CHR Reform Panel

What to Do About the Commission on Human Rights
A Response to Proposals for Reform

Proceedings of the UN Watch Expert Panel
Palais des Nations, Geneva, April 4, 2005

Hillel C. Neuer Executive Director UN Watch transcript  I  video	Professor Stephen J. Toope Chair of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances	Ambassador Mary Whelan Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in Geneva
	transcript  I  video	transcript  I  video

Asma Jahangir UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief transcript I  video	Deirdre Kent Rapporteur of the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN in Geneva
	transcript I  video
Final Remarks	Q&A
transcript I  video	video

This debate was held as an NGO Parallel Event during the 61st Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights on 4 April 2005 in the Palais de Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. The event was a tribute to the late John Peters Humphrey, the first Director of the UN Division of Human Rights and a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

List of Participants

 
HILLEL C. NEUER:  Distinguished Ambassadors, representatives from the Missions, NGO colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen: Welcome to today's panel discussion, "What to do about the Commission on Human Rights - A Response to Proposals for Reform."  We are honoured to have on our panel superb individuals that I will introduce in a moment.

"Ce sera la une grand aventure." 

That's what John Peters Humphrey was told when he agreed to take on the new position of director of the UN human rights division in 1946, which supported the new Commission on Human Rights. In that capacity, John Humphrey became the author of the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He went on to serve the United Nations in the cause of human rights for the rest of his life.

Ten years ago, indeed to the day that this commission began this year, is when John Humphrey passed away at the age of 89. I had the honor of knowing him personally from my time at McGill University, and later I'll ask one of our speakers who knew him well to say a few words as well. And so we hold this event in his memory. At a time when the Commission is considering its future, it is particularly fitting to look back and reflect on its past.

Seated to my immediate left is Dr. Asma Jahangir.  Dr. Jahangir is the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.  She previously served as the Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  She is renowned in her native Pakistan, and around the world, as a human rights activist, lawyer, author and defender of freedoms, especially of minorities and women.  For good reason Time Magazine named her as an Asian Hero for Human Rights.

To my immediate right is my teacher, Professor Stephen Toope, who Chairs the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.  I had the great privilege to study under Professor Toope at the McGill University Faculty of Law in Montreal, while he was Dean during the 1990's.  One of Canada's great scholars, Professor Toope currently presides over the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, and continues to serve as a much beloved teacher at McGill.

Further to my right is Ambassador Mary Whelan, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the UN and the WTO in Geneva.  Ambasador Whelan has served her country for over three decades, with a posting in Washington, a previous tour of duty in Geneva during the 1980's and many important positions in Dublin.  She coordinated Ireland's successful campaign for a seat on the Security Council, and distinguished herself, for everyone who was here last year will know, as an eloquent speaker at the Commission last year while Ireland was EU Chair.

Deirdre Kent is currently Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights. She is the Human Rights Counsellor at the Canadian Permanent Mission in Geneva.  Prior to arriving in Geneva in 2001, Deirdre Kent was the Manager of the Human Security Programme within the Global Issues Branch at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs.  In the Canadian Foreign Ministry, she has previously been posted to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and served in Middle East unit in Ottawa.

Those who know our speakers know that what they share in common is a unique combination of expertise on and passionate commitment to the promotion of human rights.

Without further ado, I introduce our first panelist, Professor Stephen Toope.

STEPHEN TOOPE:  Thank you very much. It's an honor and a pleasure to be with you today.

John Humphrey was a colleague of mine at the Law Faculty of McGill University. As was mentioned, he was also one of the principal drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  I did not want to begin this session without signaling his unique contributions.

I would say that when he referred to his experience as an adventure, he also thought of it somewhat as a dream, and sometimes as a nightmare. I am afraid that's also probably an accurate description of where we all stand in dealing with inter-governmental organizations treating issues of human rights. They're inevitably extraordinarily complex creatures. I think that John believed in an effective and active Commission on Human Rights. And I don't think that he would be very happy with the current state of the Commission, but he would strongly encourage our efforts at reform.

The United Nations, on highly charged political issues such as human rights -- and I'm here making a statement: human rights is of course about politics as much as it is about norms and law -- is of course highly dependent on the cooperation and willingness of Member States to act. In most cases, the United Nations is not an autonomous actor that can simply exercise or implement a will.

But what does that mean for the Human Rights Commission?

Of course, the Commission is made up of sovereign states. It is sovereign states. After the promise of the end of the Cold War, we've seen a lot of horse trading, we've seen unprincipled horse trading, and we've seen many diverse agendas being pursued.  I want to signal that Western states contribute to the problems as much as any others.  They often keep adding resolutions on new subjects without any real possibility of implementation, and -- I want to emphasize this -- without adequate resources for the United Nations to act.

Now, I personally support many of the recommendations of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.  I won't go into all of the diverse recommendations, but I do want to signal guidelines on the application of the use of force, a clear no to preventive war. There are some very strong and important statements in the High Level Panel Report.

However, and I think sadly, the section of the High Level Report on the Human Rights Commission is, I think, the weakest part of the report.  I fear that it may signal a dearth of ideas acceptable for reform. There are, however, some reasonable ideas in the High Level Panel Report, and I want to uphold and highlight a few of them.

I think it's true that the Commission needs more political discipline, and a greater sense of responsibility.  But how can that be achieved? 

One way it can be achieved is to be realistic about what the Commission can actually do, and I think this involves some measure of discipline on the part of Non-Governmental Organizations as well as states.  We cannot keep adding to the agenda without realistic, new resources.

Secondly, I think we have to work harder to break through the regionalization that has occurred since the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It existed before, but it's been highlighted recently. So I would suggest that more efforts have to be made to work with like-minded nations in different regions, at least on specific agenda items. Engagement with South Africa, Botswana, Morocco, Jordan, Argentina, the Philippines, etc., must be pursued more forcefully by Western states.

I think, as well, that it may be time to start looking at an application of the articles of the United Nations Charter that allow for the suspension or expulsion of member states which consistently breach values of the Charter. I direct your attention to Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter.

The idea that the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be able to report regularly to the Security Council is, I think, very positive and should be pursued aggressively.

It would also be helpful for member states to treat the Head of Delegation position more responsibly. I think it is true that representatives with substantive knowledge should be appointed more consistently. 

But I want to emphasize that this will not depoliticize the Commission.  Human rights, as I said, are political as well as normative -- and state gatherings are innately political.  Put the two together, and you do not escape from political machination -- and we should stop pretending that it is possible to do so.

I would not give up on the idea of criteria for membership on the Commission.  The High Level Panel, obviously, could not agree on this, and I guess that is why they opted for universal membership.  But I would keep pushing for criteria, acknowledging that they would have to be weak criteria.  For example, one might say all members of the Security Council should also be members of the Human Rights Commission, and that, in addition to that, it would be important to insist merely upon the ratification of a core set of human rights treaties for membership. I think more substantive criteria would be difficult to agree upon, and I don't think we would have much success.

Alternatively, various studies have suggested that one could consider a slightly weaker commitment -- that is, at least a statement of intention to improve human rights performance and possibly to ratify certain treaties. That might be a fall-back position that should be explored.

Now, I want to emphasize that one of the central problems, in my view, with the Commission's work, as opposed to the Commission, is a lack of resources. The Secretary-General has, of course, made human rights a priority for the UN system, consistently. But you would not know that from the allocation of funds.  The OHCHR is grossly under-funded to do what it is asked to do, currently representing roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the UN budget.  According to this year's request for voluntary contributions from member States, the UN regular budget currently funds one-third of the cost of the OHCHR -- one third.  So the base budget needs to be enhanced and, in the meantime, more voluntary contributions are urgently required.

There are two procedural reforms that were not discussed by the High Level Panel that I think would be useful to explore.

I think that Non-Governmental Organizations bear some responsibility for an unduly charged political atmosphere at the Commission. I say this because I think there is a tendency to turn every agenda item into a country debate. This is bound to increase tensions and, I think, to discourage cooperation.  I would like to suggest that perhaps we should put less emphasis on country resolutions that have little impact and which simply poison discussions.  I am not suggesting that we eliminate the possibility of country resolutions. I think they are important for truly egregious situations. But, it might be, that if we put less emphasis on  them, there would be less of a tendency for states to try to move agenda items from Item 9 (countries) to Item 19 (technical cooperation) - which is a pattern that we have seen.

Secondly, in terms of procedural reform, I think that there is much too much attention being given, and requests being made, for reports from the Secretary-General and the OHCHR. I think that this is largely a misuse of time and resources, because most of these reports do not result in any action.

I want to conclude with some observations about two very bad ideas, in my view, contained in the High Level Panel report.

The first is the proposed creation of an Advisory Council of so-called experts to the Commission. I think that this would accomplish very little. The Sub-Commission is already a relatively ineffective body that has little discernible influence on the promotion or protection of human rights. Jacking up the Sub-Commission to an Advisory Council would not address the fundamental problem, which is, as I said, that the Commission is a political body that will not defer to expertise.

In any event, there is already a wealth of expertise available to the Commission.  It now hears regularly from special rapporteurs, thematic and country-focused, and I think that this invention of interactive dialogues could allow for more discussion and education around key issues. This process needs to be bolstered and given more prominence. So I would recommend against creating more jobs for the boys on Advisory Councils. (And I say with respect that they are mostly boys.) Instead, I would spend money in the field, not on more trips to Geneva.

In my view, the worst idea in the High Level Panel Report is the expansion of the Commission to universal membership.  I think that this resulted purely because the High Level Panel could not agree on any other option. But when you read the High Level Panel Report in relation to the General Assembly, all of the critiques that it offers for the General Assembly, which in my view are very persuasive, would apply in spades to a universal Human Rights Commission. I think it would ensure more regional groupings, more intensely present and mobilized.  It would allow states to jam the agenda and it would require more time for talking and less for work. So I would continue to try to fight for criteria, albeit weak criteria, for membership.

I am delighted, by the way, with the proposals of the Secretary-General that he will deliver to the Millennium Summit this fall, where he supports the idea of a smaller Human Rights Council, with members elected by two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.  I think this is a much better way forward than universal membership for the Commission.
 
Finally, I think that we have to work hard to articulate realistic assessments of what the United Nations itself can accomplish in the area of human rights.  If we claim too much for the United Nations, I think we risk disillusion.  We also offer a false hope to suffering people.  I see that as both a strategic and a moral failing.  Thank you.

NEUER:  Thank you very much, Professor Toope.  Our next speaker, Ambassador Mary Whelan.

MARY WHELAN:  Thank you very much, and I am delighted to be here and I want to thank you very much for the invitation.

I also find I can just about agree to everything that the preceding speaker said. 

Let me first of all make clear that the views I am expressing are my own views, not those of my Government. And with that caveat again, I will continue.

I think we need to look at the proposal, and I intend to look at the proposals in the Secretary-General's report.  I think we need to look at them in the context of wider reform of the United Nations.

Proposals put forward by the Sec-Gen, while not put forward on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, do form a package which need to he considered as a whole. It would be neither realistic nor desirable to pick and choose between the various recommendations.

With this caveat, there is still value, I believe, in discussing and probing the ideas advanced in relation to the Commission on Human Rights, and to consider whether they will advance the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world.

First of all, just a few words on the report of the High Level Panel. I agree with the preceding speaker that its treatment of human rights within the United Nations system was disappointing, indeed was perfunctory.  Itt was light in analysis and its recommendations did not address the problem which it identified.

The Sec-Gen's report, on the other hand, redresses the deficiencies of the High Level Panel report and puts human rights at the center of the United Nations. It addresses unambiguously the issue of impunity in its exhortation to Member States to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court. The Secretary-General also highlights the capacity constraints faced by the Office of the High Commissioner and suggests that the High Commissioner play a more active role in the deliberations of the Security Council. The proposals on harmonized guidelines on reporting to treaty monitoring bodies are timely. I believe that these proposals, to which I have just referred, are the most important elements of the Secretary-General's report and indeed they are also the least controversial to date.

Paradoxically, the recommendations in the human rights area, which have attracted the most attention, is perhaps the least significant.  That is the proposal to create a Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights.

When an institutional proposal is made, the first thing, I think, [that] we should always ask ourselves, is what is the mandate of this organization? What do we want to achieve? And the next question is, what are the structures that would enable us to reach that mandate? And that is one of the very unusual things about the way this issue has been dealt with to date. We haven't said, is this what we want this body to do? And with that, I deduce that what we want it to do is what the Commission is already doing, perhaps imperfectly.

Nor has the question been asked, is the Commission on Human Rights capable of being reformed?   And again, before we go on to close off the option there, we would need to be sure that it wasn't capable of being reformed.

So, when the Secretary-General's report relates to the annual session of the Commission, it describes, as the Commission's role, is to draw public attention to human rights issues and debates, provide a forum for the development of United Nations human rights policy and establish a unique system of independent and expert special procedures to observe and analyze human rights compliance by them and by country. The Commission's close engagement with hundreds of civil society organizations provides an opportunity for working with civil society that does not exist elsewhere.

And that is all indeed what the Commission does, and I take it for the way the report addresses it, that that's what the Council would also do. But there is one very important word that I find missing in that description of what the Commission does, and, indeed, what any future Council should do. And that is that the Commission is, in much of what it does, a cooperative enterprise between states, and civil societies, and other actors. And that cooperation is what we tend to ignore because it is not controversial, because we won't read about it in the media. 

Most of the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, most of the Special Procedures have been established by consensus votes. And we should remember that.

I would prefer it if the description of what the Council does had addressed that issue. I would prefer that it had noted, for example, the day that we devoted entirely to national human rights institutions. It might also have referred to the increasing engagement of Ministers in the opening week of the Commission. And they very often, in their addresses, focus not on the failings of others, but on their own efforts to improve their domestic human rights situations. The report might also have pointed to the increasing engagement of parliamentarians in the work of Commission. And I know, for example, today that we have an Irish parliamentarian in town to attend the Commission, and there are German parliamentarians in town, and I know there are Members of the European Parliament in town, and I am sure there are many other parliamentarians in town this week to look at the Commission and to engage with the Commission.

Is the Commission on Human Rights reformable?  Even in my four years experience, I have seen it discharge its functions in standard setting in areas such as the adoption of the optional [protocol] on torture. Those standard setting days are numbered.  New Special Procedures have been established, so its work in the area of monitoring is not completed either.  As I said, the role of national institutions has developed.  The role of civil society in the CHR is unique in the United Nations system. 

In many ways, the Commission is working better today than it did even four years ago. It is less confrontational.  It is more in the listening mode.  Delegations are speaking in less absolutist terms, and generally we are having a better debate.  Individuals and groups continue to bring their concerns, their grievances, and their aspirations to the Commission.

Having said that, the Commission can be criticized, and should be criticized. That criticism can also legitimately be extended to the Special Procedures, and to its subsidiary bodies. However, it is perhaps unique to the Commission that both those who seek to strengthen it, and those who may seek to undermine it, are both converging to criticism of it at the moment.

The Sec-Gen is not alone in referring to the declining credibility and professionalism of the Commission. These were the words also used by the High Level Panel, and [they] were used by many commentators. Both the reports of the High Level Panel and the Sec-Gen ascribe the problem to States which have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights, but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. In all honesty, and perhaps naivety, I am not aware of any Member of the Commission which has sought membership in order to be able to criticize others.  So, I think, that particular phrase is perhaps not very accurate.

Some who repeatedly criticize the Commission use different arguments. Some accuse it, or rather some of its members, of using double standards, or of focusing on civil and political rights rather than on economic rights. Such comments are not to be lightly dismissed, even when they are advanced by those who seek to undermine the credibility of the Commission. The most frequently heard criticism is that it is too political. And I agree with the preceding speaker that it is impossible to have a discussion on the relationship between governments and citizens involving human rights that isn't political in nature.  It goes to the heart of politics.

If there are countries which seek membership of the Commission to use it to protect themselves against criticism, then perhaps doing so confirms the power of its condemnation and the fear of its authority and credibility. It may also explain some of their comments seeking to undermine that same authority and credibility.

Let me reiterate, I believe the Commission has shortcomings, but I also believe it is reformable. If that is the question we are being asked to consider, is whether a Human Rights Council can do things better. And here I have to admit I have a very open mind.

The Sec-Gen explains his proposal for a smaller standing body, elected by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly present and voting, and he explains it in terms which I understand to be as follows:

The larger electorate would confer greater legitimacy on the body, and that is undoubtedly the case. If elected by two-thirds of the General Assembly, it would undoubtedly have more legitimacy than a body elected by ECOSOC alone.

The smaller membership, however, could impact on the chances of many smaller countries to serve. And I think, in particular, of the difficulty of smaller countries, such as my own, in serving on a body that would be smaller in size and would require the type of campaigns necessary to secure two-thirds of the votes of the General Assembly.

However, it doesn't have to be the case, if we look at the length of membership, if the term for membership is reduced, maybe it would be possible to work that in with a smaller Council, and thereby ensure that smaller countries which have something to offer still become members.

A standing body could meet to consider urgent issues in relation to violations of human rights, although, indeed, the current Commission could also do that, provided there is a majority which votes in favor for such a meeting.

But will a smaller body address the problem of reducing the chances for human rights violators to serve? In other words, will it address the problem it set out to address? And here the answer is very difficult. Any smaller body with greater authority is going to face the following realities:

Permanent Members of the Security Council are likely to seek regular membership. Yet some of the Permanent Members of the Security Council haven't passed the subject of Item 9 resolutions in the Commission on Human Rights. If we say that Permanent Members of the Security Council have the right to membership of the smaller body, are we saying that it doesn't really matter if you are a violator, provided you are a permanent member of the Security Council? And this, I think, goes to the heart of the diagnosis and the heart of the whole solution.

If we establish criteria for membership, what should the criteria be? If we set the bar very high, like ratification of the principal human rights treaties, cooperation with the special procedures, too many will be excluded to enable the test of representivity to be met. If we set it too low, then what would be the point of the whole exercise? And, in this context, I might note that one of the problems with the Commission on Human Rights is not that there are a lot of countries seeking membership, it is that so few countries seek membership outside the Western Group. One of the reasons that we have the Commission on Human Rights that we do, is that many smaller countries from other groups will not go forward for membership. And the reason they won't go forward to membership is partly because they don't want to be put in the position trying to decide whether to fight for a resolution on China, or on Chechnya, or maybe on their next door neighbors. So maybe one of the reasons that, again, we may need to look at [is] why people are not seeking election.

Do we really want a Human Rights Council that only includes the good guys? Let us say that we had a body of nineteen members. And let us pretend that they were elected because they were staunch supporters of human rights. Who do you think they would represent? And is that what we want? There is considerable merit in having a range of countries in the Council or in the Commission.

So, let me bring things to a closure with very few answers, but many questions.

And let me say, in summary, that I welcome the proposal of the Secretary-General, partly because it forces us to confront these very main issues. It forces us to ask ourselves how we match our aspirations with the tools that will make them a reality.

I agree, very much, that we are at a unique opportunity, at the moment, to embark on reform of the UN as a whole, and it would be an awful pity if the Commission on Human Rights or a Council on Human Rights were not part of that reform process.

Whether we get a new institution, or a revised, reformed Commission on Human Rights, I don't think that's really very important, but whatever emerges from the process should be given a fair chance.

And when we attack, when you attack, or when we collectively attack its credibility, as we undoubtedly will in the future, because its priorities are not always ours, we must ask what purpose we want it to achieve, and whose interests ultimately we want it to represent.

Thank you.

NEUER:  Thank you, Ambassador Whelan.  Our next speaker, Dr. Asma Jahangir.

ASMA JAHANGIR:  Thank you very much. 

First of all, let me thank you for inviting me here.  I also had the pleasure of meeting the late John Humphrey, and was struck by his commitment, even at a very old age. I think that he was a person who did not, really, to begin with, have resources, but did have commitment for human rights.  And, this is what we need to instill in the Human Rights Commission, as well.

It is time for reform.  It is crucial and critical.  I think that reforms should be carried out, not only in the Human Rights Commission or in the human rights area of the United Nations, but in the entire United Nations itself. 

So, the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, I think, comes at a time when we are asked, as Special Rapporteurs, as part of the special procedures on the ground, what is the United Nations doing?  How much respect does the United Nations pay to human rights?

And, there are questions about credibility of the United Nations itself.  I think it is very important for us to recognize that, and to address that perception or problem, whatever, when we look at it. 

The Human Rights Commission, as I said earlier, is a part of the UN system.  In the High Panel report, I agree with [the previous] speakers -- and I agree with what both of them said -- it seems that human rights has been, simply, done wrong in the report.

I'm not saying that it was not a colossal job for anyone to do, to carry out consultations, to put a report on the entire reform of the United Nations system, but it is a very important part of the United Nations.

And I am afraid, I don't want to use the word, but for [lack of] a better word, the shabby treatment given to human rights by that report just shows how central or unimportant human rights is to the UN system itself, if that is any indication to go by.

One has often asked oneself a question, does the Human Rights Commission work?  Does the UN system work to protect human rights?  And, I always come back with a mixed answer, because it does work, not always, but it does.  And, I think, you have to recognize that.

For example, it has worked in the case of Darfur.  Maybe slowly, but it surely has worked.  Maybe it could not prevent, but it has been able to bring some form of justice, or will be bringing some form of justice. In Afghanistan it did work. 

In my last mandate, which was on extra-judicial killing, I had the opportunity to visit places of conflict, and I can assure you that people there actually went, looked for the United Nations.  For them, it was a savior.  For them, it was an institution, an organization that in their very daily lives was the only institution in the world that they actually trusted.

So, I am not underestimating the usefulness, the integrity at times also of the United Nations, but much more is also expected.  Much more is expected in terms of the failures, to look at what happened in Rwanda.  Why did the UN fail to look at what was happening in Rwanda?  Was it because there was no intention or was it because people were not alerted? 

And, if we say that people were not alerted, then there is something wrong with the system that needs to be reformed, because my predecessor, who was the Special Rapporteur Bacre Ndiaye, had warned that genocide is around the corner, and he wrote it as explicitly as that, in his report.  Now why was this voice of the person from the special procedure not transmitted in the UN system?

And here I would take Professor Toope's argument that, not only should the High Commissioner for Human Rights have access to the Security Council, but there has to be a focal point in the UN system, which is looking at early warnings.  And, we have very sharp ears and ears that are accessible, not only to special procedures, not only to treaty bodies, but all the arms and all the fingers and nails of the United Nations system because prevention, I think, is the first step where the United Nations must walk in.  Once conflict has taken place, once violations have taken place, then walking in is far more difficult, because we know the difficulties that we have in dealing with how to bring people to justice.  We have seen the various tribunals.  We are hopeful, and we will continue to look at the International Criminal Court, and, hopefully, there are also recommendations of reform there as well.  And, I think that we should be able to strengthen the capacity of the International Criminal Court.  But, I was told something, and I think that that is absolutely essential: you can reform a structure, but by reforming the structure, you can not bring in credibility.  And, credibility of the United Nations system cannot come with de-politicizing the system, because human rights, as my friend has said, is very political, but, it is by adhering to certain principles that are there before us.

And, one of my friends as I was coming here said to me that principles of sacrifice are the order of power.  And then he said, "whether it is a single power, or a group power depends on how much strength you have," and that is precisely what we have seen in the Commission. 

One single country, which has power enough, can stand there and stop, or be an obstacle for the promotion and protection of people.  But, if one single country cannot do it, they team together, to do it together.  So, the emphasis is not to promote, but to protect countries, and I think that whole approach has to change.

I agree that there [is] a lack of resources, and I do not think that a single Special Rapporteur will not tell you that.  But more than that, we have to have vigilance; we have to have ideas.  And, in the last seven years I have been associated with the Commission, I have seen a steady decline of the quality of work at the Commission.  And that, surely, does not come only with lack of resources. 

I want to also point out that when we talk about a civil society, and the interaction of a civil society at the Commission, I think it is important to have civil society.  I think, at the moment, we have a few members of civil society.  We have very limited civil society that is able to come to Geneva.  And, therefore, the consultative status and the NGO forum in New York needs to be opened up for more members of civil society who are working with that.

A war of words, I think, with civil society and governments is far healthier than an actual war on the ground, which takes place sometimes, and there are no warnings for members of civil society at the Commission.

So, I think it is encouragement.  I think encouragement even to speak up.  In this way, I think that, I know that, Professor Toope did not say that country resolutions should not be there.  What he was warning is that people should not team up against particular countries.  I can assure him that I have seen it from both sides, as an NGO person, as an activist in my country, and as a person here who has been, in some way, working as an expert. 

It is very difficult to team up against any country.  Every country is far more powerful than the civil society that we put together.  And, I think, it is extremely difficult.  We can see examples.  We can see examples of dictatorships around the world that continue and continue for years.  We can see lingering conflict situations which come in one year before the Commission, a second year before the Commission, and then they begin to lose their significance over the years.

And, I think, civil society is a reminder to us, that there are people on the ground that are suffering.  There are people whose rights are violated, whose lives are taken.  They are tortured.  And therefore, I think, when you are looking at the High Level Panel's report, and the Secretary-General's report, I think there are three main issues of reform that are controversial, in a way. 

The Human Rights Council, there are people who argue that it would be far more effective.  But, if you are to make it into a small council, what would be the criteria? 

Now my own perception is that if you have very watered-down criteria, then you are going to have the same problem of having violators sitting in what has come out of the reform as a biased body, on the Human Rights Council, where people will say that they are now actually crossing the Rubicon line and now are sitting in the Human Rights Council.  So, I would not go for watering down criteria.  I would rather have everybody sitting there, so that nobody can pretend to be more pious than the others, especially when they are not. 

Permanent members of the Security Council, we all know that reform must start from there.  I mean, I have had experience, for example, in the field where when you go, this is a new mantra for every dictator when they want to start democracy.  They say, "We are starting democracy at the grassroot."  So, we are having local bodies, while we have dictators sitting on the top.  So, the mantra is that you don't start from the very, at the level, there at the top.  You have somebody just looking down, and squeezing out the whole system. 

So, reform in the Security Council, I think, is absolutely essential, by itself.  An advisory council, and I agree with Professor Toope, that an advisory council will at best be another politicized body.

So, we don't really need an advisory council.  There are treaty bodies.  There are Special Procedures, including the treaty bodies.  That, if interactive dialog is allowed with greater vigor, I would say, more time, in a more positive attitude, can really bring home the message that people are trying to say, because when we speak as Special Rapporteurs, we don't speak by ourselves.  We are only communicating what we hear on the ground.  And, if governments are willing to hear it, and at least if the concerned government is not willing to hear it, the others can hear it. So, that interactive dialog, I think, is very important.

I also think that we need great, when you talk about criteria and expertise of representatives to the Commission, I think we have a lot of expertise at the Commission.  And, I have seen how the expertise has worked to block resolutions.  I can assure that I would never have such an expertise.  I have seen how that expertise looks at every word of the report that we write. 

But, where expertise is really needed, is for the members of the missions that are here to brief even their own governments.   It is to bring in people, not with that kind of special expertise, but people who have a heart with human rights.  So, it is only then that they will be able to come up with some creative ideas, which is in partnership with the Special Procedures, in partnership with the civil society that is represented here. 

And, last word of me, just to conclude by saying that it is also essential that missions do brief their governments back home.  All of us have had experience where even foreign ministers of countries do not know what the Human Rights Commission is.  They actually do not know it.  And, you have to explain to them that this is a part of the United Nations, that when you're criticizing the Human Rights Commission and looking at a Special Rapporteur, you are the person; your government is a member of the Human Rights Commission.  I am not a member of the Human Rights Commission. 

And, sometimes, I think, informal writings and notes, like our friend wrote here about using of the Special Rapporteurs, would make good reading, because so many times we have been told, please go and tell the Secretary-General to do this, or that, or the other.  Or, you get the UN to do that.  And, we sit there saying, "Well, you know, you are the UN; we are not the United Nations."  So I think that that is very essential.

There are high expectations, I can assure you, on the ground, for the United Nations.  Though people do sometimes criticize the double-standards that they do see, but if, as somebody in Mexico said to me, if there was not a United Nations, we would have to make one.

So, there is no question that we need to reform it.  We need to strengthen it.  We need to work at it.  And we need reforms, but I would urge that it should not be done with undue haste, especially in the field of human rights, which have not been well thought out.  There needs to be a greater debate, a more concerted effort.  Once a reform takes place it will take then decades for the next reform to take place.  So, they have to be really put in place with some measure of strategy, as well as intellectual capacity that should be brought to the Commission.

Thank you.

NEUER:  Thank you very much, Dr. Asma Jahangir.  Our next speaker is Deirdre Kent, who will focus in particular on the role of the Special Rapporteurs.

DEIRDRE KENT:  Thank you very much.  It is indeed a great pleasure to be here this afternoon on the panel; a great honor to sit with the fellow panelists.

It is a time for discussion of reform at the UN, at the Commission on Human Rights, it's a great opportunity.

The Secretary-General's reform report highlighted the importance and centrality of human rights.  I think that in the very title of the report, I think, we have to seize on to that.

As Ambassador Whelan said, though, that there has been a convergence of criticism of the Commission by those supporters and detractors of the Commission, and in that regard, we have to be constructive in how we look forward to strengthening the Commission. 

I know we have been speaking largely this afternoon about large scale reform of the Commission on Human Rights and human rights within the UN at large, but I don't think that should make us shy away from working on strengthening the existing Commission and the existing mechanisms within the Commission.

And in that regard, as Hillel said, I hope to focus this presentation on the strengthening of the Special Procedures, the Special Mechanisms of the Commission. 

Really, if we are to look at the UN's promotion and protection of human rights, we have to look now at implementation on the ground, and the special mechanisms really are at the front lines of promoting and protecting human rights, on the ground, at the country level, and breaking new ground on diplomatic fronts also.

So, in that regard, I think we could look at three questions with respect to strengthening, and strengthening the effectiveness of, the Special Rapporteurs.  What do we need to do for the Special Rapporteurs, why are we looking at this question now, and how can we best address this question?

With respect to why, it is a timely question.  Of course, UN reform is before us, and certainly as a representative of the Canadian Mission we are hearing much on the Special Rapporteurs.  Some criticism, some call for strengthening, some concerns about the resources that they have to implement their work.

This isn't new.  There was a review in 2000 that raised many questions. There's been the Agenda for Change from the Secretary-General, two years ago now, as well as the present report of the Secretary-General.

This is a system that has been very strained from its own success, moving from some eleven Special Rapporteurs to over forty, in a very short period of time, without sufficient resources to match those demands.  As was noted earlier in the presentation, states continue to make new demands, creating new mechanisms without having the resources to fulfill those mandates.

So, some of the challenges, then, that have been identified for the Rapporteurs include resources that we keep adding to the agenda, cooperation with and by states, and that, as Professor Novak raised this morning, the cooperation of states with communications, with country visits, is not where we would like to have it.

Concerns have been raised about harmonization of working methods.  There are best practices out there.  There are, particularly, some of the new Rapporteurs looking most critically at the way things have been done, and how things might be improved, particularly given the resource constraints that they face.

So, there is room for improvement with respect to the treatment of reporting, to harmonizing treatment of urgent appeals, of communications, of country missions, and the sense really is that, if states have a greater confidence in the Rapporteurs, if they can't question the credibility of Special Rapporteurs due to a coherence of working methods and a strong confidence in how they're working, then the implementation of human rights can be better taken up through improved cooperation with the Rapporteurs.  That takes away the excuses of not responding to communications, not permitting country visits.  If there are best practices taken up by all the Rapporteurs working together. 

The interactive dialogues:  They're an important part of the Commission on Human Rights, but there seems to be much more interest in a dialog than there is time.  So I think there is room for improvement, also, there.

And, back to the question of implementation, a follow-up to visits and recommendations of the Rapporteurs, a key obligation of states and, rather, the Rapporteurs themselves.

And, as many of us here know, the question of nominations and appointments of the Rapporteurs, let's look at how it's done.  Let's make sure there is an adequate pool of candidates from all regions, from both genders, to ensure that it's a representative group that is strong, from the best that are available.

Now, these challenges that I've just outlined are largely those that I have been hearing from states in informal discussions. So, that brings us to the second question of how we go about identifying and addressing challenges.

This needs to be taken on by all stake-holders in the process, this can't be led only by states.  Of course, states have a key obligation as the recipients of Rapporteurs, as the members of the Commission who are creating the mandates themselves, but having listened to eminent experts on the panel this morning, as well as the Rapporteurs who spoke to the Commission this morning, obviously this needs to be driven by the Special Rapporteurs themselves that know first-hand the challenges they face.

So, as well as states and the Rapporteurs, the OHCHR is central to the support of the Rapporteurs, and ensuring they're adequately serviced, have sufficient resources, have consistency in the resources available to all of the Rapporteurs, and then civil society. They are key supporters of the Rapporteurs, providing information, providing support in the field, and they should be part of any process, informal or formal, that seeks to strengthen the Rapporteurs. 

So, I would argue strongly for an open dialog.  This isn't going to be a quick fix.  I, having some experience with the treaty body reform efforts and efforts to strengthen the treaty bodies, I see a strong parallel here, where a combination of dialog at the annual meeting of the Special Rapporteurs with states, a dedicated session of the meeting of the Special Rapporteurs, looking at their functioning, and how to best gain the cooperation of states, as well as perhaps workshops, brainstorming, involving all of the stake-holders over a period of time and, of course, with the OHCHR at the center of that.

Now, so what will be, what sorts of steps might be required to strengthen the mechanisms?

Well, the 2000 review of mechanisms should be a starting point.  This is consensus.  There are some strong ideas.  There is still room for implementation.  And, of course, I wouldn't want to prejudge the multi-stake-holder consultations, which I think are the best way forward, but some preliminary thoughts would be resources.

This is key.  The one-third of a person dedicated to each Rapporteur, often on a short term contract, will not address either the needs of the Rapporteurs or of the States with respect to consistency of analysis, timely response, improvements of working methods.

Coordination, as I said, the meeting amongst the Rapporteurs themselves, is an important place to start.  For them to be driving their own process forward, dialog. 

Now, the OHCHR is already listening to some of these concerns, and is making steps already, including the creation of a branch, dedicated.

So, these are just initial thoughts. As I said, I think this will be, not a quick fix, but a long term dialog.  We've looked at some of the why's, how's, what's of reforming, or, I don't even think reforming is the right word, of strengthening the effectiveness of the Special Rapporteurs and Procedures, the different mechanisms. Strengthening their capacity, credibility, just as strengthening the capacity and credibility of the Commission is going to help the UN's treatment of human rights, similarly with the Rapporteurs.

I would say that the key objective is going to be better cooperation by the states with the Rapporteurs, and any process that's going to bring about this kind of change should have that as a central objective.

And, of course, this is not separate from but complimentary to the broader reforms about which we're speaking today. 

Thank you very much.

NEUER:  Thank you, Deirdre Kent.  Before we take questions, I would like to give each of the panelists here an opportunity, in the same order that we began, to respond to the comments of their fellow panelists, and, to them, let me put a few questions from the Chair.

One, regarding criteria, it's obviously a very controversial topic.  And, the first question is, could we ever agree on a common set of criteria to keep out the world's worst human rights abusers, countries that are hostile to the values of democracy and human rights?

Well, in some sense, it seems that it is possible.  As you know, at the end of this month, in Santiago, there will be the Third Ministerial Meeting of the Community of Democracies.  The Community of Democracies was founded in Warsaw, in the year 2000, and includes countries that are full-fledged democracies, countries that are moving in that direction.  And, they met again in Seoul in 2002, and they'll meet again in Santiago at the end of this month. 

That group has been able to decide which countries are out and excluded some, several dozen countries which do not meet basic criteria, or essential elements, of a democracy.  So, it seems, that it is possible to be done, at least in an informal group that is yet to crystallize in the way that people hope.  So, it seems that it is possible.

Many, of course, have been asking to exclude Sudan, as the paradigmatic example of the world's worst human rights abuser today.  Sudan is not a member of the Community of Democracies.  So, perhaps, one could agree.

Another question, as was mentioned, was do we want to create criteria which would exclude some, but then whoever would be included would have this appearance of having passed a clean bill of health?

And, indeed, on the Community of Democracies, it is far from perfect.  There are many countries, which, if you look at the authoritative Freedom House survey of global freedom, fall very low on the Freedom House survey, and yet were included.  So, how should that work?

A second question, perhaps a bit provocative, is if we do go the way of the High Level Panel report, which proposes universal membership, could we continue to meet in Geneva?  There are many missions which cannot afford to send a proper delegation to Geneva, and only have representation in New York.  If we would want to make it universal, would we have to move the Human Rights Commission or Council to New York? 

Indeed, I believe John Humphrey refers to the time when Human Rights was moved from New York to Geneva. Cynics thought that, perhaps, it was a way of pushing it away from the halls of power, and that's an interesting question to be considered. So, Professor Toope, if you could please address these issues.

TOOPE:  Thanks very much.  Just a few observations in the light of comments, some of which were directed at some observations that I offered up.  I completely agree with Ms.  Jahangir that the performance structure does not bring credibility.  You really must begin with the notion of commitment.  And I think all of the discussions around structure are going to be somewhat whistling in the wind, unless we really steel ourselves with a commitment to the basic principles. 

And I also think that teaming up, as you put it, is actually crucial, and I am very much in favor of teaming up.  And I think, in fact, that it's one of the most effective ways for non-governmental organizations to try and work, because of the imbalance of power that you point to.

My point was more directed at where the teaming up takes place, and I think sometimes we may make a mistake, and I'd be interested in your observations on this.  In treating all agenda items in a similar fashion, it may be sometimes that the thematic agenda items, it's better not to use the teaming up process there, vis-à-vis individual states. Now, that's the only point I was trying to make.

I also agree, I think really, with everyone on the panel, that we should be very careful not to rush reform.  I don't think there is any quick fix here, and we were talking just before the meeting opened and agreed, I think, that the other aspect to that, is to try not to set whatever reform, quote, we might come up with now, in concrete.  That one of the biggest problems we might face is if we do engage in reform and then found out that, you know, various aspects of it are problematic.

But we've tried to, for example, amend the charter. Heavens, if we managed to do that, it would be amazing.  But, if we did do that, it might prove to be problematic.

In terms of your question [motions to Neuer], I think it addresses a number of issues that came up in the discussion around criteria.  My remarks were directed at the idea of universal membership.  I am concerned about that, and it needs further discussion, I agree.

My sense is that we probably could agree on the weakest sort of criteria.  And it may be, Ms. Jahanghir's point on this is, I think, very important.  It may be that that's dangerous.

My response would be, if we acknowledge that these are truly weak criteria, then I think we can address to some extent the point that you raised [motions to Neuer] that this would be a kind of seal of approval.  I would say absolutely not.  We should not have criteria that could be claimed as a seal of approval, which might mean that you would have to have genuinely weak criteria.

I suppose my problem in all of this is that I am just not convinced that the alternative of creating a universal body will, to pick up your point, actually address the problem that we are trying to address.

It is very, very difficult, and I don't purport now to have a thorough answer, but I think that this is really one of the key points that, to pick up Deirdre's point, that needs continuing dialog.  I think it is extremely important.

Lastly, on the Human Rights Council itself, I think this is the example, the correct example, of where structure doesn't resolve problem.  There are many, many issues that have to be addressed before such a Council would make sense.  And, I agree with you, I have not given up on the idea of reform of the existing Commission. I don't think that it is necessary to throw out the entire idea.  It may be that there are possibilities for reform. 

And, finally, I agree completely that we have to be very careful to differentiate those who are arguing for reform because they genuinely want to improve the processes, and those who are critiquing the existing system simply to undermine it further.

And, I think that we have some very hard assessments to make, of good will in this debate.  They are very difficult, but I think that they need to be made. 

WHELAN: Just on the question of criteria, as I've said, [if] we set it too high, then very few will be there, and if we set it too low, then everyone is there, so what is the point in that. 

And the question, the issue, of universal membership does resolve that problem, but it may create other problems.  Universal membership, you [motioning to Neuer] tied it in with the question of a move to New York, because everyone isn't in Geneva.  I think there are between 140 to 150 states.  That excludes quite a few number here.

There are members of the existing Commission on Human Rights who don't have permanent representation in Geneva, but they still attend the Commission.  Universal membership and a move to New York, then you get into the whole question, is it just the Third Committee, meeting all year round?  Is there a value, then, in a condemnation or commendation from such a body?  Does it gradually, the degree of expertise, begin to dilute because you won't have civil society there for two weeks of the year, in the same way as people are here?  Gradually, you erode to the level of representation of delegations, and so on.  That's just some comments on that.

And, you asked us also to comment on what each other had said, and I agree. I think it is possible to say this and not be inconsistent.  I think I agree with everybody on the panel.

Just on the Special Rapporteurs in particular, because there have been proposals made, before the sessions started on the question of procedures in relation to appointing Special Rapporteurs.  So, therefore I would just like to address that a little better. 

There is definitely a problem in supporting the mechanisms.  There is also a problem, I think, in selecting them.  So, there are two problems.  Not all Special Rapporteurs are outstandingly good, and we should acknowledge that, because sometimes the discussion seems to be, if only we had more resources.  And, I would have to say, one reads the reports, and some reports, it is someone who can't possibly be an expert on everything they say.  That is really interesting, and I know where that's coming from.  And, I read others, and I'm wondering what the point is.

And, I don't think that that's a matter of support from the office.  The office can support, but they should be writing the report as well.  So, I do think that, as an issue, that needs to be looked at regardless of whether we have a Council or we have a Commission.  But, that sort of issue, as Deirdre said, has to be looked at with all of the stakeholders involved, and with a truly open mind.  Because, I think the pool that we are drawing from is part of the problem, and I think how we define a human rights expert is part of the problem.  Our definition is too narrow, it is too academic.  I think we need to open that up, and I think we need to make more people out there, who could be excellent Rapporteurs, aware of the Commission and aware of how one would express an interests in serving it.

JAHANGIR:  I think I agree with almost everything that has been said, basically.  But I still, though I realize that minimum standards can be set for criteria, but if you look at the minimum standards for human rights, they are taken as maximum standards today.  Nobody is talking about them as minimum standards. 

So, I do worry, because we have seen, for example, you talk about stability of democracy, but we have seen countries that have been flip-flopping back and forth from democracy to dictatorship, and people don't have the political will to expel countries, because that is seen as a very major step. 

So, there is a hesitancy in doing that, and then also a lot will depend on what [are] the criteria because there could be some very major countries that will not come up to that criteria as well.  And then you begin to water down the criteria. 

And, you've seen, for example, in the Commonwealth, where they say that they would take only countries that have democracy, and then, finally, democracy has gone down to electoral process that is fair and free, and then it comes down to marginally fair and free, and then it comes down to somehow fair and free, and now we've seen it come down to, you know, at least there is an election and next time it will be fair and free.  [laughter and applause]

So, [inaudible, applause] on this issue.  So, I really think that we cannot whitewash governments.  We really cannot.  And, it is time where we need to strengthen each other.  Even where one has talked about Special Procedures and Special Rapporteurs, and I do agree that there has to be transparency in selection.  There has to be more search out there.  So that it doesn't become a club, of which I am very much part of, because once you need to break that club, because you get more stakeholders in it, and you get fresh ideas, you get more insight into it.

Your next question was whether it is New York or Geneva.  I've often wondered why it can't be in Africa of Asia, but, however, I think that there will be a revolt if it was shifted from Geneva to New York, I am afraid.  But, that is a mater of logistics that can be done.

The basic question is that how does a huge organization work in terms of human rights?  Because if you have all the members here, the kind of expertise that we're expecting and the kind of interaction that you're expecting, and coming up with creative ideas, looking at multiple teams of human rights, would you still have the same kind of interaction?  Would you not then be running the Human Rights Commission for weeks and weeks on end?  And, that is really my worry, that, therefore, as you said, we have no answer to give.  But, both solutions do not seem to really be a solution.  So, we have to look somewhere else.  We have to really look at a procedure, where you let people come in because also of their record that at the same time you don't sort of give them a kind of stamp saying, yes, there you are, now you are fine as people who have [a good] human rights record.

Because, excuse my saying so, I don't want to take too much time, but believe me that sometimes you think that countries have very good human rights record, but you scratch the surface, I am sorry to say that, scratch the surface and you find very deep fears there.  And, it is fear that really makes governments react in a very odd way.

We have seen, in the Commission, governments really rap Special Rapporteurs, and these are governments that one has thought to have mature democracies and can take criticism. But it has happened to us, and fortunately it has so far not happened to me, that a so-called matured democracy has been very critical. But it has happened. So I think that we need that interaction as well. We need the good and bad, and the not so good and the not so bad, together.

In a way, it is a bad [thing] where you constantly keep upgrading, but there I would say greater responsibility lies with those governments that actually do have commitments to human rights, because what I see, over the years, is that they're downgrading their own commitment, rather than picking up the commitment of the rest.  So, a great responsibility, I'm afraid, that we have to expect from them.

NEUER:  Thank you.

KENT:  Thank you.  I also would agree with the other panelists, but I'd say that we can all see that, perhaps, we can all agree but have different views because there are…it's very complex, and the answers aren't clear yet.  We need more dialog on the proposals and what the solutions are that we're looking for, what are our objectives in terms of some of these reforms. 

That brings us to your question about criteria, and what are our objectives in having criteria?  If they are very low criteria, are they meaningful?  We need to have meaningful criteria, and anything that frankly, I am not convinced that we will get any agreement on meaningful criteria.

In that respect, I am more attracted to the idea of, whether it is universal membership, or a limited membership of the current Commission, or a future Council, is a commitment for pledges, by members, and those can be meaningful, they can be.  They're not the same for every country.  One country, that is, say, far advanced in their domestic human rights obligations, would have different, more challenging commitments than another state that has just emerged from conflict.  It's not a catch-all, same commitments for everybody.  You could argue, just signing a treaty is an easy way in, without any obligation to fulfill those obligations.  Whereas if a state, perhaps in the High Level Segment, articulates both national and international pledges for their work on human rights, whether it's removing reservations on ratifications, creating a national action plan as agreed at Vienna, addressing a specific vulnerable group in their country.

As Ms. Jahangir said, we could just scratch the surface of many countries, and there is work to be done.  And then those States are held accountable for those commitments.  And a similar process, I understand, is done with pledges for the ICRC.  So that, I think, is a meaningful model that we could look at, and start out a voluntary way, and not to have it meant to be few States or groups lead by example.  That is something that can be done, that again doesn't have to be part of the broad UN reform, but can be taken up by states in the current Commission.

With respect to the question of Geneva versus New York, it depends if it is universal or not.  I have some sympathy, if it is universal, and the fifty or eighty states that are not in Geneva, we wouldn't want to exclude them, but, as Ms. Jahangir said, it is a question of expertise, that there is an expertise in human rights that exists in Geneva.  Perhaps it's best that it is separate from New York, but, again, it is a question where the answer isn't clear, because if you look at the question of Action 2, for example, and the integration of human rights into country teams, and mainstreaming across the UN, there is some argument for having the OHCHR in New York, and not just periodic visits to New York.

Thank you.

[For video segment of audience questions and answers, click here]

NEUER:  Thank you very much.

This event attracted the highest attendance of a parallel event that I've seen here at the Commission.  In fact, we've run out of all of our materials including our oral statements, our written statements.  Those who are interested can feel free to visit our website, at www.unwatch.org. 

The remarkable attendance testifies to the profound commitment of all delegates to the question of reform, but it is also a testimony to the great distinction of our own high level panel that we had here today.  I thank our superb speakers, and I thank all of you for your participation. 

Thank you.

[Applause]