World Bulletin
 The President’s Corner
Tom MillerThe US Needs an Experienced Ambassador to the Human Rights Council
Oct. 21 -- Whenever the United Nations Human Rights Council comes up in discussions, people’s eyes glaze over. That is because it is an institution that is not well understood or well known beyond a coterie of UN watchers. The council is, in fact, a complex structure with even more complicated procedures. For instance, the 192 countries of the UN elect the council’s 47 members by secret ballot. Nominations are put forth by five groups, based on geographical distribution to ensure equality, with 13 seats allocated for Africa, 13 for Asia, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 6 for Eastern Europe and 7 for Western Europe and other countries that include New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States.
The intricacies do not end there. These so-called semiregional and semipolitical groupings were organized during the height of the cold war. (There is no mention of them, for one, in the UN Charter.) For lack of a better alternative and mostly out of convenience and habit, member states still resort to these groupings to select members to other UN bodies, including the Security Council and to make high-level appointments. The notion behind the groupings is to avoid the dominance of a single country or region and to maintain an international character. In reality, the groupings rarely serve this purpose and undermine qualified representation.
What this all boils down to is the selection of countries with undesirable human rights records to the Human Rights Council.
Like the rest of the UN, the council is a multifaceted, evolving experiment that demands patience, flexibility and fortitude. Solutions do not come easily. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives the council deserves our support. That is why UNA-USA advocated for the US to join the council when it was created in 2006, having replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission, and why we were so gratified when the US finally came on board in May 2009. Full-time membership was one small step in the right direction. The administration also took an equally significant step to create a position with the rank of an ambassador whose sole job is to be the US representative to the council.
Historically, the Human Rights Commission always had a separate ambassador; that is, a US-designated representative confirmed by the Senate. Since the US actually voted against the creation of the new council under the Bush administration (I told you this was complicated) and never joined until Obama’s presidency, participation was limited to more junior officers taking notes and observing.
A designated high-level representative at the Human Rights Council is meant to continue an American tradition of sending such an individual to the UN’s principal human rights organ. Such action, however, must come with the assurance that the council has the full-time attention of a well-versed representative, minimizing the opportunities for manipulation by states that have poor human rights records. While the council may not be a caterpillar, to use a critic’s phrase, it is a long way from being a butterfly.
Indeed, we stress the need for the appointment of a well-versed, experienced ambassador because the council meets more often than the commission did, conducting sessions throughout the year as opposed to meeting just six weeks annually. By allocating undivided, authoritative attention to the council’s agenda, the US can try to prevent efforts by countries that question the universality of human rights and strive to place cultural values above the rights of people, including women and children. States with poor human rights record often attach more resources and more attention to the council than the moderate members and our allies do. We cannot allow these countries to hijack the world’s human rights agenda. America’s voice in promoting and protecting human rights must be heard loud and clear.
The council has useful instruments which the US should utilize. Universal Periodic Review for instance, allows scrutiny over the rights records of each country and gives the US and other like-minded countries an opportunity to draw attention to rights violators. UPR process also offers an opportunity for the US government to share its own performance record on human rights, a lengthy process that includes consultations and engagement with civil society domestically – providing an open door for all eyes to take a look at the US and its own faults. A US ambassador who is familiar with the processes and the relevant people can help to ensure that the review delivers desired results, having worked with both national and international constituencies. In short, having an experienced US ambassador to the Human Rights Council will allow us to be an active player and shape its evolving role.
Is there a downside to appointing an exclusive ambassador to the council? Sure, it’s costly to hire someone to live in Geneva, where the council is based. Yet those dollars are small potatoes when it comes to protecting human rights and possibly preventing conflicts down the road that spill over from rights abuses.
We trust that the Obama administration will assign a highly capable individual to become the next US ambassador to the council and support President Obama’s decision to create such a post. A timely, well- qualified appointment would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world and enable America to be a leader in safeguarding human rights.
Tom Miller is president and chief executive of UNA-USA.
|
|