Rapporteur’s Report

The Century Foundation, Open Society Institute and Friedrich Ebert Foundation convened a luncheon roundtable just hours after the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a hard-fought package on governance and procedures. Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation, moderated the discussion, which was lead by four panelists:

• Morton H. Halperin, Director of U.S. Advocacy at the Open Society Institute
• Lawrence Moss, Special Counsel for Human Rights Watch
• Yvonne Terlingen, UN Representative for Amnesty International
• Ambassador Alfredo Labbé, Deputy Permanent Representative of Chile to the U.N.

A year ago, the co-conveners hosted a discussion of the merits of replacing the U.N. Human Rights Commission with a proposed Council, under terms that were still being negotiated, on the premise that a different structure could upgrade the membership and strengthen U.N. efforts to protect human rights. In the year since, the Council’s alacrity in criticizing Israeli rights abuses and diffidence in dealing with others, as it wrestled with how it would organize its work, have inspired growing doubts about whether anything was accomplished by the change.

Moderator Jeffrey Laurenti opened the roundtable discussion by recalling the disaffection with the Commission, the efforts to find a remedy, and the hopes and disillusionment attendant on the new Council. He asked panelists to address such questions as: Have we fixed any of the problems with the Commission, or has the Council only provided a wealth of targets to vindicate the skepticism of adversaries? Which expectations has it met and which ones has it not met?

Improvements:

Each of the expert presenters cited operational improvements in the functioning of the Council relative to the former commission. Lawrence Moss highlighted the fact that the Council meets year-round as opposed to the six-week annual session of the Commission and lauded the acceptance of a Universal Periodic Review, allowing the human rights record of every country to be scrutinized. While Moss was generally critical of membership procedures, he pointed to the defeat of Belarus’ bid this year for a seat on the Council as a hopeful sign for more effective membership standards. Moss stated, “It is possible with the expenditure of political and diplomatic capital to breathe life into the membership standards and the same is true for the procedures adopted by the Council in Geneva today.”

The panelists also drew attention to the role that NGOs played in the Council's first year and the impact they were able to have on Council proceedings, as well as human rights enforcement on the ground. Mort Halperin and Yvonne Terlingen agreed that the Human Rights Council has been effective in supporting local NGOs to fight for increased attention to and upholding of human rights standards. Terlingen explained, “The NGOs that really matter, when it comes to improving the situation on the ground, are national NGOs. And I think it’s very encouraging to see with the Humans Rights Council that what has happened is that there is much greater involvement by national NGOs… acting as a channel.” Moss pointed to the NGO community’s involvement in persuading delegations to reject Belarus, arguing that they successfully increased awareness of the problematic character of its candidacy and rallied members of the General Assembly to vote against it. Ambassador Alfredo Labbé agreed that involvement from outside parties was vital to the success of the Council, explaining, “No resolution by itself is going to achieve anything if it is not supported by pertinent organizations, pertinent bodies, by people from academia, by political parties at the national level and at the global level as well.”

Halperin argued that there is evidence that the Council’s work is indeed affecting people’s lives: “It’s clear that people who are struggling on the front lines for human rights, while they understand all the arguments about the weaknesses of the Council, and limits of the Council, and the politicization of the Council, ultimately see it as an institution that helps them in their struggle for human rights.” Halperin emphasized that the Council’s importance is demonstrated by the attention and concern it has garnered, particularly in the countries that are subject to the worst human rights violations. Belarusian human rights advocates, he explained, were vocal in their opposition to Belarus taking a seat on the Council, demonstrating their belief that the Council should and can serve as an effective defender of human rights. “What we’ve learned is that the people in-country know what’s going on at the Human Rights Council,” Halperin said. “People in Belarus care about the Council and people in Zimbabwe, if you talk to people now fighting that struggle, they’re very unhappy about the inability to get the Council to act. They want the Council to act and it will be news in Zimbabwe if they act.” Halperin argued that this awareness and concern over the Human Rights Council’s role in mitigating abuse should be considered a positive sign of the support the Council has as a global human rights body.

Problems:

Panelists also raised a number of issues that they saw as hindering the Council’s ability to operate effectively. Of particular concern to some was the pattern of voting in regional blocs, and specifically the reflexes of many in the developing world to draw together defensively to rebuff criticism of even brutal abusers in control of a developing country. Halperin regretted that even countries that uphold human rights domestically often vote with others in their region against pro-human rights initiatives at the U.N., ultimately undermining their own standards for protection against human rights abuses. Halperin said, “Countries that care about human rights need to vote like they care about human rights.” One ambassador lamented the reflexive tendency to North-South alignments on human rights measures even by democratic governments in developing countries, which undermines substantive gains in protecting human rights: “Here we have two logics or two cultures. The logic of substance and the logic of alignment…the future of the council and the Council will succeed, if we manage to shift from a logic of alignment…to a logic of substance, of merit, of the issue itself. Then we will be successful, otherwise it will be a failure.”

Moss was critical of membership procedures, which he said allow countries with poor human rights records to acquire a seat on the Council with backing by regional groups. Moss argued, though, that the problems with the Council are more political than procedural. Moss pointed out the difficulty for many Council members in vigorously and judiciously examining the human rights records of other nation-states with which they have all sorts of other interests—economic, security, religious, political—at stake. As a consequence, Moss stated, “Democracies do not always practice what they preach.”

Laurenti posed as an area of concern the question of the Council’s swiftness in repeatedly calling Israel to account for abusive actions in Lebanon and Palestine, while moving with all deliberate speed on other situations. Panelists and participants agreed that the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories are seriously compromised and deserving of international attention, but criticized the ease with which the Council in its first year has focused single-mindedly on Israel , while only reluctantly and with difficulty agreeing to subject Sudan to critical scrutiny. Labbé acknowledged that the Council’s focus on the Israeli case, which he suggested might legitimately raise questions of “double standards,” demonstrated that a political body like the Council will make political decisions; the political alliances internationally on this long-running conflict were well known.

Pointing to the Council’s decision a few hours earlier to inscribe review of “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” as its only permanent agenda item, Moss argued that for the Palestinians themselves there was a downside to uniquely focusing on “a separate agenda item for Palestine.” It would have been better, he said, “if all this were done under one agenda item for all country situations.  And there are very legitimate human rights problems in Palestine… but the people of Palestine, the Palestinians, are ill served by this system, which makes their cause a political one and not a human rights one.” Others called both for a balanced review of the Israeli/Palestinian situation and for greater involvement by bodies other than the Human Rights Council to remedy the situation in Palestine. “I think that if the Security Council managed to do something in addressing the situation in Israel and the occupied territories,” Terlingen suggested, “then maybe that could decrease the pressure in Geneva on the imbalance question.”

Discussing institutional developments, Terlingen suggested that while recent changes within the Council do not preclude its successful operation, there remain several problem areas. Terlingen specifically criticized the review of the Council’s Special Procedures, the tool used to address country specific alleged violations, arguing that the review did not meet expectation in producing a more coherent and coordinated system which would have served to strengthen the influence of the Council. Likewise, Terlingen argued that newly adopted “Code of Conduct”, designed to “define ethic and professional standards of behavior” of the independent experts, was a hastily drafted document which has the potential to have negative consequences for the experts ability to do their work.

Solutions:

Terlingen urged governments to maintain the independence of experts, to fill the gaps in the system and to facilitate prompt review of allegations and effective follow up. She specifically pointed out the importance of selecting independent and qualified experts who have clearly demonstrated their commitment to human rights and their knowledge of the rights under consideration. Terlingen also asserted that transparency will be essential to the success of the Council stating, “This must be a public process, not a private one”.

Emphasis was also placed on the Universal Periodic Review, which many participants believed might have the ability to improve the Council’s record of scrutiny. Under this process, all nations will be subject to review, which is a great improvement from the selectivity that was asserted by the Commission. Terlingen stated, “Much will now depend on whether the Universal Periodic Review, even without the assistance of independent experts, can focus on the key human rights issues in the country before it and can develop into a flexible and effective mechanism.”

Labbé argued that the process of review will give the Council the capacity to act in a timely manner before suffering persists. He stated, “There is good reason to observe the human rights of all countries and the UN has the ability to achieve much.” He suggested, however, that Council resolutions critical of specific countries’ practices might not be as important as some NGOs make them out to be, since the human rights NGOs have already done the hard work of exposing and condemning rights abuses.

Laurenti observed that the monitoring committees of experts under the various human rights treaties also offer quite specific and detailed critiques of individual countries’ human rights problems, but even they do not get much press attention and are not regarded as authoritative the way an intergovernmental body is. “When it is not experts, even on an official panel, but states that render some kind of verdict, it has more of a cutting edge,” he said. “As much as Amnesty International’s reports or Human Rights Watch’s reports do create a flurry of activity, they don’t have quite the sense of weight as when the international community at an official level recognizes a situation as crucial.”

A participant noted how the room lacked substantial representation from academia, stressing the importance of finding a way to involve intellectuals in the discussion. He argued we should “find ways in which to incorporate the scholars of those communities, of those countries, and encourage them to participate in generating reliable and objective information.” Another participant argued that it was important for the press to begin covering developments within the Council so that the general public stays informed and involved in the Council’s work—though a journalist at the table reminded participants that any political body has to take a significant action in order to get notice in a crowded news environment.

Each of the panelists, and many of the other participants as well, argued that it was still early to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Council. One ambassador asserted “We should be working with what we have and my call would be not to kill the instrument too soon.” Halperin argued that, “It is not for certain that the Council will be worse then the Commission and it is possible over time it will get better. I think that anything more than that is absolute utopia.” Labbé recognized that there are ample reasons to be pleased with what has been accomplished in Geneva because it is truly the best we can hope for in a multilateral environment. Accomplishments in this type of environment can be difficult to achieve, however international attention to human rights has been and will continue to be a strong pillar for success. The final participant to speak aptly summarized a common theme that was shared by many at the table; the Human Rights Council is not perfect, yet it represents an improvement over the Commission. And each nation walking away from the table with a complaint is a sure sign of compromise, one that is not only accepted, but expected in a multinational arena.

—Eli Rosenfeld, Rapporteur

Photos from the Event:

Amb. Alfredo Labbé speaks at the event.

Panelist, Morton H. Halperin and moderator, Jeffrey Laurenti.

Lawrence Moss, Morton H. Halperin, Jeffrey Laurenti, and Yvonne Terlingen.

Panelists and participants discuss The Human Rights Council.