Full Disclosure: I am not a fan of Mme. ARBOUR (see this piece).
I feel this strong denunciation by a Toronto lawyer Mr. Glenn COHEN - is unfair.
1) COHEN acknowledges the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is overrun with countries run by repressive, non-democratic regimes1. Further, it is widely acknowledged that the High Commissioner (HC) does not necessarily play a role in the Council - yet COHEN tags the numerous Council resolutions critical of Israel on Mme. ARBOUR (Mr. COHEN states that 46% of UNHRC statements in 2006 were critical of Israel. Unfortunately UN Watch's review did not include 2006). While possible that Mme. ARBOUR had some role in drafting, introducing or influencing resolutions that came before the Council - it is debatable and quite defensible that she may not have had any role in approving them what so ever.
2) According to Geneva-based Human Rights Group UN Watch, Mme. ARBOUR made 79 critical statements directed at 39 different countries during 2007/8. This amounts to 3 rebukes per month. I am sure a good deal of painstaking research from hostile resources must take place before anything is released. The majority (69) were directed at "non-democratic" nations including Myanmar who received 7 warnings - the most of any nation. Council members2 were largely absent of criticism. I am not sure if this is because they must ratify the HC's statements or what, but it is not surprising that many are not partial to being self-critical3. Israel received 4 warnings - the same as Zimbabwe, Nepal, DR Congo, Afghanistan and Sudan whereas Lebanon received only 1 "mild" citation. 4 of 79 direct citations - however misconstrued or misguided - does not seem to constitute "disproportionate" as Mr. COHEN states.
3) Condemnation of Mme. ARBOUR's decision to choose when she would "Name and Shame" or take a "quiet diplomacy" approach is moralistic. But it is a legitimate criticism. As UN Watch noted "There is no magic formula for how to criticize countries". Many influences went into her choices but presumably our evaluation of her success should measure results, not the process. Yet it is disappointing when democratic countries with a free and open press that provide balanced reportage suffer official international disapprobation whereas many countries with repressive regimes and a non-free media which is a mere front for official propaganda do not.
4) Diplomacy at the UN does not function in a simple and direct manner as one might think, in fact on close inspection it seems alot closer to "Alice in Wonderland". UN Watch identifies two seemingly innocuous resolutions under which support was indicative of "many regular acts of intimidation by regimes interested in hiding their abuses."4 Supporters unaccountably included many "free" states like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India and Mexico, while South Korea and Switzerland merely "stood by" allowing the injustice by abstaining from the vote.
5) Given the task of taming dozens of totalitarian/authoritarian regimes, many of whom openly flaunt Human Rights can not be a simple job. Some may call it impossible. Mme. ARBOUR certainly failed in adjusting expectations and setting objectives by which she could be fairly judged.
6) If UN Watch has the neutral moral compass needed to crititic Mme. ARBOUR, she appears to have recieved what I would call a C+ grade. They have not showered Mme. ARBOUR with the same vehement criticism as Mr. COHEN.
Mr. COHEN seems to have an axe to grind. He obviously doesn't take kindly to any criticism of Israel. I have often observed such an attitude by supporters of Israel. It reminds me of the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. Any citizen was pilloried as disloyal to question the White House determination - dissent was quashed and a "my country right or wrong" attitude took hold. That attitude no longer has much credibility and the press has in fact faced alot of criticism for not "challenging" conventional wisdom more strongly at the time.
Undoubtedly, Mme. ARBOUR failed to tame the UNHRC - yet to believe otherwise is the failure we should address.
Footnotes:
1) The Right to Name and Shame: An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour with Recommendations for New High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay. August 4, 2008, UN Watch. Mme. ARBOUR was appointed High Commissioner of the UNHRC from July 1 2004 to 2008 but this report studies only 2007-8.
As UN Watch notes "As High Commissioner she is subject to the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN but wears two hats in that she serves the Human Rights Council but also has a significant role as an independent voice to promote human rights."
The Council consists of 47 nations. Those considered "*free" include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, S. Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK and Uruguay (23) - while those "partly free*" were Bahrain, Bolivia, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Gabon, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines and Zambia (14) - and those "not free" Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia (10). *Freedom rating taken from 2008 Freedom in the World Survey by Freedom House. 23 are free, 14 partly free and 10 not free. This means a majority of 51% (24 of 47) fall short of basic democratic freedoms.
2) Of 79 critical statements, 23 were weak, 32 moderate and 24 strong. Russia and China sustained minor rebukes.
3) As UN WATCH claimed "[Mme. ARBOUR] was silent, or spoke out no more than once, on systematic human rights abuses committed by China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council, and on those committed by Egypt, a country that exercises great influence at the Human Rights Council through its leading position in various UN country groupings. Similarly, Mme. ARBOUR only issued one statement for human rights victims in Angola, Chad, and Kazakhstan, whose very systems deny basic civil and political freedom." P.2, The Right ti Name and Shame.
4) They were UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/2 of 27 March 2008, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 34 in favor, 10 opposed, and 3 abstentions and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/159 of 19 December 2006, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 118 in favor, 7 opposed, and 55 abstentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment