Trial by Ordeal
2008 & International Human Rights Mechanisms

Whilst 2008 will mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of human Rights, human rights mechanisms continue as the anachronism in international affairs. Efforts towards an effective international body for human rights bear testimony to this tendency. The most earnest of such efforts began with the establishment of the Commission on Human Rights in 1946. However, it was not until 2005, that the UN Secretary General’s reform package for the UN identified several defects in the commission. It had taken the UN machinery more than fifty years to resolutely identify problems in the Commission - by which time the problems had incubated into well-entrenched abuse. To counter this, the reform package suggested a new Geneva based body-the UN Human Rights Council.

The Council that was finally launched in 2006 turned out to be a watered-down version of what was suggested in 2005. The Council’s performance in the past one and a half years has been plagued with the same problems that haunted the Commission. One of the criticisms of the Commission was that its membership was providing berths to human rights violators who want to shield themselves. One and a half years down the line the UN Human Rights Council with members such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Malaysia - who all have serious allegations of human rights violations against them - has proved to be no different. Today, 2008 presents the possibility of Pakistan and Sri Lanka running for re-election; their candidatures being likely to be sponsored by powerful voting blocs and like-minded groups within the Council.

In the last five decades the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva was in practice always an important stage for several nefarious activities with the slightest bearing on human rights. These include factionalism and divisional politics of political blocs, espionage, counter-espionage, trade negotiations, political and economic assistance etc. While it is hard for such habits to change overnight, many states still see human rights as a threat to national security or as means for enhancing financial assistance, while others see it as a tool for enlarging their spheres of political and economic influence - leaving efforts for effective international human rights mechanisms at the whimsical mercy of state interests. The new Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (UPR) that is to swing into action during April 2008, is an example of this. Being established in 2007 as a mechanism to review human rights records of UN member states, from its very inception, it has been touted as “a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue”. The process has been clearly described as a state driven process in which civil society merely observes. States are requested to submit a report on their human rights records, with encouragement to hold civil society consultations. Civil society is to submit its findings to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who will prepare a summary of all such findings. So far, while civil society has been struggling with extremely short deadlines to submit information, many states do not seem to have had the appropriate encouragement to ensure broad civil society consultations.

In the meanwhile, in New York, at the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly a different drama was playing out in the last days of December 2007. The Committee backed by powerful donor countries was reluctant to approve the Council’s new budget. The budget included approximately USD13 million essential to conduct the UPR. It is feared that without sufficient money the Council’s work including the UPR may have to be frozen. Details of the budget that was eventually passed are still emerging and there are fears that there may be significant reductions. A wide cross section of states and civil society following the UN Human Rights Council are still waiting for things to settle in. New processes in the Council including the UPR create an uncertain environment even for members of the Council. Little seems to have been learnt from the similar uncertain beginnings of the Council’s predecessor.

It will be difficult to establish credible international human rights bodies as long as states remain engaged in Machiavellian tactics and Cold War approaches. The UN Human Rights Council can only be effective if there is a change in states’ attitudes towards human rights. However, such a change must take effect whilst the Council remains nascent, 2008 may be the last chance.