As the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) opened last week, a sense of diamond jubilee celebration was strikingly absent. No wonder: for most states represented, institutions that empower individuals are seen not as a cause to celebrate, but a threat. As for the moral minority, anniversary cheer is difficult as the Geneva gathering steadily sinks into its annual abyss of Orwellian doublespeak, moral inversions and calculated scapegoating. Still, if democratic nations summon will and initiative – hitherto wielded by an axis appearing on Freedom House’s “Most Repressive Regimes” list – they, together with new personalities at the Commission, might begin paving a road to reform.
At the Commission, now more than ever, it is the inmates who are running the asylum.
Consider the past three years. First, in 2001, the United States was unprecedently denied a seat at the Commission’s 53-member table. Hard lobbying by China and Cuba, aimed at muzzling their strongest critic, produced a tacit alliance with Europe, who, long before the row over Iraq, was looking to put Washington in its place.
Next, in the 2002 session, America’s removal led to what government-controlled Iranian TV trumpeted as “a very important and decisive development.” After a UN human rights expert reported on the Islamic Republic’s chilling practices — flogging of youths, systematic discrimination against women, “public and especially cruel executions”, torture and killing of political activists — members of the Commission, driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), voted down any attempt at reproving Tehran. And then they fired the expert.
Finally, in 2003, the veil was gone: Colonel Khadaffi’s jamhariyah, the “state of the masses” whose record of abuse Human Rights Watch described as “appalling”, was chosen to be Chair of the UN’s top human rights body. Only Canada and Guatamela joined the U.S. in opposition; Europe abstained. Any remaining vestige of the Commission’s legitimacy evaporated overnight.
The current session, just underway, looks like a repeat. Already, Cuba rejected an expert report on its imprisonment of dissidents, barring its author from visiting the Communist island. The Palestinians advocated more “armed means” (read: bus bombings) against Israel. The Pakistanis, acting for the OIC, have just pushed through a special sitting to discuss the killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. Their goal: ignore the spreading fires of terror that hit Madrid, Karbala and Ashdod, and condemn the legitimate attempts to put them out.
Amid all the darkness, however, three new stars may shine light on this session, and the CHR’s future direction.
This year’s Chair is Ambassador Michael Smith of Australia. The obstacles are many, but he is sincerely seeking reform. Another luminary is Richard Williamson, head of the U.S. delegation. He is vigorously advancing a vision of freedom as the birthright of all, demanding that states such as Burma, Iran or North Korea put an end to their abusive policies and practices, whether against women’s equality, the rights of children or of ethnic and religious minorities. Finally, Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, a former international prosecutor, will later this year become High Commissioner. Hopes are high that she will emulate the independent-minded Sergio de Mello, murdered last year by terrorists in Iraq.
Ultimately, reform of the Commission depends on the will of democracies to form their own alliance. A caucus is materializing in connection with the emerging Community of Democracies. Should the Commission’s new leading lights wish to adopt a project that stands to make a real difference for human rights victims worldwide, this is the one.
