, in your “Report and Scorecard with Recommendation for U.S. Government Action” at the Human Rights Council. This plan provides excellent benchmarks for where progress is needed. We take your recommendations to the
1) Hold the Worst Violators to Account:
The specific recommendation under this first point of the plan is to introduce country-specific resolutions, and convene special sessions to address urgent situations of gross human rights violations. This is one of our top priorities and probably our most difficult task – because of the political dynamics and working culture of the Council, where any type of country specific initiative can be perceived as an exercise in “naming and shaming” or “North-South” criticism.
So let’s look at the record on this point. In the past year, with active
What I can report to you is that as part of the 2011 review exercise in which we are all engrossed, one of our top priorities will be to find a way to develop and reinforce mechanisms to move the Council in the direction of holding human rights violators to account.
2) Vigorously protect freedom of speech:
The specific recommendation under this action item is to oppose efforts to ban speech through the establishment of an international prohibition on the defamation of religion.
Protection of freedom of speech is a core
3) End discriminatory and unequal treatment of Israel:
Here the specific recommendation is to combat the Council's obsessive adoption of one-sided and biased resolutions against one state - Israel, and to seek to remove permanent agenda Item No. 7 that institutionalises such discriminatory treatment.
4) Defend the rights of NGOs:
This action point calls for vigorous U.S. defense of human rights NGOs at the Council, to preserve the historic role of NGOs as independent voices that hold governments to account.
Defending the rights of NGOs at the Council is another top priority for the
5) Oppose the election of violators to the Council:
The essence of this recommendation is for the United States to encourage countries with the strongest human rights records to stand for election to the Council in their respective regional groups.
The United States understands that the Human Rights Council will only be as good as its members. Our goal is to make sure that the member states elected to the Human Rights Council are governments with exemplary human rights records and sincere commitments to promoting human rights internationally. Members must be prepared to actively and constructively engage in the work of the Human Rights Council. As many of you know, in the spring of 2010, the
6) Encourage positive work of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
This recommendation focuses on defending the positive and independent work of the High Commissioner against escalating attempts to control her activities and agenda.
We agree wholeheartedly that the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is vital to its effectiveness. The High Commissioner must be able to act as a voice for the voiceless, and speak the truth about human rights abuses on the ground, wherever they may occur.
In September, we were faced with a very serious threat to the independence of the High Commissioner via a proposed resolution entitled “Strengthening dialogue, coordination and cooperation between the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,” this resolution would have subjected the OHCHR’s strategic management plan to Council approval. Through the effective work of a group of countries committed to the broad scope of work and independence of the OHCHR, this resolution was withdrawn. It was replaced with a statement, drafted by the High Commissioner, offering to share the Secretary-General’s Proposed Strategic Framework with members of the Council – but without any requirement that the Council approve the plan. In this case, we were successful in averting a potentially significant reduction in the High Commissioner’s ability to function autonomously.
In sum, the
7) Defend the HRC’s independent rights monitors (special procedures):
This recommendation focuses on the need to create, strengthen and then defend the Council's independent rights monitors from increasing efforts to intimidate them or influence their work.
Supporting the work of the Council’s independent mandates is one of the best ways we can ensure that some of the world’s worst human rights abuses are brought to light. In September, the Council created two new mandates – both of which are critical to protecting human rights around the globe. Through a
In another moment of genuine accomplishment, under the extraordinary leadership of
We are also looking at ways to strengthen and defend the work of existing mandate holders in the 2011 Review process.
8) Strengthen the Universal Period Review
The Universal Periodic Review mechanism, or UPR, is widely viewed as the most significant improvement in the HRC compared with the Commission on Human Rights, specifically because it instituted a universal review of the human rights record of every country in the UN system. UPR requires self-examination and public presentation by each country of its human rights record, and permits the scrutiny of each country’s record by the international community. Through the UPR process, we have stood with our partners to condemn some of the world’s worst human rights violators.
The U.S. UPR will take place on November 5th. We have worked hard over the past year to facilitate what we see as a model of engagement with civil society, for the purpose of strengthening our own human rights practices at home. While we recognize that we are far from perfect in terms of our own human rights record, and we do expect some exuberant and unfounded criticism, we believe that participation in a thorough, open and transparent process is the way to improve our own practices, as well as to help improve the UPR process of others. We are firm in our conviction that the power of the
In closing, we see our work at the the Human Rights Council as a challenging but valuable opportunity to make a difference on human rights. As noted earlier, the Council is engaged in a serious self-reflection exercise via the 2011 Review process with the goal of improving its work and effectiveness. As with all political bodies, the process of finding a way to improve the output of the Council will inevitably be messy. But, if we do not sit at the table with others and do the work necessary to influence the process, our shared values and priorities will not bereflected in the outcome.
The Council has the potential to serve as a critical venue for the promotion, protection, and mainstreaming of human rights. We still have much work to do, but we believe that
|UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.|