POMED Notes: “U.S. Leadership on Democracy and Human Rights at the United Nations Human Rights Council”

On Thursday, Freedom House, in partnership with the Democracy Coalition Project and the Open Society Foundations, hosted a briefing on the importance of U.S. engagement at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.  Advocacy Director at Freedom House Paula Schriefer moderated the event and introduced the following panelists: Dr. Thaung Htun, Representative for UN Affairs from the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma; Hadi Ghaemi, Executive Director at the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran; Carlos Portales, former Chilean Ambassador; and Eileen Donahoe, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

To see full notes continue below, or click here for pdf.

Dr. Thuang Htun opened by discussing the need for inquiry by the commission into the situation in Burma.  He noted the importance commission’s inquiry played in the situation in Libya and Ivory Coast and expressed his hope that the momentum built over these two situations would translate into greater international support for human rights.  Dr. Htun stated that now is the time for the council to make a push in the case of Burma where he alleges that the army has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.  He called on the United States to commit to upholding human rights and to use its diplomatic sway to convince other members of the council to begin an inquiry into the case of Burma.

Hadi Ghaemi called on the United States to continue its role on the Human Rights Council as its departure will have a negative and severe impact on human rights across the world, especially in Iran.  He states that he shares the concern of many members of Congress in regards to the number of human rights abusers who are currently members of the council and the consequent failure of the council to address abuses. However, he states that the U.S. has vital role in its improvement.  Ghaemi also noted the importance of the council in holding governments accountable and holding them to their international legal obligations.

Ghaemi also discussed the importance of establishing of a Special Rapporteur to Iran. He stated that a couple years ago, the political environment in Geneva pointed to the impossibility of a special investigator for Iran ever being named.  He also noted how activists had been advocating for such a measure for seven or eight years and how many were surprised that a rapporteur was not immediately established in response to the repression of protesters in the summer of 2009.  Ghaemi noted the importance of U.S. leadership in the establishment of the investigator, stating that they would not have gained cross-regional support and momentum without the United States. He made note of how this cross-regional support proactively counters the rhetoric of the Iranian regime that such acts are simply ways that the West is trying to exploit them.

He also discussed the importance of such action for Iranians as the judicial system in the country and regional organizations cannot hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable. He also noted how international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Freedom House, among others have been banned from working in Iran for over ten years.  He called the naming of a rapporteur a “great victory for the victims of the regime” as it provides activists a “megaphone to the international community” and puts pressures on the Iranian government.

Carlos Portales stated that when states fail to protect human rights the international community must step in as moral authority of the Human Rights Council is vital to sustain indigenous struggles for human rights. He notes that in the past the council’s work has been based on political interests and selectivity and that this must change. He stated however, that one can already see a difference in the level of international action on human rights violations since the U.S. decided to participate.  Portales states that many countries recognize the value of human rights and the need to uphold them, but seldom do these countries actually take action to address these abuses.  He notes that this has been due to a lack of leadership. He states that a large country, like the United States, has a significant amount of political capital and diplomatic sway to take the lead and make substantial differences. He also stated that many observers are waiting to see how the Arab Spring will impact the council and the cause for human rights as many of these countries and governments will likely change their approach to the council.

Portales continued by noting that there needs to be a concentrated push to bring more countries that are sensitive to the issue of human rights into the council. He notes that many countries who champion human rights do not join the council because they do not want to be forced to make decisions.  As a result, other countries which regularly abuse human rights join the council “to take a stance against it.” He noted, however, the symbolic importance of suspending Libya from the council.  He stated that the actions taken by the Council this year on countries such as Korea, Sudan, Cambodia, Iran, Tunisia and Libya matters greatly to the people in those countries who are fighting and dying for their rights.

Ambassador Eileen Donahoe stated that U.S. involvement in the Human Rights Council is absolutely vital. In her statement she countered the main arguments against U.S. involvement the council that has been made by senators, congressmen and scholars.  First, addressing calls to form a new commission to counter human rights violations, she stated that such an attempt would be fool-hardy and not address the real issues. Additionally, she noted that it would be impossible to do so in the current budget climate. Second, addressing concerns that membership in the council puts the U.S. in the anti-Israel camp, Donahoe discussed a conversation she had, with the Israeli ambassador, during which he expressed that the U.S. membership on the Council was a welcome relief. She noted how the United States acts as a bulwark to anti-Israel sentiments.  Third, she countered concerns that that many members of the council are atrocious human rights violators. She noted how members are selected on a regional basis and how she believes the role of the United States is to put pressure on these countries to reform: “The world is not made up of countries that achieve perfect scores on the Freedom House scale. Our job is to move them in that direction and have them reflect more of our values.” Lastly, she addressed critiques that the council does not actually take any action but rather is “just a talk shop.”  Donahoe stated that “words do matter” as they provide an “affirmation of our core principles which will eventually sink in.” She stated that currently we are engaged in a “battle for the dominant narrative in the world, with the narrative being “universal human rights.” She expressed her belief that the U.S. narrative is winning.

Donahoe stated that the role of the U.S. on the council is to make it more function, efficacious on the protection of human rights and also to build and diffuse the United States’ doctrine on human rights. She also discussed how she, as the U.S. representative to the Council, has tried to make some structural changes like pressuring countries to stop voting in regional blocs and actually address human rights issues on a case by case basis by presenting the facts on the ground. This, she said, will hopefully make the council more functional and effective.

Paula Schriefer made note and expressed her support for the “battle for the narrative” and questioned panelists whether setting aside the Human Rights Council to create something better was plausible.  Dr. Thuang Htun stated that while a coalition of like-minded countries is helpful, the larger struggle is convincing other countries to accept the international norms on human rights. Carlos Portales echoed this sentiment stating that we need to pressure countries to accept human rights norms and sign universal conventions to make governments more accountable. Hadi Ghaemi stated that while a coalition of like-minded countries is a good idea it should not be a replacement for the Human Rights Council as doing so would be a disservice to citizens of countries whose governments do not hold the same ideals. The council, he says, is a leverage tool of the people and the replacement of the council would only serve to isolate human rights victims and activists. Eileen Donahoe also stated that while a community of democracies may be a good idea, it is not a replacement for the council, especially as our job is to influence and pressure other countries.

Addressing a question over the potential appointment of Syria as a member of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Donahoe discussed how the selection of council members by regional groups rather a vote and encouraged countries to put pressure on the Asian block countries not to select Syria. She noted that if Syria is selected and then suspended by the group; the Asian bloc will then be down a member. She also stated that in the coming weeks the council will address the current uprisings in Syria and the broader Middle East and the violations of protesters’ rights.