 |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Webchat on UN Reform, a New Human Rights CouncilMark P. Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary, International Organization AffairsDavid Schwarz, Practicing Attorney Washington, DC February 23, 2006 Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, and David A. Schwarz, an attorney who served on three U.S. delegations to the UN Commission on Human Rights discussed UN reform February 23. Following is the transcript: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Guest: Mark Lagon and David Schwarz WEBCHAT MODERATOR: We will start our chat at 2:30 Washington time. Please continue to submit your questions in advance. Your questions will not appear until the guests answer them. IIP Moderator: While you are waiting, please take a look at some of our other recent webchats. Nanotechnology Developments Prompt Public Policy Questions Providing Consumer Choices Can Cut Need for Media Regulation Combat Hate Speech with Dialogue, Not Suppression, Scholar Says Mark Lagon: Welcome to this webchat. I'm Mark Lagon. I'm a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. State Department's Bureau that deals with policy in the United Nations. In particular I work on UN reform and UN policy to advance human rights. I'm glad to get a chance to talk about an opportunity the UN has to create a more credible leading body devoted to human rights -- an opportunity we hope the world seizes and does not squander. David Schwarz: Good afternoon, and thanks for allowing me to participate in this discussion about one of the most critical issues facing the United Nations today. I'm David Schwarz, a practicing attorney in Los Angeles, California. I have served on three U.S. Delegations to the UN Commission on Human Rights, most recently as a public delegate to the 2001 session of the Commission. For over 15 years, I have followed, or participated in, the work of the Commission and view the creation of the UN Human Rights Council as an opportunity -- perhaps a unique opportunity -- to address some of the weaknesses and failings of the Commission. I welcome your questions, and look forward to a lively discussion with Mr. Lagon. QUESTION [Bahadyr]: What's wrong with the current Commission on Human Rights, and how will the new Human Rights Council solve those problems without creating other problems? ANSWER: [Lagon] The CHR [UN Commission on Human Rights] doesn't do enough to help promote human rights tangibly for people on the ground. The Secretary General has said the era of setting out human rights norms needs to be succeeded by a focus on implementation. He's right. A Human Rights Council meeting for more than one 6-week theatrical session [per year] can be created to give technical assistance to nations seeking to move toward greater human rights and when absolutely necessary, speaking plainly about the more acutely abusive regimes in the world, if they do not seek the UN's help. Also, the Secretary General suggested that the credibility of the CHR, and in turn the UN, has been harmed by governments manifestly not committed to human rights [sitting] on the CHR, seeking to deflect criticism and hijack its work. The test of a better body is one making sure the membership is more credible -- not a membership made up only of democracies, but not one tilted towards including the world's most repressive governments. ANSWER: [Schwarz] At bottom, the CHR has abandoned its core mandate, which is to address the most egregious abuses of human rights based on the application of the standards set in a variety of treaties and covenants -- many of which have been ratified by some of the most repressive regimes, but which are systematically violated by these same regimes. The current paralysis of the Commission rests, in large part, with its composition, and the fact that there has not been the will, expressed collectively by the UN, to recognize that countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe have no credibility to serve as members of that body. These problems are well documented and have been noted by Secretary-General Annan as one of the reasons why the status quo is not acceptable. As to whether the Human Rights Council will solve these problems: I remain very concerned that, in the absence of the ability to require objective, verifiable membership criteria -- beginning with an impartial and comprehensive review of each prospective member's human rights record before consideration of that candidate for election to the Council -- the Council could drift back toward the situation that crippled the Commission. While I understand that the terms of membership selection are still under debate at the General Assembly, I am also aware that a number of member states are unwilling to agree that a nation under Security Council sanctions for gross or persistent human rights abuses can still be elected to the Council. This modest check on membership seems obvious, and non-controversial, at least to me. Today, Secretary-General Annan released a statement urging adoption of the draft resolution that would create the Council. He recognizes that this is not a "perfect" solution, nor one that necessarily speaks to all of the concerns raised by member states. Instead he suggested, "How different the Council is from the Commission will depend in large part how committed member states are to make it better, and how they act on that commitment in the weeks and months ahead." But leaving key issues unresolved -- or worse, not addressing up front the structural problems that have led to the dysfunction of the Commission -- is not a fix, or a solution, but a recipe for repeating the mistakes of the past. Addressing these problems now, at a moment of acknowledged crisis within the institution, seems the preferable and necessary course. In my view, a number of difficult choices have not been made, but must be made, if the Council has any chance of success. To solve these problems, at minimum I believe that the General Assembly must agree that no member state may serve unless two-thirds of that body cast votes in favor of that candidate. While this is a less preferable alternative to objective qualification criteria, it may go a long way to preventing the problem that crippled the CHR. There are a number of other safeguards, in addition to the imposition of membership qualifications and a 2/3rds majority vote that could strengthen this body. For example -- and here I echo Mark's comment -- the mandate of the Council should focus on the practical, technical aspects of assisting emerging democracies in protecting the rule of law, civil society, freedom of the press and speech, and other core human rights. Assisting nations in educating their law enforcement officials, judges and magistrates, and other guardians of the rule of law with respect to implementing an impartial, independent judiciary, equipped with the knowledge and means to assure speedy and fair adjudication of their citizen's rights, whether in the civil or criminal context, is very much needed. This is not glamorous work, but it is necessary work and should be one major focus of the work of the Council. QUESTION [Marek]: Who is the main force behind this effort to reform the human rights council? ANSWER [Lagon]: In a sense, the Secretary-General. He set up a High Level Panel on threats and UN reform that made recommendations on reforming [the] CHR. Then, in his "In Larger Freedom" report, he recommended a body smaller than CHR, with a more credible membership, devoted to focusing on, among other things, gross and systematic abuses of human rights and alleviating them. But a broad array of nations in the world, from Chile to South Africa -- and its extraordinarily able UN Ambassador who is co-chairing the talks to the create a Human Rights Council -- have pushed for CHR reform and an HRC. QUESTION [Gina]: Would reforming the UNHRC have any effect on disasters such as Darfur? ANSWER [Lagon]: We very much hope so. The CHR failed to deal effectively with Darfur in 2004, and then the UN re-elected Sudan to the CHR in an election in New York a few days later (and the US, unable to stop [this from happening], walked out in protest.) A Human Rights Council (HRC), which has a few meetings through the year --including special sessions called to deal with urgent situations -- could help address a Darfur-like situation. And an HRC would have the prerogative to make recommendations to other UN bodies like the UN Security Council to take more and quicker action. QUESTION [Marek]: Mr. Schwarz, can you explain what your title "public member" means? ANSWER [Schwarz]: Thanks for the question. For a number of years, the U.S. Delegation has included individuals who are not U.S. Government employees to serve a "public members" of the delegation. It creates an opportunity for private citizens, from many different walks of life, and with different experiences and expertise, to participate in the work of the Commission. It is an unusual opportunity, and perhaps a unique opportunity -- I am not aware of other Member States who appoint private citizens to their delegations so that they may participate in the work of the Commission. I believe that this participation brings a different perspective to the work of the Commission and the work of the U.S. Delegation. Hopefully these perspectives add to the quality of the discourse. QUESTION [Rachida]: Has the Internet helped bring human rights abuses to light? ANSWER [Lagon]: Yes it has. And the UN's human rights bodies should help protect this tremendously valuable source of information to people. When governments seek to censor it, it confronts the universal aspirations of humankind with fences, with restraints. QUESTION [Iain]: Given the comments made by Ambassador Bolton today that the draft resolution on the Human Rights Council doesn't meet the standards for substantial reform and that "real international negotiations" may be needed to achieve an acceptable text, what does Mr. Lagon see as the next steps for the draft resolution? Do Ambassador Bolton's comments reflect the State department's official position? ANSWER [Lagon]: Good question. We seek to take advantage of this historic opportunity to create a new, standing, primary human rights body in the UN. We don't want to settle for something that is just a change in name and schedule. In particular, we want to make sure the procedures for electing members and for disqualifying the most bloodthirsty regimes in the world are established so that we turn a page in the history of CHR -- which has done much good [since its creation] but which has lost credibility [over time] by becoming a body of not just firefighters but arsonists. QUESTION [Juan]: Does the United States accept the principle of "universal periodic review" established by the new council? ANSWER [Lagon]: Yes, the U.S. would support a universal periodic review if it helped answer the question, "Who are these members of the Human Rights Council to presume to make judgments on other governments?" All governments should be subject to scrutiny and offer transparency [with regard to their own human rights record], even when [such scrutiny might prove] awkward. But we hope that this mechanism will not crowd out valuable action-oriented work in the limited number of weeks the council will meet. For instance, the Council needs to leave sufficient time to direct and empower the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (whose UN Regular Budget funding the US supports doubling over five years) to give assistance on the ground to people in need and to governments seeking help developing human rights protections. ANSWER [Schwarz]: This is an important question, because the way in which the review functions are performed will spell the difference between a meaningful evaluation of a nation's human rights record and a superficial glossing over of serious problems. The draft resolution does not spell out how this review is to be performed, but at minimum one would hope that it would include the ability to question officials of those nations charged with the protection of human rights and to require them to answer questions as to how their nation fulfills its commitments to promote and protect basic rights. Today, Jan Eliasson, the President of the United Nations General Assembly, commented that the review "should not create a burden of new or redundant reporting obligations, . . . and that it should be a light mechanism." I do not know what a "light mechanism" means, but I would be concerned it the primary body charged with standard-setting in the area of human rights is somehow precluded from a full, fair, and searching examination of the record of every nation that chooses to sit on the Council. QUESTION [Mustapha]: Greetings again. I wonder why the U.S. is hammering its idea that countries under sanctions be dismissed from the Commission. Isn't this attitude a desperate attempt at covering up the fact that it is generally the peoples of those countries who get the blow from the sanctions not the leaders; and, therefore, the basic Human Rights of those people can be "legally" trampled upon? Thank you, Mustapha ANSWER [Lagon]: The U.S. proposed that those Governments already under Security Council sanctions for human rights abuses or infringement of human rights through sponsorship of terrorism be disqualified from serving on the Human Rights Council. That is a small group of nations, including Sudan, and would send a message that this body -- while not radically exclusive -- has standards, and hence has a legitimate standing. QUESTION [Juan]: How is it possible to reconcile the principle of democratic elections with the words of Ambassador Bolton when he said the U.S. deserved a permanent seat in the Human Right Council? Do you fear to hold competitive elections in the General Assembly? ANSWER [Lagon]: The United States believes the custom of P-5 members (the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China) being elected to any UN bodies they wish will help the institution -- but with the proviso that, in return, these [five] nations would not chair those bodies. In a Human Rights Council, we do not seek a guaranteed seat for the U.S. or the other 4. But we do wish to get elected to the Council as often as feasible, in order to contribute to the body's work. I believe our democratic partners missed our presence the year we were not on the CHR, 2002. ANSWER [Schwarz]: I would welcome competitive elections for seats on the Human Rights Council. That exercise in democracy -- which is, unfortunately is not practiced by certain members of the Commission in their own nations -- would be illuminating and reflective of the UN's commitment to put into practice one of the key elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Transparency and accountability that comes from a roll call of such a vote would also be worth considering. The ability of the Council to deliver on its promise to focus on gross and systematic violations of human rights is the most important measure of that body's success, regardless of what nations sit on that body. I believe that the U.S. has been instrumental in trying to highlight these abuses and is right to make this the focus of the work of the Council. QUESTION [Anh]: What countries are the main violators of Human Rights? ANSWER [Lagon]: I recommend you see the best non-government source and best government source respectively: (1) 2006 Freedom in the World Rankings (by Freedom House): http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=5 (2) State Department - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c1470.htm WEBCHAT MODERATOR: Read about Mr. Lagon's February 9 panel discussion sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. U.S. Urges Support for Its Human Rights Council Proposals http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Feb/10-850657.html QUESTION [Juan]: Many see the U.S. government as the main enemy and human rights abuser in the world (Guantanamo, Abu Graib, CIA secret flights, etc, etc). Do you think the United States should have a seat in the new council? ANSWER [Lagon]: The U.S. is not the "main enemy and human rights abuser." When information has come to light about treatment of detainees it has been investigated thoroughly, and those [responsible for] committing abuse have been rightly subject to prosecution. The U.S., as a member of a Human Rights Council, should open itself up to scrutiny transparently. The United States did in fact invite a group of UN Special Reporters to the Guantanamo facility with the same access given to dozens of members of Congress and hundreds of journalists who have visited Guantanamo. The U.S. should serve on the Council, subject to election within the UN by peers. It has a lot to offer to advance the body's agenda and work. QUESTION [Dick]: How will this council be any better than CHR? There will inevitably be less WEOG (Western European and Other Group) representation, which will make it harder to pass important country resolutions. ANSWER [Lagon]: The new text resolution to create a Human Rights Council gives the Western European and Other Group ("other" being the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) a smaller proportion of seats than they have on the current CHR. [Under the new resolution] these nations would get a proportion [of seats on the Council] equal to that they enjoy in the UN General Assembly. ANSWER [Juan]: Iain: Ambassador Bolton is looking for a "U.S. Council" instead of "Human Rights Council." ANSWER [Lagon]: The international community could use a body to advance human rights, and as a last resort, when abusive governments refuse to cooperate with the international community to improve human rights, it should have the capacity and the credibility to speak out about rank abuse. The U.S. welcomes a UN body that can do that. It won't do everything the U.S. will want, and it will do some things the U.S. does not want. But a multilateral body can help advance human rights on the ground -- often cooperatively. The CHR, for all its faults, did pass a unanimous resolution on Sudan creating a rapporteur, supporting deployment of human rights monitors, and offering technical assistance. More cooperative work is welcome. QUESTION [Dick]: Why doesn't the U.S. support 2/3-majority voting? ANSWER [Lagon]: The U.S. does INDEED support a two-thirds margin as the requisite for candidates for the Human Rights Council to be elected in the UN General Assembly. A high bar for election -- based on a commitment by States to examine the human rights record of candidates -- would hopefully boost the credibility of the [Council’s] membership. And all candidates, including the U.S., would have to work hard to be elected. The current draft text for creating an HRC released today lowers that bar to an absolute majority of the UN General Assembly, and that may well do less to improve the membership ANSWER [Schwarz]: Mark, the issue is one of credibility, but it goes beyond that. The reason -- and the urgency -- for a credible Council is to protect the victims of human rights abuses. The people of Sudan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Cuba -- to name several nations, all of whom have served on the Commission -- are the intended beneficiaries of the work of all of the UN Human Rights bodies. Those nations sat on the Commission in large measure because they sought to deflect scrutiny or criticism of their own human rights record. Credibility is established not just by insuring that the worst human rights offenders are not enabled to block the work of the Council, though that is a necessary step. Credibility is established by making the world aware of and condemning abuses. ANSWER [Juan]: Few bodies of the UN System have been subjected to so much political manipulation by the U.S and its main western allies like the CHR. The selectivity and double standards imposed by the U.S., the European Union, and other western countries were the true cause of the lack of credibility of the CHR. ANSWER [Lagon]: Double standards would be bad, and the HRC should indeed address human rights in all countries, [including the United States]. The U.S. will be willing to address its record. After all, we in our history have progressed in human rights -- expunging the sad legacy of African Americans being treated as subhuman as a function of slavery. But speaking of selectivity, the Council should prioritize [its activities] and focus of those suffering the most in order to help them. That is why the Outcome Document (Communiqué) of the September 2005 UN World Summit of heads of state and government committed itself to creating a Human Rights Council which would "Address any matters or situations related to the promotion and protection of human rights, including urgent or continuous human rights situations." The urgent and continuous situations of abuse deserve special attention, and that [goal] has guided US policy in the past in CHR. QUESTION [Mustapha]: Greetings, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson held a meeting with members of the Organization of Islamic Conference who expressed their hope that provisions be added to the final draft against the defamation of religions and prophets in response to the violent protests in the Muslim world over the cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Do you think such provisions will be added, especially when we know that, for decades now, people worldwide have been imprisoned for expressing doubts about the Holocaust or simply for questioning the practices of Zionists -- yet nobody ever condemned such decisions in the name of Freedom of Expression. Thank you, Mustapha ANSWER [Lagon]: The United States has strongly supported declarations and resolutions in the U.N. taking a stand against religious intolerance. Still, any reference to the defamation of religions would have to be fully consistent with the freedom of speech, which is not only enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but -- pertinent to the UN -- in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. QUESTION [Dick]: Why is the U.S. so committed to a smaller size? How will that improve the functioning on the HRC? ANSWER [Lagon]: We seek a Council poised to help nations with technical assistance or, on occasion, to speak out plainly about audacious autocracies' atrocities. Therefore, more meetings than [the] one 6-week session per year held by the CHR, including an ability to call special sessions to address burning questions, is wise. In the same respect, a smaller Council than the current 53-member CHR would be more nimble in developing a common vision and taking action. The U.S. has been more than flexible on this matter, starting by recommending a Council of 20, and then suggesting 30. We recently have expressed a willingness to move up further if need be. Now, however, the current proposed text calls for 47 members – [only] 6 fewer than the number of members of the CHR. QUESTION [Sara]: How do you plan to structure the new Human Rights Council? What will make it more effective? ANSWER [Lagon]: The Council should meet multiple times a year (and the U.S. envisages four times, plus special extra sessions as needed). It should maintain the "Special Procedures" of the CHR (Rapporteurs and Working Groups on specific thematic issues and countries) but it should review them and rationalize them where there is overlap, and assign to the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) the job of professionalizing these procedures so that [the HCHR and Council] focus on their mandates. [The Council] should focus on giving technical assistance to governments in transition, which seek to improve human rights protections and good governance. The instrument for providing [this assistance] is the Office of the HCHR. We support the idea of doubling the UN regular budget resources for the Office of HCHR. But those resources and the increased personnel coming with it should beef up operations in the field, rather than [increasing the staff and resources of] a Eurocentric "think-tank" on human rights located in Geneva. Then the Secretary General's apt vision of focusing more on implementation of human rights and not just the important work of establishing norms and treaties can be realized. QUESTION [Maria]: Do you think that a state that practices and intends to legalize torture on the grounds of terrorism could be a member of the human rights council? ANSWER [Lagon]: We will run for membership on the Council, and hope to gain support of other nations. If you mean by your statement the U.S., we do not condone torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment (CIDT), and we do not seek to legalize it -- by any means. The President has said he will not condone torture. The Secretary of State has said the U.S. will not promote CIDT on our soil or other nations' soil. And the McCain law codifies the policy of eschewing torture and CDIT with respect to detainees. The difference between the [limited number of] real cases of mistreatment that have come to light in the United States and those in dictatorial governments is that [in the United States] they are investigated and prosecuted. [In the U.S.] the people responsible [for these crimes] are held responsible. Those dictatorships in which torture is the systematic policy should be subject to the [full] investigation of the Council. QUESTION [Maria]: If the system of election for membership of the human rights council would be by the affirmative vote of the two-thirds majority of the G.A. members present and voting, and through secret ballots, do you think the United States could be elected? ANSWER [Lagon]: We sure hope that the U.S. could be chosen as a member of the Council, and would work hard to be elected. The United States will submit to the very same rules of election as all other nations. All eligible candidates should make available their human rights record at home and commitment to human rights internationally as the basis for [UN General Assembly] members to vote on them. WEBCHAT Moderator: Unfortunately our time for this chat is up. Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion, and thank you Mr. Lagon and Mr. Schwarz for offering your insightful answers. Visit our website at http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/ for the latest news on U.S. cooperation with nations and organizations around the world. To view our upcoming chats please see http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Products/Webchats.html Thanks again Released on February 23, 2006 |
| |||
|
