fUN at the CHR

Moving over to my Other Blog...

2006-04-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

Hi There,

Since the internship is now over, I've been writing much more on my Asylum Seeker News blog. If you are interested in reading it, you can find it at http://asylumseekernews.blogspot.com - there is quite a bit of info on refugee law reform, current issues, bits and pieces about my visits to detention centres, and various other tidbits.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions!

Cheers,

:) Jess

Home Again, Home Again...

2006-04-06T23:00:00.000-07:00

Well after a breezy 24 hours (!) of international air travel, here I am back in Olde Melbourne Towne.

So nice to be able to meander down the road and have a decent cup of coffe. Quite seriously, I'm not surprised that the world is in such turmoil when the coffee at the UN cafeteria is THAT bad. Blerrghh!

I have decided fairly hastily and in a moment of temporary insanity to change my thesis topic. I'm going to write about the UN stuff (probably teasing out a lot of the questions / issues set out below), instead of Duty of Care in immigration detention. Which is a bit of a pity from one perspective, but I feel like I have a pressing duty to write about the UN! It's been occupying an amazing amount of my headspace recently, and from talking to some people I've confirmed my suspicions that there's been almost nothing written about it in Australia. So there we go. I've already spoken to my supervisor about it, and we've got approval from the Honours co-ordinator, so it's all systems go.

OK well I gotta dash.

Cheers

J

I have some concerns... :(

2006-03-29T00:05:00.000-08:00

Well, it's now a couple of days on the other side of the Commission, so the dust has settled in my head, and I have some thoughts. Perhaps I should put them under subheadings! Hmm maybe I won't, I'll just see how they come out, and if they're completely garbled I'll try to reorganise. Stay with me.

First of all, before I came over here my perception was that it was primarily the United States pushing to 'undo' the Commission, and stall the creation of the Human Rights Council (HRC). I was fairly convinced that 'disengagement' would be the order of the day, particularly for the US.

Halfway through the internship I began to think maybe I'd been wrong. Even though they didn't support the Resolution in the General Assembly which created the HRC, neither did they block it, and in meetings after the Resolution was adopted, they made quite a few noises about wanting the HRC to be as strong as possible, and supporting it as much as they could. But I was chatting to the American Ambassador in the Plenary hall, when a journalist approached him for his views on the Council. He said something like, "well, I suppose everybody is hoping that it will be a strong body with some real capabilities for change, but frankly I am *seriously* sceptical". Now, this is not REALLY a surprise, but came as a bit of a reality check at this stage of the game. It was about 5 minutes after the closing of the Commission on Human Rights, and everyone in the room had just been discussing that we were all looking forward, into the future of the Council, stronger, brighter, better things ahead etc. But I sort of thought to myself, "hold on, what have we signed up for, here?!?". Everybody's been making positive noises about real reform in the council, but now that it's time for that reform to kick in, ALREADY States are pushing it to arm's length, dissociating, and tempering their expectations of what it can really achieve.

Particularly having listened to the to-ing and fro-ing about the Voting Standards for the Council, i have my own serious concerns. The view of the US, and a number of other countries, has been that the REASON that the UN Commission on Human Rights was a bit of a joke was that there have been states sitting in the Commission who have been Human Rights violators. The US has been OUTSPOKEN in its intention not to let such states have *any* part in the new Human Rights Council. Now, of course this in itself is massively problematic, because both Australia (asylum seekers, indigenous people) and the US (Guantanamo bay, Iraq etc..) have been heavily criticised as systematic violators of Human Rights. But of course, both of our countries are very keen for tenure on the Council. Hmmm. So that of course leads to the inevitable conclusion that somehow countries like ours are outside the jurisdictional striking range of the Commission, and then the Council. Which leads in to an even more interesting, and much more potentially disastrous, issue...

The general push has been to tighten the criteria for membership to the HRC so that those who are under sanctions or other heavy criticism pertaining to Human Rights are automatically excluded. So what will happen is that from its high-horse, the HRC will make high-faluttin' moral judgements over other countries, and expect them to jump into line with what the UN requires.

But the natural reaction of sovereign states when that happens is to distance themselves from the body, and denounce its jurisdiction! Just look at Ruddock when Australia was under fire from the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2000. Australia was heavily criticised for its treatment of asylum seekers and indigenous people, and generally given a right old slamming over the state of race relations in the country. Ruddock cracked it, made an utter shambles of himself in front of the Committee, personally insulted a number of people on that Committee, and then denounced the entire UN Treaty system!!! That denunciation has been Australia's official policy in the United Nations until only a couple of weeks ago, and is NOT a good state of play for this country in the context of international Human Rights Law.

And Downer's response was, "We won't cop it any longer! We are a democratically elected government in one of the most liberal and democratic countries you will find on Earth. And if a United Nations committee wants to play domestic politics here in Australia, then it will end up with a bloody nose."

Let's see what Mr Howard had to say: "I mean in the end we are not told what to do by anybody. We make our own moral judgments ... I'm not going to cop this country's human rights name being tarnished in the context of any domestic political argument ... Traditionally these matters are the prerogative of states."

This is exactly the attitude that will lead to the total discreditation of the Council, before it has even begun. And Australia is not alone- recently the US was requested by the UN to close Guantanamo Bay and try its detainees fairly and transparently. The US politely declined and basically told the UN to jump in the jurisdictional lake. So everyone is happy to listen to the UN, so long as it's not criticising them. Hmm.

So that's the first element of that problem. The second is this:

Why would ANY country who has been deliberately excluded from the HRC submit to its will? What reason could such a country possibly have to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a body which has openly, publicly pooh-poohed it? No reason whatsoever, I think. So I think perhaps the reform of the HRC has gone in polarly the opposite direction to that which it should have. I have become a firmer and steadily firmer believer in the principle of "universality" when it comes to Human Rights bodies.

Wouldn't the system work so much better if each and every country were welcomed into a forum of open discourse, accountability, criticism and pursuit of common goals? Why not ENGAGE potential problem states in the issue, rather than polarising it, and continuing the "us and them" mentality that has been so pervasive and so damaging up until now. Maybe this sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to think that everyone could play nicely together, but I am VERY convinced that a system of alienation and proclamations from on-high will achieve, well... approximately squat.

Into all of this, inject the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist... There are countries which are openly critical of the records of Australia and the US, and although sometimes those criticisms are dragged out as a form of grandstanding and to deflect attention away from other issues, both of our countries have done some pretty whack stuff in our times. Things that we shouldn't be proud of. Things which have caused immense suffering, and contravention of Geneva Conventions of all shapes and sizes (I'm thinking particularly here of the recent example of Amanda Vanstone admitting that yes, locking up refugee children IS, I suppose, a form of systematic, state-executed child abuse, but that it is justified by the policy outcomes it purportendly achieves. Gah.). So who are we to be pointing fingers while accepting no real accountability ourselves? It's a bit scary.

This is a bit half-baked but I'm late, and have to go. Please leave comments!

If you want to read more about the fun and games of Australia before the Treaty bodies, click here: http://www.safecom.org.au/geneva.htm Also, i know i've recommended Spencer Zifcak's book 'Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva' 50 times already, but consider this number 51.

Last Days

2006-03-28T13:38:00.000-08:00

So its all over. This pic indicates our high level of work commitment for the 2.5 hours of the Commission. Now it seems Jess is headed back home to write a thesis and then back to Europe all over again for a Masters in Sept, Stuart and his partner Maria off to travel the exotic countries of Spain, Morocco and Tunisia, and myself who is stuck in Geneva for four more weeks because I couldn't even change my flight. Luckily I've scored an instant internship for four weeks with the International Service for Human Rights working on a handbook for the new Council, so at least it now feels worthwhile.

Funeral for a Noble Ol' Dame...

2006-03-27T15:01:00.000-08:00

well - it happened! it's all over. i'm sure we'll all post some thoughts up here over the coming days, but for now here's an article from reuters.com

enjoy!

jt

UN gives rights body dignified burial
Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:33 AM ET
By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) - Much criticized in later life, the 60-year-old U.N. Human Rights Commission received a dignified funeral on Monday to make way for a protector of the persecuted that it is hoped will be more dynamic.
The Commission, which gave birth to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, will be replaced in June by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which advocates say should have more authority to speak out on rights abuses.
Its 53 member states held a brief final session after the U.N. General Assembly voted earlier this month to create the new forum.
"It is my honor to declare closed the 62nd session of the Commission on Human Rights," said Peru's ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, the current chairman.
For critics, including U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Human Rights High Commissioner Louise Arbour, the commission was hobbled because states whose rights records were questionable got themselves elected to it to shield themselves.
But in bidding farewell, Arbour had some warm words for a body that emerged after the destruction and mass killings of World War Two as part of international efforts to ensure such carnage was never repeated.
"It would ... be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to this institution, if we failed on this occasion to celebrate the achievements of the commission," she said in her address to its valedictory meeting.
Amongst its successes, Arbour listed the universal declaration and two later covenants -- on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights -- against which all states are judged.
"These were, and are, ground-breaking human rights instruments, maybe the most famous contribution ever made by the U.N. to the wellbeing of the whole of mankind," said the former Canadian Supreme Court judge and U.N. war crimes prosecutor.
POISONOUS DEBATE
The commission had also set international standards on the rights of women and of children, as well as of human rights defenders, and shaped covenants outlawing genocide, racial discrimination and torture.
Although it became the subject of "intense, even poisonous" debate, the commission had also done much to help victims of abuse in individual countries, Arbour said.
She highlighted its stance on the apartheid regime in South Africa, Chile under military rule, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda and territory Israel occupies where Palestinians want a state.
She also pointed to the fact that ordinary people were able to bring individual cases before the commission.
"These, then, are the achievements that we should today take note of and, tomorrow, build on," Arbour said.

But in recent years, human rights activists say the commission lost credibility in large part because of the membership of such countries as Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
China and Russia regularly avoided investigation of their treatment of political and religious minorities, while the commission never launched a probe into the U.S. prison camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been widely condemned by rights groups.
States will need to win the backing of 50 percent of the general assembly to gain a seat on the council, which will hold its first session on June 19.
But the council's birth has also been marred by controversy.
The United States opposed it because it wanted tougher entry qualifications, although it has said it will work with it. Washington also objected to the fact that countries will only be able to serve for two consecutive terms.

We finally know what's going on...

2006-03-26T13:42:00.000-08:00

Well, here you will see a picture of two happy little campers (in suits, no less) sitting inside one of the meeting rooms in the Palais des Nations.

Sorry that they look a bit, er, mustard coloured. I took this pic with my phone, which doesn't really pretend to to be a camera.

Anyway it's sunday night, March 26th. This weekend, the three of us all went our separate ways to entertain ourselves. I went to Rome with my mum, Aedan went to Belfast to drink Guinness, and Stuart went to Freibourg (sp?) to eat wurst and wear liederhosen. But tomorrow morning Stuart will have to take OFF his liederhosen (or just wear them UNDER his suit), because we have a **BIG** day ahead of us.

First thing in the morning, we have a Western Group meeting. Then in the afternoon, we have the 62nd AND FINAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS! And it's going to last 3 hours! Yes, that's right, the thing we all came here for, thinking it was going to last 6 weeks... well, it's happening between 3 and 6 pm tomorrow. An historic day for Human Rights. All of the 5 regional groups are going to make a statement, along with 1 joint statement from the NGOs, and a statement by a few other important figures. It's going to be a fantastic thing to witness.

Anyway, off to bed. Night!

J x

Weekends Away

2006-03-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

The past week has been interesting, particularly the latter part, where Western group meetings have started to get a little tense and there exists a lack of consensus on a number of issues - agenda, draft resolution, regional statement. Rumour has it that the Commission may even be further delayed because of this, and that the NGO community may not attend out of protest. Presently the Commission is scheduled to last three pitiful hours. Hmmm, either way, for us it seems that it this process really does need to end, as its not in the least substantial and beginning to become farcical. Coincidentally, though, all three of us managed to score weekends away; Jess sightseeing in Rome with her Mum, Stuart catching up with friends in Germany, and myself jetsetting to Belfast in Northern Ireland. My impressions of Belfast were quite different to what I expected - on Saturday I spent a day wandering the trendy city streets with beautiful cathedrals on literally every corner and nice weather; whilst Sunday I ventured into the grungy areas of Falls (Catholic-IRA) and Shankill (Protestant-loyalist) roads to check out the murals depicting the conflict, an entirely different vibe. This picture was taken on a particularly scary and deserted road, separating the two communities with an incredible security wall.

Today = Blah Day

2006-03-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

Well, this is probably going to be a preeeeeetty short post! Today - as predicted - the Commission was delayed for another week. And we were told that our internship is over as of next Friday at the very latest. So we're all, like, maaajorly bummed, man (as Keanu Reeves might say).

Hmmm.

We're all trying to figure out what to do. I will go home early, in time for the wedding of two very close friends. But I'm trying to figure out whether to go somewhere else first or just give up and go home in a dejected manner! I think it will probably be the latter, although I do have rather an interesting proposal from a friend to tour the Czech countryside patting goats and drinking good beer. Tempting. But alas, the realities of Melbourne await! Thesis, work, my dog misses me and I didn't get around to tidying my room before I left. So home - I believe - I shall go. It's kinda sad.

Anyway that'll do with my moping for now. Ha - if you think I'm bad, you should see the other two...! :)

See you later!

J x

End of our first week

2006-03-17T07:51:00.000-08:00

Well I'm typing this on the wireless network in the Serpent Cafe in the Palais des Nations. We've just come out of our Western Group meeting where the President said that the current situation is: a minimum session of 2 days, a MAXIMUM session of THREE DAYS! Ha! Crazy. I had a chat to the Swiss representative this afternoon, and asked him to explain further his country's position on various aspects of the debate. I think he has a lot of good points, but I guess they could be seen as putting rather a lot of credence in the immediate efficacity of the jurisdiction of the UN on matters relating to Human Rights, so I guess he's not really being listened to all that much by some other countries. It's a shame. Ha that was all very opaque. Sorry. I just don't know if I'm allowed to say anything more!

It's the weekend tomorrow and I have no idea what I'm going to do! Hopefully will find something!

Jess x

Welcome to the Deep End!

2006-03-15T12:28:00.002-08:00

Well, after our briefing yesterday, Aedan, Stuart and I were well and truly chucked in the middle of things today! At 12.30 we attended a JUSCANZ meeting, which is a group of countries who are - in principle - like-minded on the current issues in question regarding the Commission. This meeting was basically just a big lunch, with about 20 of us around a big table. The meeting was COOL! We were present at the meeting when the United States representative FIRST announced to any group - before the world knew - that it was going to vote No in the General Assembly in New York today. As she started to speak, a thrill of adrenaline raced through me. It was very exciting to be there watching her spell out the USA's position and then experience the reactions of the group to what was said. It was brilliant!

JUSCANZ operates almost like a consolidation process, to solidify the views and concensus in the group so as to present a united front in the Western Group. The Western Group meeting was held inside the United Nations building, with about 30 countries (give or take). A number of points were raised, such as the desired length of the Commission, whether it should be entirely procedural or have some substantive content, and what would be an appropriate farewell to a body which has done its best to serve the world for more than 60 years. Of course talk was tempted to turn towards the future of the Human Rights Council (new and whizz-bang, and due to hold its first meeting on June 19th although it is still VERY hazy what it would look lik), but we ran out of time. Tomorrow there is a 1.5hr Western Group meeting, where many of those things will probably be raised again, and hopefully dealt with.

Most countries are NOT interested in having any substance dealt with at the Commission, although there are two resolutions that are being pushed. There is a new resolution on Enforced Disappearances, which is being brought by France, and there's also a convention on the Rights of Indigenous People. It's unlikely that they will be dealt with before the opening of the HRC in June.

It looks like we will be here for the wrap-up and funeral of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Today in New York it was made official that the 62nd Commission will be the last, and it seems that its objective will be farewelling the body, and commemmorating its work. It will be - I'm sure - a fascinating thing to behold.

Anyway I'm knackered! Had an exciting day and another one to come tomorrow!

Read the article below...

Seeya!

J x

UN creates new human rights body

2006-03-15T12:28:00.001-08:00

www.bbc.co.uk Wednesday, 15 March 2006

The UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to create a new human rights organisation for the world body, despite United States criticism.
The 47-nation UN Human Rights Council will replace the current 53-country UN Human Rights Commission.
The existing body has been heavily criticised for having countries with poor human rights records as members.
The US voted against the plan, saying the reforms did not go far enough, but pledged to work with the new council.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed what he called an "historic resolution... that gives the United Nations a much-needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world".
He had proposed the changes last year to replace the discredited commission, which has in recent years included countries accused of gross human rights violations such as Sudan, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
Tighter rules
The resolution, which had been negotiated over many months by Assembly President Jan Eliasson, was approved by 170 members of the 191-nation assembly.
Three nations abstained. Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau joined the US in voting against the plan.
NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Every UN member state eligible to join
Elected by secret ballot, needs absolute Assembly majority
Each member serves for three-year term
All UN members will eventually have rights record reviewed
Systematic violators of human rights could be suspended
Members of the assembly burst into applause when the result was announced.
The new council will comprise members who are elected by secret ballot by an absolute majority of the General Assembly.
There will be periodic reviews of membership, and any state accused of systematic human rights violations could be suspended.
The US had wanted a smaller body to be created, with members chosen primarily for their commitment to human rights.
It wanted a two-thirds majority vote, and a ban for countries subject to UN sanctions because of rights violations.
"We did not have sufficient confidence in this text to be able to say that the Human Rights Council will be better than its predecessor," said John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, explaining the reason for voting no.
"That said, the United States will work co-operatively with other member states to make the council as strong and effective as it can be," he added.

See this text in its original context here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4810538.stm

we were briefed today...!

2006-03-14T12:53:00.000-08:00

well, today aedan, stuart and i all got our United Nations photo ID passes...! a bit of a moment for each of us i think. we had our briefing at the Australian Mission, and it was really interesting. It turns out the stuff we've been reading in the news IS in fact baseless conjecture and lies lies lies, as we still have no idea at ALL whether anything will be happening. It all still depends on whether the US agrees to certain terms and conditions surrounding the set up of the new Human Rights Council. Keep in mind that those negotiations were sort of supposed to be finished by the end of December...! We are quickly coming up to crunch time and nobody knows what's going to happen. It now looks like it almost certainly WON'T be a full commission.

Anyway we're going to do lots of reading and research and attend some regional meetings and things like that, get a feeling for what the vibe is at the moment, and just follow the flow wherever it may go!

Will write more soon.

Have a good day!

Jess x

Commission Suspended...But Will Go Ahead No Matter What

2006-03-14T00:03:00.000-08:00

UN Rights Commission suspends work for week pending talks on new Council

13 March 2006 – The United Nations Human Rights Commission opened its 62nd session in Geneva today and then almost immediately suspended its work for one week as diplomats at UN Headquarters in New York continued to seek wider consensus on a new stronger Human Rights Council to replace the much criticized body.

Ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros of Peru, chairman of the session, said the Commission was facing an “extraordinary situation,” particularly because of the ongoing negotiations to create the Council which they understand would “strengthen the capacities of the United Nations human rights system.”

The Commission decided by consensus to suspend its work until Monday, 20 March at 10 a.m.

Mr. Rodriguez Cuadros said he expected a decision on the new Council to come on Wednesday and that the Commission would convene next Monday for its regular session whatever the result – whether the new body is established or no agreement is reached. If the Council is established, it will create a new “exceptional” situation. If not, the Commission would be obliged to hold its session under its rules.

As proposed, the new Council would have a higher status and greater accountability than the Commission that meets yearly in Geneva. It would be a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, meet year round as opposed to the six-week annual session of the Commission, and its members would be elected by a majority of all 191 UN Members.

On Friday, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson postponed until early this week a plenary meeting on the Council, which the United States opposes in its current proposed form, in a bid to secure wider consensus on what Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called an essential element in UN reform.

The US feels that as proposed the new body does not go far enough and has called for renegotiation, a move that Mr. Annan has said “chagrined” him, warning that renegotiations could “unravel” the whole mechanism.

Mr. Eliasson has said there is sympathy from many quarters for some of the US objections, adding that proposals put forward by European and other countries, which support the Council, should pave the way for consensus.

Mr. Annan, in presenting his reforms a year ago, wanted elections to the Council to be by a two-thirds majority, and the proposed draft’s failure to require this is among the main US objections.

But in noting that he had been unable to secure his goal on this point, Mr. Annan has repeatedly said that the Council, as proposed by Mr. Eliasson after months-long consultations, could be a basis for more effective human rights protection.

exclusive pics of the three happy campers

2006-03-13T14:30:00.000-08:00

Yup, that's right - you saw it here first, folks! Here are the first exclusive pictures of we three interns. Today we went to Annecy (yes, that's right we went out for lunch.. in France!) and had a generally fun afternoon. We larked about with snow and climbed large hills and slid down bannisters. It was great! Tomorrow is our briefing with DFAT and we're all really looking forward to it. It will be fantastic to roll up our sleeves and do what we came here to do. Each day we've been scouring the newspapers for news on the Commission, but all we can really find is half-baked conjecture and unsubstantiated rumours. Let's hope tomorrow brings with it some revelation and insight...! Must go to bed - big day ahead!

Cheers

Jess x

Update from Geneva

2006-03-12T02:08:00.000-08:00

well yes, here we are! the three of us - me, aedan and stuart - have made it to Geneva. It's cold, it's snowing, but we're all happy to be here! So what's happening with the Commission, I hear you ask...? Well, we are being briefed on Tuesday and we will be attending meetings etc on Wednesday, but I think officially the Commission is starting Monday week. In recent days we've even heard rumours that it's going to last for the whole 6 weeks, which would be fantastic!

Aedan and I got here from Paris on Thursday after a bit of a shocking day. Our bags were heavy and everything was just a bit of a stress. Stuart had already been here for almost a week. My accommodation is brilliant - I'm right between the Aust mission and the UN - a 5 minute walk from each. Stuart's is also brill - he's in this old condemned-but-cool mansion about 20 minutes out of town with a houseload of very european europeans. I was there for dinner last night and I must say they put on rather an impressive spread! Aedan's first night in Geneva was pure nightmare material, but I shan't steal his thunder... he should really be the one to relay that story! Anyway the three of us get along really well and I think it's going to be fun. Predictably our conversations oscillate from the nonsensical to the extremely serious, but it seems that that's fairly normal for all of us, so great!

Anyway I'm going to go up to my local little cafe and drink a cup. Lovely!

Catch you soon.

Jess x

One Last Week...

2006-03-11T07:25:00.001-08:00

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - General Assembly President Jan Eliasson gave U.N. members on Friday one last week to work out a deal for a new U.N. human rights body that is opposed by the United States but backed by human rights groups and the vast majority of U.N. members.

Eliasson again dismissed rewriting the plan, as Washington has insisted, stating "it would mean opening up a Pandora's box" to renegotiate the delicately balanced text he had drafted last month in hopes of winning quick consensus approval of the new U.N. Human Rights Council.

Eliasson had hoped for assembly approval before the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission opens its next session in Geneva on Monday.

Shortly after he spoke, the commission steering committee decided to call for a vote on Monday to suspend the session's work for a week to accommodate Eliasson's timetable.

But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington would not bend and was still working to amend the text.

"If you want to fix the text, fix the text. My instructions are clear," he told reporters.

Bolton announced in late February that Eliasson's blueprint for the new rights council had "manifold deficiencies" and Washington had instructed him to reopen negotiations in hopes of revising the text.

Alternatively, the United States wanted the assembly to postpone a decision for several months, he said.

Washington wants strong barriers to membership on the new council by rights-abusing nations, which have come to dominate the Human Rights Commission.

But Eliasson said he hoped Washington would settle for verbal assurances from member-states that they would vote to keep rights abusers off the council rather than amendments to the text.

The European Union had already offered such assurances and many others would be willing to do so, he said. "The last thing I would want to do is to see the United States put in isolation on an issue like this."

While Bolton has vowed to call for a vote if the plan is brought up in the assembly, Eliasson reiterated his view that it was crucial to have consensus approval of the text.

Council News

2006-03-11T07:25:00.000-08:00

In bid for wider consensus, debate on new Rights Council put off till next week.

10 March 2006 – In a bid to secure the widest possible consensus for the new United Nations Human Rights Council, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson has postponed from today until early next week a plenary meeting on what Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called an essential element in reforming the world organization.

The United States feels that as proposed the Council, which would replace the much-criticized Human Rights Commission, does not go far enough and has called for renegotiation, a move that Mr. Annan last week said had “chagrined” him, warning that the new body could “unravel” in renegotiations.

“I believe there is a collective wish to have the strongest possible support for the new Council,” Mr. Eliasson said in a letter sent to all Member States last night. “In search for consensus, I have therefore decided to postpone Friday morning’s meeting.”

The current Human Rights Commission is widely seen as ineffectual and open to manipulation by rights violators. Mr. Eliasson reiterated that no Member State had achieved all its objectives in the draft he has proposed, but noted that “very many of you have indicated that you could support the text as it is. This is both welcome and essential to the process of consensus-building,” he added.

It was a point Mr. Annan has stressed continually since the text was introduced last month and again reiterated in comments to the press today, saying that the longer a decision is delayed over the Council “the more harmful it is.”

“I think the U.S. that has played a good role in human rights, I am sure will not do anything that will jeopardize the new Council. We will find a way to move forward…I hope to see it established, and with the support of all Member States, we will make it a strong Council, and a better mechanism than the current one.”

Also speaking to reporters today, Mr. Eliasson said he hoped that Member States would now use the delay to “talk to each other about what we expect this Council to do,” and that such discussions would lead to a decision by early next week without a vote.

Referring to the reported objections from the United States, he said there was sympathy from many quarters for some of these but added that proposals put forward by European and other countries, which support the Council, should pave the way for consensus.

The President also spoke about diplomatic efforts by countries to assure the Washington that rights violators will not be elected to the Council, adding that “there is great sympathy for some of the points made by the United States.”

“Here I was very happy to see that the European Union assured the United States, both in Washington and here in New York, that they – European Union countries and associated countries – would not vote in favour of such a country” that violates rights. “And I hear similar messages from others,” he added.

As proposed, the Council would have a higher status and greater accountability than the Commission that meets yearly in Geneva. It would be a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, meet year round as opposed to the six-week annual session of the Commission, and its members would be elected by a majority of all 191 UN Members.

Mr. Annan, in presenting his proposed reforms a year ago, wanted the election to be by a two-thirds majority, an element endorsed by the United States. But in noting that he had been unable to secure this, he has repeatedly said that the Council, as proposed by Mr. Eliasson after months-long consultations with Member States, could be a basis for more effective human rights protection.

Mr. Eliasson has said a major improvement is the requirement that its members, elected individually by the Assembly, would be judged on their human rights records with the proviso that they can be suspended if they themselves commit gross and systematic violations.

A Perfect Day...

2006-03-11T07:08:00.000-08:00

Surrounded in all directions by the pristine snow capped mountains of France, Geneve at first glance is old and beautiful. After three days of Parisian sight-seeing, Jess and myself have finally arrived here and we are, after an evening of traversing bars and eating tapas and indian, officially now a travelling troupe of three, with Stuart joining the flock. (Incidentally, he is the expert from being here for a week longer, so I should say we are joining him!) According to yesterday's Le Temps, the CHR 62 appears to be back on track, albeit starting week late. We have briefings and meetings this week, so it feels great that everything is moving again, and we may yet prove productive. After a rocky start - including my one night residence in a commune in the hills of Bellevue, involving a dangerous combination of my bed breaking and competitive neighbourly snoring - I've now found an excellent temporary accommodation staying with some friends in Carouge and already off to the Alps for a Lou Reed concernt tonight. And then perhaps to Lausanne tomorrow, and France on Monday: such is life.

less than a week to go...

2006-03-04T01:13:00.001-08:00

hi there,

i'm writing this from London on the morning of Saturday, March 4th. I'm off to Paris this afternoon, and the Aedan and I are supposedly flying from Paris to Geneva on Thursday. That's 5 days away. Unfortunately, we still don't know if we'll be required...! Everything is so uncertain. It's possible that everything will continue as normal, but it's also possible that the whole thing will be canned. It's VERY possible that there will be a skin-and-bones sort of procedural commission, but that it will start a week later than originally planned, and only last a couple of weeks. even 5 days away from flying to Geneva we still don't know any of this, and although i'm not really a stresser, it's getting a bit stressful!

anyway it seems that Aedan's definitely getting on the plane, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary from Stuart, so it looks like we'll all be turning up to DFAT's doorstep with an eager-to-learn look on our faces! haha - they'll just have to figure out what to DO with us!

will obviously post as soon as i know what's going on. (NB: breath-holding not recommended...!)

cheers!

jx

...whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous bureaucracy...

2006-02-27T23:51:00.000-08:00

haha poor aedan's having an attack of the hamlets. sieze the day my friend! just get on the plane. we'll deal with the rest later. think of the possibilities! yes indeed it would be a pity if the commission doesn't work out - a huge big pity. but it would still be interesting just to spend a few days with the aussie delegation, see a bit about how their office works, get some feel for the future of human rights in the UN etc. still an amazing opportunity and a privilege. it's going to be great, bro, even if it's tragically shortened! then we can all go hang out in morocco or italy to console ourselves. ha.

in about half an hour i'm off to see Terezin, the concentration camp that I wrote a thesis on in 2004. it's 60kms north of prague, and today is bleak and grey and freezing, so that oughtta be a laugh... hmm.

aedan i'm fully expecting to see you in paris on march 7 - so don't leave me hangin' brother! :)

cheers!

jess

To be or not to be...

2006-02-27T02:23:00.000-08:00

At this stage life is starting to looking rather interesting. So Jess and Stuart are going to the Commish no-matter-what, whilst I seem to be the apprehensive figure of doubt. Hopefully you'll both convince me that I'm being childish, and that we should all rent-a-car and travel around Switzerland regardless! Seems that we'll all find out our manifest destiny at the end of the week - but I'm even skeptical that this will happen! Although, given the US distaste with the HR council, perhaps the commission will be semi-normal if no one agrees...and something will be decided. It's actually quite remarkable that the UN can do this - I think there is over 3,000 delegates from 51 countries supposedly attending: that's an awful lot of canceled/rescheduled flights and accommodation, and a whole lot of grumpy people (understandably + I'm one of 'em). To be or not to be...that is what it feels like right now. I'm actually privileged enough with my ticket to change it two hours before hand, not sure if that's a good thing, depending if I feel trigger-happy or not. I really really think this would be an awesome opportunity, but it seems like it could be in name-only if its only one week long, I mean how much could you pick up? DFAT thinks we could also work on the council, but when might that happen??? More of the same, methinks. Technologically speaking, I'm trying to attach a pic from a recent trip to Kyoto last Christmas, Jess and Stuart, I think you should also attempt this feat...

Time to Act

2006-02-25T20:34:00.000-08:00

UN: Time to Act - Adopt draft resolution on Human Rights Council without delay

Amnesty International calls on all governments to adopt without delay the draft resolution on the Human Rights Council presented today by the President of the General Assembly as the first concrete step in meeting the 2005 World Summit’s commitment to strengthen the United Nations' Human Rights machinery.

"This is an historic opportunity that governments must not squander for selfish political interests. It is time for those that have imposed so many tawdry compromises to allow the General Assembly to establish the Human Rights Council", said Yvonne Terlingen. "Still, this is only a first step. Governments must now show the political will to make the Council an effective human rights body," said Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International's UN representative.

"The Council to be established by the resolution will be weaker than hoped, because of many governments' failures to follow through on their stated commitment to human rights. While the President’s text provides a sound basis on which to create a better body than the Commission on Human Rights, it must not be diluted further.

"The draft resolution released today will establish a Council with a clear mandate to address all human rights situations, a more frequent meeting schedule that allows it to react more effectively to both chronic and urgent situations, and a new universal review mechanism to ensure that all countries' human rights records are addressed periodically. Moreover, the resolution establishes an election procedure, which if taken seriously by UN member states, can give the Council a membership much more committed to the promotion and protection of human rights than the Commission on Human Rights in recent years. The text also preserves key strengths of the Commission, including its unique system of independent experts known as "Special Procedures" and its practices of NGO participation.

Following the adoption of the resolution, the first priority of the international community should be to elect a Council membership committed to upholding the highest human rights standards.

what does this mean...?

2006-02-23T23:17:00.000-08:00

..."Member states have been pushed to reach agreement this week in order for the Council to replace the Commission this year"...

it's friday today. does that mean we should sort of know some time soon? good grief.

j x

Continued Disagreement...

2006-02-23T18:20:00.000-08:00

Continued Disagreement on New Human Rights Council Text

New York, 13 February 2006 -- On February 6th and 7th, Member States resumed negotiations on the new Co-Chair's Text on the Human Rights Council. While governments may be reaching some agreement on the contentious issues in bilateral negotiations, progress was not evident in the plenary discussions, which once again highlighted persisting divisions. Member states have been pushed to reach agreement this week in order for the Council to replace the Commission this year.
OverviewNote: this does not cover all positions and all issue areas

Universal Periodic Review: Countries continued to debate the nature of the universal periodic review. The EU, for example, sought to expand the review to look not only at fulfillment of a country's human rights obligations and commitments, but fulfillment of international human rights standards. CARICOM would like to see more explicit language that will further clarify scope and criteria and various other countries continue to seek limits on follow-up.
Prevention: The Council's future role regarding prevention of human rights violation remains a contentious issue with some pushing for deletion of such references and others emphasizing the importance of this role.

Recommendations to UN Bodies: Countries continued to disagree as to whether the Council should be making recommendations primarily to the General Assembly or the UN system. The EU has insisted on the latter.

Review of Commission's Mandate and Functions: In response to new references to reviews and discussion on streamlining, various countries have emphasized the importance of preserving "the" existing system of special procedures as opposed to "a" system of special procedures.
Membership/Elections: The provision calling for two-thirds majority elections appeared to be a potential bottom line for countries pushing for palpable reforms. The opposing group continued to question arguments for a smaller Council with stricter guidelines for elections, maintaining support for 53 members elected by simple majority. Many of the Latin American countries expressed concern over losing seats to equitable geographic distribution. Brazil, for example, now favors election by simple majority, but is willing to consider alternative proposals.
Standards/Criteria: On membership, CANZ highlighted the importance of active commitments from Council members on meeting obligations under the human rights instruments. Despite lack of support, the United States has maintained its focus on including firm standards for membership such as letters from candidates pledging their willingness to abide by human rights standards, endorsements from regional groups, and exclusion of countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism. Mexico endorsed the new language in the document, noting that it pushed states to prove their commitment without being exclusionary.

Sessions/Weeks: While the EU and others maintain the need for a minimum of 4-6 meetings for no less than 12 weeks per year, others have suggested two sessions for eight week or a maximum of three sessions for 10 weeks.

NGO Participation: Various countries recognized that the participation of NGOs is of particular importance for the functioning of the Human rights Council stressing the need to maintain and strengthen the current level of NGO participation with direct involvement of NGOs in the daily work of the Council. CANZ noted that the group would not support weaker language on NGO participation. Argentina also emphasized that states should not be responsible for deciding which NGOs can participate. Opposing countries, however, reiterated their call to streamline NGO participation.

Review: the EU and others questioned the relevance of a one-year review of the Council's work and functioning, arguing that this should occur within the Council on an ongoing basis.
Country-Specific Resolutions: the co-chairs faced opposition on their deletion of language on regulating country-specific resolutions (formerly OP13).

from prague

2006-02-23T12:35:00.000-08:00

aedan! g'day and welcome. great to see you posting. i'm in prague - arrived here yesterday. it's completely cold! but really beautiful. snowing! crazy. i'd write more about it but i'm keeping a travel journal style thing on another blog, so here's not the place. tsk tsk.

it's exactly 2 weeks out from when aedan and i are supposed to be flying from paris to geneva to begin our briefing for the Commission, and still we know nothing. It's funny - when I've expressed to my friends and family the possibility that the Commission will be cancelled, peope sort of tend to see it as a bummer for my internship possibilities, but the bummerness is rather a lot larger than that...! Global respect for international human rights norms down the toilet - dang.

Anyway, still waiting with bated breath to find out what's going on. it's a very strange international limbo situation! ha.

look forward to reading you again soon, A!

Cheers

J xxx

Trials and Tribulations

2006-02-21T17:12:00.000-08:00

Yup, I'd agree that this process is lookingly slightly shaky and could wind up with not much on the table at all. But I'd still love to go, even if three piddly weeks of procedure, as I've spent so much time just getting my head around this trip, so hopefully a miracle will happen. On a more interesting historical note, the last intern from University of Queensland had some quirky stories, most notably a fisticuff between US and Cuban delegates in the hallways of the UN and abusive verbals in the streets of Geneve. Another one included her first day sitting in on the wrong briefing, namely an All-African coalition of states who thought she was a spy and promptly shooed her out. I think she spent the rest of the day at the Serpentine Bar...
So a little bit of introduction: I'm completing a Masters of International Studies (Peace and Conflict Resolution) at UQ in Brisvegas, and spend most of my time outside this working on research and writing projects. I've a background in playwriting, so am currently an Affiliate Writer with the Queensland Theatre Company on a project about the Wall in Israel / Palestine (separation fence or apartheid wall, depending on your view), and doing some research assistance for the newly founded Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict studies for a project on governance and human rights in Vanuatu...Enough for now.

the big question...

2006-02-19T19:10:00.000-08:00

in recent days, stuart, aedan and i have all received an email from DFAT saying that there is a decent chance that the Commission will be either shortened significantly, or cancelled. this would obviously be a huge shame! the negotiations in new york still haven't yielded a definitive response, and so it seems possible that things will not be going ahead as anticipated from 13 march. it's been suggested that a way forward may be to hold the commission (sort of), but shorten it to 2-3 weeks, and just discuss procedural issues. so instead of actually getting into good, gutsy, substantive stuff, we'd be on hand to witness further negotiations on the future of the UN's Human Rights monitoring framework. i can't help feeling a little bit sad for the global future of human rights if the Commission is discontinued. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if anything else pops up in its place, but I'm fairly sure I won't be holding my breath...

Anyway, I'm getting on a plane tomorrow....!

j xxx

guantanamo bay shenanigans

2006-02-17T04:20:00.000-08:00

well. today i was listening to the radio, and heard some very interesting stuff. the UN HR Commission has - backed by various British dignitaries and other heavies - demanded the closure of the United States' detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The US has staunchly refused to entertain such a notion, and today the White House spokesman said "the people being detained at the facility are terrorists and dangerous criminals". nobody pointed out to him that they can't really *know* that until they've been properly tried.... oh well. Minor details. Myeh.

The report submitted in support of the UN's stance has been rejected by the US, even though they didn't let the investigator anywhere near the camp or the detainees. This is all a bit worrying, particularly in light of the delightful photos that have emerged from Abu Ghraib.

Anyway, it seems like this will be an issue at the Commission!! The UN says "either free the detainees or try them immediately in an INDEPENDENT court", and the US says "no way Jose". Could be a very, very interesting stoush. We shall see!

j xxx

Not Long Now...

2006-02-14T02:29:00.000-08:00

Hi there,

Well, in one week's time I'll be on a plane, halfway to Singapore. We haven't heard any bad news from DFAT in Geneva about the Commission not going ahead, but we've been warned that it'll possibly be shorter than anticipated. Even though we are due in Geneva for our briefing in about 3 weeks, everything is still somewhat up in the air. There are - I believe - still negotiations happening in New York, and frankly it seems that the plot is only thickening.

I'm spending some time in Prague, London and Paris before heading over to Geneva, and hope to catch up with one of the other interns - Aedan - in Paris before we get to Geneva.

Aedan, Stuart and I have all been emailing in bursts, about accommodation, travel, trains and planes, food, language and all sorts of business, but today we had a very interesting emailed conversation about our respective views on Human Rights. It turns out that we all have quite similar views, we've all been quite active in our own small ways, and it seems that we are all going to face the challenges, conflicts and tensions that I wrote about in my first post.

As I'm getting ready to leave I'm getting really excited about getting there, getting into the Palais des Nations, and watching one of the worlds most important and intriguing organisations at work. It's going to be great!

J x

This from Anne Bayefsky - National Review Online

2006-02-10T18:57:00.001-08:00

Perhaps a mildy rose-coloured view of the US's intentions, but an interesting read nonetheless...

February 06, 2006, 9:29 a.m.
Sins of Commission
The U.S. should not pretend that the draft for a reformed U.N. human-rights body is any improvement.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is facing one of the hardest choices yet in her multilateralist career. United Nations members are poised to adopt a new primary U.N. human-rights body to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission. Negotiations on the last draft, released February 2, start today (Feb. 6). As it now stands, U.N. members would create a body far worse than its predecessor, but the push is on to make the United States out to be an isolationist spoiler if the administration objects.

Ambassador John Bolton has been keeping his finger in the dike for months. "We want a butterfly," he said. "We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success." But even the caterpillar is looking good compared to the New York City roach now on the table.

It all started in September. Misrepresentation number one came from Secretary General Kofi Annan. After a September confab he declared that the summit had "made real progress on...human rights..." and that "the detailed language [on the Human Rights Council] developed in the lead-up to the Summit...enjoyed the support of the overwhelming majority of Member States."

Ever since, member states have been fighting it out to come up with the minimum common denominator that can be sold to the naïve or illiterate as a "new" Human Rights Council.

Democratic U.N. members sought to reduce significantly the numbers on the council as a means of minimizing the chances of electing the worst human-rights abusers. The draft makes the earth-shattering change from 53 members to 45. A second idea was to have the council meet more often. The draft calls for a minimum of ten weeks per year, which represents an additional four weeks from the current term, and potentially even sessions year-round. But in the U.N.'s own inimitable fashion, meeting time has become an end in itself, since more may well be less given the remainder of the draft.

Out with the West
The proportionate number of members will be changed to reflect more accurately geographic distribution. This means the overall representation of Western states will be reduced and the representation of Asian states will increase. Forty-four percent of the members of the Asian regional group are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Given that many initiatives of democratic states at the commission pass by only one or two votes, this redistribution is a major blow.
The reduction of Western seats is coupled with the absence of any criteria whatsoever for membership. On the contrary, the draft says explicitly that membership "shall be open to all Member States of the United Nations." In a laughable addition, it goes on to suggest that "when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into consideration the candidates' contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and the voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto [and]...whether there are any situations that constitute systematic and gross violations of human rights or any agreed measures currently in place at the United Nations against a candidate for human rights violations." In other words, the solution to a commission that currently includes China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe is to beg countries in the future to please consider their human-rights record.

What happened when an exhortation was made in November 2005 at the U.N. General Assembly for states to consider Sudan's human-rights record and adopt a resolution condemning atrocities in Sudan? The resolution failed, as the U.N. majority rallied to Sudan's side. The commission has never adopted a single resolution in over 40 years criticizing human-rights violations by China, Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe. On such countries there are no "agreed measures currently in place...for human rights violations."

The United States — which bears 22 percent of the costs of the commission — has been a member of the commission since it began, with the exception of 2002. But the new draft will require all countries to go off the council after two consecutive terms. New and improved, U.N.-style, means a lot less contribution from the United States to the international promotion and protection of human rights — while keeping the dollars flowing of course.

The U.N. has had innumerable conferences and meetings related to human rights. Many end in pronouncements which masquerade as consensus despite serious disagreements, or are products of subsets of U.N. members because of their objectionable content. Over the years, there has been a never-ending U.N. game of ignoring reservations or lack of universal agreement in an attempt to raise the status of the outcomes of these meetings to the level of binding international law. The council draft takes this maneuver to shocking new heights. It requires council members to "promote...the follow-up of the goals and commitments related to the promotion and protection of human rights emanating from United Nations conferences and summits." Given there is no exception, the United States will now be required to promote follow-up to such U.N. conferences as the 2001 Durban Racism Conference (which the United States left in disgust), and the 1978 and 1983 U.N. World Racism Conferences which preceded it. The 1978 conference "proclaims its solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation and against racial discrimination" while concerned about "the insidious propaganda by the Government of Israel and its zionist and other supporters..." Hamas will be pleased.

Also scattered throughout the proposal are references to the "right to development," repeatedly singled out either as a human right of special importance, or as a distinct right worthy of respect equal to that given to any human right. In addition, there are numerous calls for "cooperation and dialogue," included in an effort to stymie condemnation of particular human-rights abuses.

Another idea in the draft, supposedly meant to scare the world's bullies and despots from running for election, is "peer review." An examination of local human-rights conditions will be conducted during the tenure of all council members (and later for every U.N. state). But peer review will take place only after the election. A requirement that the review conclude with a public report — which made it into an earlier version — has been deleted. No one could seriously believe that the likes of such states as China and Cuba, which unabashedly characterize themselves as democracies, will be inhibited from submitting their candidacies because of "peer review".

One of the only remaining items still undecided is the issue of whether members must be elected by a two-thirds majority, or a simple majority as is now the case. Some believe that a larger majority will operate to keep off the worst offenders. It is typical of U.N. negotiations that attention is diverted in this way from the real failure, namely, the lack of membership criteria. Voting must result in a specified geographical distribution, and the U.N.'s five regional groups will be able to put forward internally agreed slates which would satisfy their regional quotas. This will make it very difficult, though not impossible, to reject the only candidates put forward for regional slots. Furthermore, the so-called "Group of 77 and China," an alliance operating within the U.N. which today numbers 132, or 69 percent of U.N. members, has the requisite two-thirds to elect any state it chooses. Under the two-thirds criterion it is far more likely that the United States will fail to be elected than China.

There is also a telling omission from the draft. Israel is the only U.N. member state left standing in the halls from 9 A.M. to 10 A.M. every day of a U.N. Human Rights Commission session. It is excluded from full membership in a U.N. regional group and is therefore not permitted to attend the important negotiating and information-sharing meetings which take place every morning. Even non-members like "Palestine" and the Holy See can attend, but not the Jewish State. In the draft, pains are taken to include all kinds of other entities in the council deliberations, but there is no insistence that this egregious discrimination against Israel come to an end.

"Shouldn't settle for window dressing"
In sum, this U.N. Human Rights Council is a disaster. Acquiescence will mean that the political will, however meager, resulting from almost universal admission that the system was discredited, will have been squandered. At the same time, if the United States agrees to this charade and becomes one of its architects, the ability of future U.S. administrations to reject its machinations will have been sabotaged.
No doubt American objection will be subject to the predictable outcry that it is Ambassador Bolton's fault, just as it will be his fault when the experiment of such a Council fails. Indeed, the campaign to put lipstick on the cockroach has already started. Human Rights Watch spokesperson Peggy Hicks commented on February 3: "The new text substantially advances the discussion and gives a good basis to achieve a stronger human rights council, assuming there is a decision to have members of the council elected by a two-thirds majority." February 3rd's New York Times headline reads "With Its Human Rights Oversight Under Fire, U.N. Submits a Plan for a Strengthened Agency."

The Rah-rah U.N., Boo Bolton rallying cry, however, has one major impediment — it is diametrically opposed to the alleged raison d'etre of a new human-rights body supposedly championed by the very same critics. A New York Times editorial of January 10, 2006, said: "The problem with the current discredited Human Rights Commission is that its members are chosen by a system of regional rotation that fails to take into account the actual human rights performance of prospective members...Some of the people most in need of a strong U.N. voice on human rights live under tyrannies that have carefully cultivated Chinese or Russian favor: Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, to name a few." Absolutely nothing in their so-called "plan for a strengthened agency" addresses the system of regional entitlements, ensures account is taken of the actual human rights performance of prospective members, or prohibits any of these states from being elected all over again.

On January 1, 2006, Peggy Hicks of Human Rights Watch was reported as saying "the presence of abusive countries on the commission...end[s] up weakening action on human rights abuses worldwide." Absolutely nothing in the draft, characterized by Hicks as a "good basis to achieve a stronger human rights council," prevents the presence of these abusive countries in the future. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch apparently "shares Bolton's assessment that the United States 'shouldn't settle for window dressing.'" These poor fellows are now torn between the usual sycophantic treatment of the U.N. and the unsightly naked emperor standing in the window.

That brings us back to Condoleezza Rice. Will the United States play the same game? Will the desperate search for multilateral friends in this and other contexts result in an attempt to convince members of Congress that the new U.N. Human Rights Council is a real gain? Perhaps Congress should schedule hearings on the new draft, or invite State Department representatives to explain the current situation immediately, before it's too late. We have reached the nub of the incapacity of the U.N., with a membership composed primarily of states which are not fully democratic, to meet the challenges of democratization and human-rights protection in the 21st century. Short-term and superficial camaraderie is not worth the price of pretense triumphing over principle.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College Law Center. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org..

Articles on UN Reform...

2006-02-08T23:25:00.000-08:00

(Coming from rather an American reformist angle but an interesting take on things...)

Thugocracies and the UN
January 31, 2006

United Nations Ambassador John Bolton is famously impatient about fixing the joint. He's got a list of proposals, about 750 of them. But right at the top is one that should be easy: Overhauling the UN Human Rights Commission.

This is the commission that is supposed to promote and protect human rights around the world. Instead, it has turned into an international punch line. It's the panel that, in a breathtaking 2003 pratfall, elected Libya to its chairmanship. Libya ranked among the most repressive countries on the planet, among such execrable company as North Korea and Sudan. So much for setting an example.

Since then, the commission has welcomed into its ranks such egregious human rights abusers as Zimbabwe, Sudan and Cuba. So instead of condemning the brutally repressive government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or widespread rights abuses in Iran, the commission has been effectively muzzled, docile as a lapdog. It couldn't even bring itself to formally condemn the ethnic slaughter in Darfur in 2004. (Instead, it expressed "concern" while thousands of innocents died.)

"The reason highly abusive governments flock to the commission is to prevent condemnation of themselves and their kind, and most of the time they succeed," Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told The New York Times. "If you're a thug, you want to be on the committee that tries to condemn thugs."

On a recent visit to the Tribune's editorial board, Bolton described the commission as "fundamentally broken."

He won't get an argument here--or in much of the world. Indeed, Bolton and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, famously at odds about a lot of things, completely agree that the commission needs to replaced.

Last spring, Annan proposed a new Human Rights Council, which would downsize and replace the 53-member commission. Notorious rights abusers would find it much harder if not impossible to join. The new panel would be far more nimble, able to respond to evidence of abuses immediately instead of waiting months for its annual meeting.

You'd think this would be easy to accomplish. But this is the UN. Nothing is easy.

Some poorer and less developed countries, notably Egypt and Pakistan, reportedly fear that the new council would become another instrument for wealthier and more powerful nations to meddle in their affairs. In other words, they want the ability to stack the panel with friendly nations to ensure that it doesn't get too serious about doing its job.

Talks on a new council stalled in December. Earlier this month, the U.S. renewed its push in New York and foreign capitals.

Bolton is refreshingly blunt. If a plan to create a strong council is defeated, he favors allowing the current commission to continue, as a sort of cautionary tale. "We want a butterfly," he said. "We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success."

The next meeting of the Human Rights Commission begins in March. The UN needs to act soon, to make sure that this meeting is its last.

Blogging with Buddies

2006-02-05T16:14:00.000-08:00

Hi there - sorry for the hiatus! Shortly, on this very page, 2 other people will be merrily joining in to put forward their 10c on the Commission. They are Aedan from Brisbane, and Stuart from Adelaide. We are each coming to the internship from slightly different backgrounds, so I though that all of us having our say on the experience of the commission would be much more interesting than just my ponderings. So if you see mysterious posts appearing from mysterious contributors... that's probably what's going on.

Will write more soon!

Cheers

J

To Answer a Question

2006-01-12T14:32:00.000-08:00

Quite a few people have asked me how I'm going to reconcile my convictions and beliefs while taking a part in representing my country in defending its Human Rights record. This is a really interesting thing, and I've been thinking about it a lot. It was also a trick question in the interview of shortlisted candidates for the internship! To begin with, it's an internship offered through the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, and candidates are chosen based on their committment to advocacy and activism in Human Rights, both in Australia and overseas. So, implicitly, there will likely be some conflict between the viewpoints of the intern, and the stance they will be requested to represent during the Commission. I figure the solution to dealing with this will be multi faceted - a combination of putting aside my preconceived ideas, talking to people and finding out the rationale behind what they think, framing Australia's situation (and HR record) in a global context, and coming to a deeper understanding of the huge complexities involved with governing human rights on an international level. It will be very interesting. I'll let you know how I go...!

Also, it's possible that I won't be alone in this struggle. I got an email this week from a guy from Adelaide Uni called Stuart. He and I are the 2 (i think) interns to the Australian delegation. He told me that this year he plans to write an Honours thesis for Law on the case of Plaintiff S157. This is a really important case in administrative law, where the High Court absolutely canned s474 of the Migration Act. s474 is what's called a 'privative clause' - a section which aims to cut out any court's ability to review decisions. It's very complicated, but basically the High Court made a very controversial decision, which a lot of people saw as bending the law until it said what they wanted it to say. Aaah the sweetness of judicial creativity...! So Stuart will PROBABLY either be highly critical of the High Court's approach to the decision, or very much in favour of it. It'll be interesting to see which! Basically I think you HAVE to be passionate about the question, to want to write a thesis in Admin law...! Phew.

Above is a photo of all the Castan Centre interns for 2005-06. Linda (far left) and Sophie (far right) are completing internships at Human Rights First in New York, and Shahaan (front right) is at the Asian Commission for Human Rights in Hong Kong. To read more about the gals you can click on this link to the Castan Centre page: http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/internships/global-intern-program.html

Happy reading!

Shiny new blog

2006-01-11T17:15:00.000-08:00

Hi there.

Here's my first post on this shiny new blog. I feel like a bit of a nuff-nuff posting before the internship has even begun, but there's plenty of stuff to say! I've just been on the phone to a disinterested-sounding guy who works at a youth hostel in Geneva, getting some info from him about potential accommodation. It's not a good sign when available rooms are so scant you're considering sharing a room with 6 other snoring random strangers for 7 weeks! But hopefully something else will pop up. We shall see.

Significantly more exciting than my accommodation-hunting woes is the mystery surrounding the 2006 UN Commission on Human Rights. It is being suggested by many people that this will be the last UNCHR (as we have known it since its inception 62 sessions ago), as some key players are tending towards disengagement from that particular structure of policing / 'enforcement' of the UN's Human Rights mandates. Watching the negotiations from within the Australian delegation will be very, very interesting. From what I understand, those countries which are wanting to shut down the current system are talking about putting in its place a different system, but it seems difficult to believe that such a system would have teeth. Disengagement is, after all, disengagement. At a recent conference at Monash University entitled 'Seeking Asylum in Australia' I heard Bob Birrell suggest that Australia should just back off from (ie unsign!) instruments like the Refugees Convention, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other Conventions that impose (in his view) onerous and unreasonable obligations on Australia. His argument was- from memory - that in the place of these instruments, there would spring up a robust, dynamic and healthy culture of Human Rights protection within Australia! Which I found interesting. His position seemed to be that it is black-letter prescription of obligations which poses the problem, rather than unwillingness to assume responsibility for them. Needless to say, his position was feistily challeneged...! But I expect that this point of view will be the norm among the Australian delegation, and others, so it will be really interesting to speak to those people about their expectations and ideas. I anticipate being fascinated, surprised, and challenged at every turn!