Friends,
With pleasantries now exchanged, it is time to rattle our keyboards like sabres, and to turn as blades our intellects to a dissection of the Human Rights Council session that just was. A ninth in three years.
I offer a synopsis of the session.
We have a new High Commissioner - whose cut of jib I like. Country mandates were either weakened (Burundi, Cambodia and Sudan), extinguished (Liberia) or left unchanged (Haiti). A Special Procedures mandate-holder fell on his sword (Yash Ghai) – though from my vantage point he looked pushed. The nonsensical construction “defamation of religions” has been thrown on the fire, with international human rights law the supposed phoenix to rise from the ashes, while freedom of expression is clinging to the ropes and gasping for breath. Panels on gender and missing persons claimed centre stage, but were less than room-fillers. Despite the sterling work of our man Desmond, Beit Hanoun remains little more than a protracted jawfest. Through its Complaint Procedure – toothless lion that it is – the Council has spared the Maldives (leaving it to climate change to finish the job), while keeping Turkmenistan cornered in its clandestine lair. The politics of the common-denominator saw four new State-appointed mandate-holders get the nod, with the search for Mr. Ghai’s successor now, no doubt, the subject of frenzied and salacious negotiation. The gauntlet that is the relationship between OHCHR and the Council is lodged firmly in the turf in anticipation of the March session. And speaking of battlefields, let us not forget the Durban Review Conference.
In the face of all this, the Council adopts without a vote a resolution entitled ‘Strengthening of the Human Rights Council’ – with straight bloody faces no less.
Sad state of affairs comrades! I was quite happy in the fridge. Why was my slumber interrupted for this?! Does it not speak volumes that a resolution on “international solidarity” goes to a bloody vote? Delegates – shame on you and your houses, to misquote old Willy.
I continue -
the EU and the African and Asian Groups refuse to shift from the shelter of their respective (yet intersecting) blocs, GRULAC’s watching the grass grow, and the few States prepared to make conscience their master have been left to the elements.
Did I miss anything?
Ah, yes – time for a little introspection civil society. First of all, your numbers were down – not as many attending as at last September’s session. Your performance – highs and lows. The high – item 6 on the UPR – a solid, team effort full of sparky ideas that States and the secretariat would have done well to aim an ear at. The low point – item 9 – racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the DDPA. Half of you didn’t turn up for starters. Most of those who did dusted-off speeches drafted for the 1985 session of the Commission and were swiftly spanked by the President and humiliated by choice States for it. Don’t even get me started on the issue of the bloody Hippopotami adorning the walls of églises françaises.
And while speaking of the President, have you taken him to task for his repeated public celebration of your bumless seats during the debacle that was item 9? I’m presuming no, non, нет.
I best stop here. Given the state of my liver, my personal physician has advised me against shedding too much bile.
I sign over to you now habibis. Spare no issue, no matter how prickly. But I implore you - keep to our mantra. Our conversations seek to augment and advance human rights, not deride them. The maximisation of the Council’s effectiveness is our goal. And, in so noble a pursuit, let there be no room for doubt that we at all times preserve international human rights law as our touchstone.
SS.
7 responses so far ↓
Luis // 26 September, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Sam, thank you. Thank for saying with the proper adjectives the things we all thought but have not found the place to say. It’s refreshing to see that foex is celebrated at last. Keep it up. I particularly hope that the grass will make some noise while growing if the spectators don’t. L
Hugo // 28 September, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Right, luis, I agree. But sam is wrong in one point – we’re not watching it grow, we’re smoking it.
HRD // 28 September, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hi Sam.
Firstly, thank you for creating this long-needed forum. I welcome the opportunity to address the Human Rights Council, its politics and issues, but, especially, to vent some spleen. For four sessions now I have watched States progressively roll back the somewhat remarkable consensus product that was resolution 5/1 (long attributed to de Alba’s prowess but now rightfully placed at your feet!).
It seems there is almost a collective hush in place based on the rationale that it’s too soon to judge the Council – or the UPR for that matter. In the meantime, NGOs – terribly unstrategic in most cases – recycle exhausted arguments while hyper-funded GONGOs rule the floor.
I welcome your synopsis of the 9th session and add my voice to your frustrated tone. For me, the low point of the session came soon after its conclusion, when Council President Uhomoibhi welcomed the shortened and significantly watered-down resolution on Sudan as a step in the right direction. For him, consensus means progress. To me, to employ your words, it’s simply a lowest common denominator result. Nothing less than an appalling regression and a terrible message to send to the international community, let alone the State actors we have long laboured to convince to respect human rights.
- HRD
HRCfollower // 28 September, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Sharp work Sam. Happy that someone’s finally spoken their mind. Not before time.
serpentinesam // 29 September, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Tchin-tchin HRD – you fly the flag with vigour.
I, too, was immensely disappointment upon hearing the President’s post-session Sudan utterings. I do welcome, however, his attempts to distinguish between agenda items. This is an important and essential move towards a clearer, more nuanced agenda and may well compel speakers – States and NGOs alike – to be more strategic, constructive and hopefully less repetitive in their use of the floor.
It is regrettable, however, that NGOs had not been forewarned that change was in the winds on this front – the result being that a number of NGOs had their statements either ruled inadmissable or moved to other agenda items. Other NGOs were expected to change the tack of their statements mid-speech and, unsurprisingly, opted to cut their message short, skulking away from the microphone wearing a shade of face that closely resembled beetroot.
This new “agenda policy” was certainly learned the hard way by NGOs, especially by those that had travelled long and expensive distances to deliver statements that were hastily given the gavel.
SS.
Jamila // 29 September, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I see your points, Sam and HRD, but are we too quick to judge the HRC? It is still in its infancy. Perhaps we should let it find its feet and gather a bit more momentum before hitting out.
serpentinesam // 29 September, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Jamila, I hear what has fallen from you. Thank you. Indeed, I recall Laugier’s words at birth of the Commission in June ‘46 as if spoken yesterday –
“Do not measure the importance of your commission on the basis of its present dimensions. We are only at the starting point of a very great enterprise, the volume of which and the action of which will have to grow, day by day. You are the seed out of which great and beautiful harvests must come …”
A ‘great enterprise’ no less. Pure poetry.
But I offer you a counter consideration.
The Council is indeed in the springtime of its youth. It is surely, then, our foremost task to ensure that it does not unravel any part of the last sixty years of progress. The defence and advancement of human rights must be seen by all to be the Council’s raison d’être and it is against this yardstick that we must measure its performance. To me, our role is to ensure that, in times of rough weather and poor wind, we are there to see that the Council keeps its course. Our voices – critical, constructive, encouraging, condemnatory, celebratory – are the seeds to the harvest of which Laugier has so beautifully foretold.
Furthermore, much can be forgiven when attributed to youth and inexperience. For this reason we must view the Council not simply as a new body but in its broader historical context – as the continuation, indeed fruition, of over six decades of hard-won progress.
SS.