HRW and Amnesty Still in Denial about the “Reformed” Human Rights Council
NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International argued that the new UN Human Rights Council would be different from the discredited Commission on Human Rights. They were wrong. On June 19, the UN Human Rights Council adopted new procedures for its second year in operation, including making Israel a permanent item on the Council’s agenda (the only country with this status); dismisses the experts assigned to report on Cuba and Belarus, eliminating scrutiny of these countries; adopting a code of procedure for existing experts on countries such as North Korea, Haiti, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, limiting their powers and independence; and the adoption of periodic review (except for Israel) meaning a country’s human rights practices (or abuses) are reviewed on a four-year cycle for only three hours. Canada was the only country to object to these “reforms” which were pushed through without the required vote.In response to these measures that belie any notion of promoting universal human rights, Amnesty praised the HRC for reaching consensus on the new procedures (even though it did not), and claims that they “provide[] the necessary base for the Council to begin its full range of activity aimed at addressing human rights in all countries.” Amnesty made no direct mention of the council’s singling out Israel for permanent indictment nor of the dismissal of the Cuban and Belarus experts. While HRW expressed disappointment at the HRC’s “selectivity and politicization” for its measures regarding Israel and the independent experts, a few days after the adoption, HRW Global Advocacy Director Peggy Hicks, claimed the HRC still can be more effective than the old Commission and that the inclusion of Israel on the permanent agenda should not be viewed negatively because “in principle, at least, the council can scrutinize both Israeli and Palestinian behavior.” Hicks also told a Washington Post columnist that “the council’s focus on Israel was in part appropriate, because of last year’s war in Lebanon, and was in part caused by Israel itself, because of its refusal to cooperate with missions the council dispatched. (Sudan also refused to cooperate but was not rebuked.) Hicks said she counted only nine condemnations, not 11.” When asked if “there [is] a point at which a vicious and unfounded campaign to delegitimize one country — which happens to be populated mostly by Jews — makes it unconscionable to collaborate with the body that conducts it?” Hicks replied, “‘That could happen, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near there.’”
Unlike HRW and Amnesty, FIDH uncharacteristically and overtly criticized the Council’s inclusion of Israel for permanent indictment. In a June 20, 2007 press release, the NGO states, “while the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories [emphasis in the original] and their occupation itself remain seriously preoccupying and condemnable, FIDH deplores the permanent inclusion of the situation and its separate treatment on the agenda from other situations of grave and massive human rights violations.” The organization also criticized the dismissal of the Belarus and Cuban experts and remarked that the new “reforms” “provide[] little safeguards against selectivity and arbitrariness.”
