UN human rights council defanged, back to original state

First word

MANY Filipinos are probably not aware of this: the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which has meddled blithely in the sovereign affairs of the Philippines, was created only in 2006 by the UN General Assembly, in circumstances that were far from acclamatory or universal.

On Tuesday, June 18, the UNHRC opened its 38th session in Geneva. Before the day was over, the body was facing questions about its future, its funding, and its agenda.

In a series of developments this week, the rug has literally been pulled from under the feet of the UNHRC and its army of special rapporteurs.

First, the Philippine Supreme Court brushed aside a UNHRC warning about judicial independence in the

on the removal by quo warranto proceedings of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice. Within a day, Sereno was treated as history by the Filipino public. Her lawyers and loyal supporters were left with nothing to do.

Second, the United States formally withdrew from UNHRC, on the ground that the council failed to institute reforms in its policies and operations as the US had earlier demanded.

With the latest move, the US under Donald Trump is forcing the UN to

US has quit the UN cultural agency Unesco, cut UN funding, and announced plans to quit the UN-backed Paris climate agreement. Now this.

Third, the US withdrawal will place under question the future funding of

- tions. Twenty-four special rapporteurs in the council’s budget, some of whom made much-publicized visits to the country, are wondering whether they will still have their jobs.

Fourth, longtime UN observers project that the council will now revert to its original state at birth, when the US declined to become a member and its activities were modest.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein spoke at the opening of the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council on June 18 to a conference that had perceptibly changed.

Rapporteurs will stay away

The Philippine opposition and human rights lobby may no longer be able to count on the UN as an echo chamber for its attacks on President Duterte.

It is not likely that Filipinos will be seeing again UN special rapporteurs Diego García-Sayán and Agnes Callamard in a visit to the country.

García-Sayán, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, declared in a press conference back on June 1, that the judicial independence of the Philippines was under attack.

García-Sayán had just made an academic visit to the country at the time, and his overall assessment was to say that there was a “worrisome deterioration of the rule of law and that the independence of justice in the Philippines is under attack.”

He cited as one basis for his

Maria Lourdes Sereno, as handed down by the Supreme Court.

Callamard made a similar visit to the country as a guest of the Philippine Human Rights Commission and of local human rights groups. She made news with her own sound bites, especially when commenting on the war on drugs.

The new developments could also dial down the media activities of Human Rights Watch, whose operations are mainly geared towards drumming up publicity in order to get donations.

US withdrawal

In announcing the US withdrawal, Niki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, called the global body “a cesspool of political bias.” She announced the US departure after protracted criticism of the body’s obsessive focus on Israel.

“We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights,” she said.

The council, she added, has a “chronic bias against Israel.”

Haley also decried the UNHRC membership of countries like China, Cuba and Venezuela that are themselves accused of rights violations.

Haley said, however, that if the council does reform, the United States “would be happy to rejoin.”

US officials explained that the Trump administration had concluded that its efforts to promote reform in the council had failed, and that withdrawal was the only step it could take to demonstrate its seriousness. It was not immediately clear if the US would remain a nonvoting observer on the council.

US reform initiative

Washington a few weeks ago circulated a proposed resolution unilaterally laying out the full makeover it was looking for. But it has not yet tabled the resolution.

US withdrawal from the council is viewed with much apprehension by many in the UN diplomatic community.

“If they withdraw, one can expect serious consequences for the council,” said Valentin Zellweger, the Swiss ambassador to the UN in Geneva.

The US draft resolution calls for dramatic changes to the rules governing how the General Assembly

vacant council seats.

- cult to win a seat but easier to kick out countries accused of serious rights violations.

The main US complaint meanwhile is the council’s treatment of Israel.

Israel is the only country with a dedicated agenda item, known as Item 7, meaning its conduct in the occupied Palestinian territories is discussed at each of the body’s three annual sessions.

A reform process is under way but the council president, Slovenian ambassador Vojislav Suc, told reporters it is aimed at “the rationalization of our work” – not at political shifts like eliminating Item 7.

The US is not alone in calling for deeper reform of the council.

At a meeting of some 120 countries organized in Geneva last December there was much enthusiasm for a proposal to address each of the council’s agenda items, including Item 7, only once a year.

“The US was very happy” with this compromise, which would have dramatically reduced the amount of scrutiny of Israel. But the European Union failed to reach a common position, prompting countries in other regions to jump ship.

Thus, the initiative collapsed, leaving the Americans unhappy. It was then that Washington decided to push through the reforms it wanted on its own. It then slammed the door on the council.

Return to original state

In a sense, US withdrawal would simply return the council to its original state.

The US refused to join the body when it was created in 2006, at a time when George W. Bush was in the White House and his ambassador to the UN was John Bolton, Trump’s current hawkish and UNskeptic National Security Adviser.

It was only after Barack Obama came to power that Washington joined the UNHRC in 2009.

Louis Charbonneau of Human Rights Watch has told AFP that the organization is worried that in the US absence, countries like China or Russia could “come along with hostile amendments,” including bids to exclude civil society from the council.

“They could hijack the process, and the US would not be able to stop it,” he said. It would be like creating a “Pandora’s box.”