Ethiopian Review

The revamped Human Rights Council was attacked by the former Bush administration for being toothless and accepting countries with dubious human rights records. But some analysts and politicians say the body is about to get a shot in the arm if the United States is elected to be one of the seven Western states allowed on the council.

This year, 18 members will see their six-year mandates expire, with 20 countries vying for the positions. Some of those countries, such as Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia, have questionable human rights records, but are more or less guaranteed a place. The US will likely be given a seat at the table for the first time.

The current Human Rights Council is a reformed version of its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. That organization was discredited for allowing countries with abominable human rights records – such as Sudan and Zimbabwe – to join and to form powerful voting blocs that critics say stood in the way of change.

Since then, a handful of Western states have had to make do without the voice of the US when addressing human rights concerns through the UN council.

Europe buoyed

Brett Scheafer, a public policy analyst at conservative US think tank the Heritage Foundation, said the Obama administration’s decision to turn back towards the council, rather than shun it as Bush did, will be greeted with relief in Europe.

“It’s important to point out that other countries, particularly western European countries, wanted the US to be part of the process,” he said.

“The Europeans were uncomfortable taking a leadership role on these issues, which traditionally has fallen to the United States and they want the US to be there to lead the issue, to lead this debate and to take the heat for bringing these issues up.”

Scheafer said, however, that reform of the council would have been more achievable with the US outside looking in, rather than running for election.

“In doing so they’ve traded away whatever leverage they may have had with the Europeans to try and get a more effective council out of the review process that is on the horizon.”

There are 47 seats on the Human Rights Council and the US’s voice only counts for as much as the next country’s. But in two years’ time the General Assembly is to convene to review the status of the council. Then, it is hoped, the US will be in a position to lend a loud voice to calls for further reform of the body by at least making it harder for some countries with problematic human rights records to get a seat at the table.

US “hypocrisy”

Thomas Hammarberg, commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of Europe, told Deutsche Welle that the US’s decision to embrace the council will have no bearing on Europe’s advocacy efforts.

“Europe must be active anyhow, because European values, including human rights, must be pursued in the global scene,” he said. “Sometimes the United States’ activities have been negative to the performance of human rights.

“They continued during the Bush administration to use the rhetoric of human rights, pretending to be the champion of human rights, and at the same time they allowed their soldiers and intelligence officers to use methods which were actually very much against human rights, which created an atmosphere of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to human rights in the rest of the world.”

He admitted though that Europe has dragged its feet on calling on countries such as China to account over their human rights records for fear of jeopardizing trade and economic relations.

“I’m not sure if that will change with the United States, because they have a similar approach, and I just hope that perhaps with the inspiration of the new government in Washington there will be a new approach both from Europe and the United States even when it is inopportune, or when some economic interests might be at risk.”

The human rights organization Freedom House recently co-published a study evaluating the 20 candidate countries for the Human Rights Council. Vladamir Shkolnikov, the director of Freedom House in Europe, said the Obama administration’s decision to apply for membership will by no means make the job any easier for Europe.

“I would not put it in terms of taking off the burden [off of Europe],” he said. “But to present a united front with Europe and to have solidarity with the EU states … that maybe has not been there during the Bush administration, and to show that the US stands for the same values as the European Union.”

- By Darren Mara | dw-world