UN WATCH ENDORSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONS TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

UN WATCH ENDORSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONS
TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

The list of endorsements below is followed by an explanation of the methodology used and a discussion of key facts regarding the May 9th UN General Assembly election of members to the Human Rights Council.

Candidates from the African Group (for 13 seats)

Candidates from the Asian Group (for 13 seats)

Candidates from the Eastern European Group (for 6 seats)

Candidates fom GRULAC (for 8 seats)

Candidates from WEOG (for 7 seats)

Human Rights Council

The UN Human Rights Council was created by  Resolution 60/251 of the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006, and will begin its work on June 19, 2006.  The Council replaces the UN Commission on Human Rights. To read more about why the Commission needed reform and the process that led to the creation of the Council, click here and here.

Election Requirements

The election of the first Council members takes place on May 9, 2006.  To become a member, a country must receive the votes of at least 96 of the 191 states of the UN General Assembly (an absolute majority).  In electing Council members, the resolution provides that General Assembly members “shall take into account the candidates’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.”  An additional consideration ought to be whether the given candidate country can meet the obligations of Council membership, which include (a) “to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and (b) to “fully cooperate with the Council.”

The Council will have 47 seats, divided among the UN’s five regional groups as follows: 13 from the African Group, 13 from the Asian Group, 6 from the Eastern European Group, 8 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), and 7 from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG).

Candidates and Their Qualifications

As of May 1, 2006, by our count, 68 states have declared their candidacies for the Council.  Some have done so by writing to the General Assembly secretariat; these countries are listed on the  General Assembly website.  Some have done so in other ways, such as through diplomatic notes or through the press.

The above list of candidates is compiled from these various sources.  Where a candidate has made a voluntary pledge in support of its candidacy, a link to the pledge is provided.  For each candidate, we also list the following information, which we believe to be highly relevant to assessing a country’s human rights record and commitment:

• Its rating in Freedom House’s most recent global survey,  Freedom in the World 2006.  This annual study measures political rights and civil liberties worldwide and ranks countries as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. Where applicable we also noted the Not Free countries designated as the world’s most repressive by Freedom House in it 2005 special report,  The Worst of the Worst.
• Its ranking in the 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Sans Frontières. This annual evaluation of global press freedom lists countries from
  best (1 – a rank for which 7 countries tied in 2005) to worst (167). Freedom of the press is not only a key indicator of freedom of speech—the lifeblood of
  democracy—but also a vital check against the power of the state, and therefore a principal safeguard for individual liberty and human rights.
• Its voting record on resolutions against egregious human rights violations in the 2005 session of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee and, if the country was a member, the 2005 session of the Commission on Human Rights. (Voting scorecards, compiled by the Democracy Coalition Project, are available here.) These resolutions pertained to Belarus, Congo, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. We deemed each country’s voting record to be positive, negative, or mixed based on its willingness to criticize these countries, which are some of the world’s worst human rights violators.

Methodology

Based on our evaluation of these factors, UN Watch has decided to endorse, conditionally endorse, or reject each Human Rights Council candidate.

If it is to be credible and effective, and avoid the mistakes of the Commission, the Council needs a quality membership—countries with strong records of and credible commitments to respecting and promoting human rights. Resolution 60/251—not to mention the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – requires no less. In our view, the ideal candidates for Council membership are those rated Free by Freedom House, ranked in the top third (56 and above) of the Reporters Sans Frontières index, and with a positive UN human rights voting record.

In today’s regionally-grouped UN, however, the Council will not be made up only of countries that meet our ideal. We still believe in striving for the ideal, but we recognize this reality. We also recognize that Council membership could encourage a less-than-ideal country to make real human rights improvements. Therefore, we endorsed some countries that, although not our ideal, we deemed to be of acceptable quality, considering all of the circumstances. For example, we might endorse a country that was rated Partly Free, if it had a good RSF press freedom ranking, a positive human rights voting record, and/or a strong and credible voluntary pledge in support of its candidacy.

We also gave a conditional endorsement to certain candidates. This category generally includes countries that are Free but have negative or mixed human rights voting records. These countries tend to base their UN votes on regional or developing world loyalty rather than on their democratic values, and as a result too often ally with nondemocracies to protect egregious rights violators. For example, in the 2005 Third Committee, India, Mali and South Africa all voted with the mostly non-democratic African Group to block consideration of the human rights crisis in Darfur—despite having pledged, as leading members of the Community of Democracies and the UN Democracy Caucus, to work with other democracies to promote democratic values and human rights at the UN and in the international community. The new standards for Council membership require members to put the promotion and protection of human rights before UN politics. As these countries are otherwise qualified, we will endorse them if they pledge to do so when they vote in the Council.

We did not endorse any country rated Not Free by Freedom House. We consider such countries unqualified for Council membership under Resolution 60/251’s standards. In addition, we believe that certain of the Not Free countries pose a particular threat to the Council’s legitimacy. The membership of some of the world’s most egregious and systematic human rights violators poisoned the Commission, and would do the same to the Council. Of the current candidates, we view China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia as falling into this category.

PDF Version