Towards A Wiser Council

Intense negotiations on instituting a replacement body for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has seen India articulate views which signal a moving away from its traditional positions on human rights, and are more in consonance with those of the West, including the United States. India is also opposed to the idea of automatic entry to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), arguing that the human rights records of all five are not "equally solid".

The negotiations, under way in New York, are a prelude to the formation of the Human Rights Council (HRC), a successor body to the CHR, whose birth is expected to underscore the importance of upholding human rights globally. Yet, the negotiations in New York have been deadlocked. Before the new body becomes operational, all functional rules and regulations have to be agreed upon.

India's nuanced movement away from conventional postures has been partly influenced by its recognition that debates in the CHR have been sterile, turning it into a forum for politicising issues than for resolving serious matters pertaining to human rights. The CHR's effete nature is due to the way the organisation is structured. Consequently, the negotiations in New York aim at addressing shortcomings in the existing system.

Developing nations feel India appears to have moved away from its traditional position on human rights on two counts. One, New Delhi has increasingly begun to express the view that the deplorable human rights record of some developing countries cannot be condoned in perpetuity. Second, New Delhi's assessment is that India has not gained significantly by condoning the presence of countries like North Korea and Vietnam in the CHR.

New Delhi has problems with the submission that the UNSC members should get automatic entry into the new organisation. India has made the case privately that the human rights record of all the permanent members is not equally solid and credible. Inferentially, the countries New Delhi is referring to are Russia and China. Further, since the UNSC itself needs to be reformed, New Delhi feels there is no merit in perpetuating the existing power structure in new bodies.

The developed nations have been arguing for a significantly smaller body as a replacement organisation, as well as rendering it difficult for nations with doubtful human rights records to become members. They want the new body's members to be pegged at 38, as against the CHR's current 54 members; developing nations want the number of members to be 53. Unlike the West, New Delhi feels a larger number would lend legitimacy to the new organisation, and also make it more representative in character. But in a signal of harmonising positions with the West, New Delhi could accept a significantly smaller body.

Also, India does not have a problem with the two-thirds criterion for electing members to the new body. Under the existing rules, a simple majority in a UN General Assembly (UNGA) voting enables a nation to become a CHR member. There is debate to have a two-thirds majority for membership in the new body. This is to be based, further, on the principle of regional representation. In other words, each candidate has to be first backed vigorously by the region and will have to contest openly to win the two-thirds majority. This is a departure from the existing system in which the regions themselves choose their candidates. And a simple majority, easy to secure, is enough for membership.

Under the rules being negotiated, just one-third of UNGA can keep a country out. The two-thirds majority rule is designed to make it difficult for countries like Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nepal, Myanmar and Nigeria to cruise into the new organisation.

The West is also arguing that no nation can remain a member for more than two consecutive terms after which there has to be a break before becoming eligible to contest for membership again. The developing nations oppose this move, arguing that they, unlike the developed world, do not have a common position on human rights. For the developed world, they point out, it consequently makes no difference who among them is a member of the HRC. Again, India is unlikely to oppose the West's suggestion.

The US would want the new body to come under the direct supervision of the UN Secretary General, instead of the General Assembly. Currently, the UN's 185 members review and take action on human rights matters referred to it by its Third Committee and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The ECOSOC, composed of 54 member governments, makes recommendations to the General Assembly on human rights matters, and reviews CHR's reports and resolutions and transmits these with amendments to the General Assembly. (The ECOSOC established the CHR at its first meeting in 1946.)

Should the new body, or HRC, come under the purview of the UNGA, its working wouldn't be significantly different from the existing arrangement. On the other hand, an HRC under the secretary-general would make it easier for the West to push the envelope on countries accused of human rights violations. With one individual at the helm, he obviously would have more control over the situation.

Critically, New Delhi still remains uncomfortable with country-specific resolutions, meaning resolutions holding a particular country guilty of human rights violations. "We are against naming and shaming anybody," explains a senior diplomat. This is despite the fact that there has been no country-specific resolutions against India for years. Diplomats say the last time there was talk of a resolution against India was in 1993, at Pakistan's behest.

The developed world's view is that country-specific resolutions do not get acted upon. The usual practice is to mobilise votes to counter a resolution. This is done through demarches in various capitals and at the UN. It is a cumbersome process because there is no bloc voting on these issues, due to the absence of a common position. There have been instances of countries "dissociating" themselves from the voting process, which is permitted under the existing rules. When this happens, voting doesn't take place.

In the past, there have been instances when India has come out openly against country-specific resolutions. For instance, by making statements in favour of Cuba, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. If and when the rules are rewritten, it remains to be seen how the gradual shift discernible in India's positions plays out.

Further, the US wants the resolutions to be acted upon. How? Through sanctions? India knows that down that slippery slope lies the way to intrusive persuasion.