Event in DC: Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?

"Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?" Friday at 11AM at the Heritage Foundation. It will be webcast on the Heritage Foundation website tomorrow.

More information here.

The Human Rights Council’s first three years have been bitterly disappointing, with the Council continuing the worst practices of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, including stigmatizing Israel and overlooking serious human rights violations by China, Cuba, and other states. These practices led the Bush Administration to distance the U.S. from the Council.

Human rights organizations and nations that support increased U.S. participation with the Council have anticipated that the Obama Administration would reverse the U.S. policy of non-engagement with the Council. On March 31, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fulfilled this expectation by announcing that the U.S. would seek a seat on the HRC in the upcoming May election to “make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights.”

The UN Human Rights Council replaced the UN Commission Human Rights, which was heavily criticized for including member countries that themselves had dubious human rights records and for being overly politicized and therefore ineffective. Unfortunately, the UN Human Rights Council appears to have the same problems. For example, it was recently in the news for passing a non-binding resolution that condemned "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. Nevertheless, the Council has a great deal of potential as its inclusiveness offers tremendous opportunities for engaging member states.

But equally crucial to the Council’s credibility and truly universal human rights progress is the continued inclusion of diverse countries and perspectives. The human rights movement has long been plagued by widespread perception that it consists of Western values being imposed by Western countries. Although some believe that human rights stem from natural law—law that exists as part of nature and requires no codification—the movement is ultimately an ideological struggle that requires sustained diplomatic engagement.

The Council’s innovative Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) process—involving a quadrennial review of every UN member state’s human rights compliance—offers a tremendous opportunity for such engagement. Unlike the reviews performed in other UN bodies, the UPR is a state-driven process. Other relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), play only a limited role.

Although this premise is often cited as an inherent weakness of the UPR, it should instead be viewed as an invaluable opportunity for intergovernmental dialogue and diplomatic pressure where necessary. While independent human rights experts and NGOs are well-suited to providing findings and serving as watchdogs, in the end it is only state and intergovernmental actors who are able to speak from positions of strength.

Because of the membership of egregious human rights offenders and a tone of antisemitism, the US distanced itself from the Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has decided on a strategy of engagement and is seeking election to the Council.