"The Situation Is Worse Than Before"

​​When the Human Rights Council's third session started in December, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admonished this body to deal with other conflicts beyond the one in the Middle East. Did he have a point?

Günter Nooke: He certainly did. It is wrong for the Council to deal only with the human-rights situation in the Middle East and ignore abuses elsewhere, even though those cases are just as severe – or, as Kofi Annan said, even worse – just because a majority of members do not want to see, say, Darfur on the agenda.

How do you explain this aversion among some developing countries? Are you dealing with the old North-South divide we know from the Human Rights Commission?

Nooke: Basically, the Human Rights Council is composed of the same states as the old commission was – and in some cases even the same persons. We were kidding ourselves when we expected the attitudes of members to change simply because the body got a new name and a higher ranking in the UN hierarchy.

Now, the situation is actually even worse than before. Governments that do not exactly respect human rights have a majority on the Council. As a result, principle-based decisions, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are not easy to reach.

That is exactly what the US administration was warning everyone about a year ago when the decision was made to establish the Council. Were the Americans right?

Nooke: We Europeans were just as skeptical back then as the Americans were. But Europe has always agreed with other countries that it is important to make the best of a compromise, rather than to have no Council at all. What the US administration was fighting for ultimately was that a country's Council membership depends on a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. But even that ratio would not have blocked Cuba, for example, from becoming a member.

Today, the Council would probably not look very different had the USA gotten its way. The problem is that we need every single member to respect the basic principles of the United Nations. If a majority on the Council says, "we don't want to talk about human rights violations in this or that state", then it is not simply the Human Rights Council that has failed. We must ask ourselves whether the basics for reform are in place at all at the UN.

Developing countries often justify their stand by stating that they reject Western dominance, and accusing the West of double standards in human-rights issues. Do you consider that as tactical talk or as a valid argument?

Nooke: I would pay more attention to such rhetoric myself if I did not feel that, in the end, it is all about power and money. That is why the situation on the Council is so difficult. On the one hand, we Europeans – along with the North Americans – must understand that we consume far more resources than developing countries. Accordingly, we owe them something.

On the other hand, poverty is no excuse for violating human rights – nor, for that matter, is the battle against terrorism. The United Nations is based on principles, and there are universal human rights that all members must uphold. Of course, this is politics, not just moral pontificating. We Europeans must not be gullible and let others con us.

Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has asked Europeans to put more effort into speak with one voice on the Human Rights Council. Has that not been done?

Nooke: As Europeans, we have always emphasised acting in concert. I believe doing so is important for the simple reason that we are the only group with a global impact strong enough to deal eye to eye with the other strong faction: the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). However, in our case, only the government currently presiding over the European Council speaks for the EU's 25 members.

The OIC, on the other hand, is normally represented by 10 or even 15 governments. Therefore, the balance on the Council does not reflect the influence Europe has in reality. The real challenge for us is not just to speak with one voice, but to argue our case again and again in various dialects to boost our Council presence.

Is the main conflict today one between Islamic and Western nations – or even Christian ones? Or is it still the old one between developing and developed nations?

Nooke: When I attended the first session of the Council, I was surprised that apparently the regional groups were not playing an equally important role as the OIC. Nonetheless, I do not think that religious tensions have made the old North-South divide irrelevant. What is at stake, I think, is political influence.

Of course, the Council has spent much time discussing Israel, the cartoons in the Danish newspaper and the Pope's comments on Islam. Generally, the OIC initiates such debates with majority support. Obviously, religious motives play a role. However, I believe that religion, just like poverty, is often abused for political ends.

In the General Assembly, the representative of Sudan said it was ridiculous for the US to criticise others, since everyone knew about Guantánamo Bay, secret American prisons and the monitoring of telephones in the USA. What is your view?

Nooke: That argument makes sense only with regard to the West's credibility. However, one should not disregard questions of quantity when discussing human-rights violations. Thousands of people are killed in Africa; and in China, hundreds of prisoners are executed after trials and interrogations of dubious quality. We have to put that into perspective with the prison conditions in Guantánamo Bay.

People's perception of human-rights violations is not the same for all countries. One reason is that the West is suffering from a strategic disadvantage. We have critical human-rights organisations and a free press, whereas dictatorships can keep information from the public and make critical journalists fear for their lives. On the other hand, this "disadvantage" is something we can be proud of, for limits on freedom of expression and the media are themselves human-rights violations.

The Council's activities so far show that it emphasises economic and social rights. Are you happy with that trend?

Nooke: I do not think the Human Rights Council should position itself as yet another developmental UN body. Rather, our work is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, for example, the UN pact on political and civil rights as well as the one on economic, social and cultural rights. But if governments are not faithful to the rule of law, we must not allow them to hide behind demands for collective and social rights.

In my opinion, over-emphasising economic, social and collective rights would, in the long run, weaken the fundamental idea of human rights, which is to protect people from state tyranny.

What has to happen for the Council to become more effective? Will that be possible within the given structures?

Nooke: We are still trying to keep as many of the Commission's old mandates even as we add new ones in order to create a useful set of instruments to protect human rights. For instance, we are very interested in introducing new country reports called "Universal Periodic Reviews", for all of the world's countries to be regularly audited according to identical guidelines.

If, on the other hand, every single country report has to be approved by Council majority, that instrument will not be very effective. Western countries would be well advised not to back down in the fierce disputes about which monitoring approaches are the best. We are under no obligation to make decisions that undermine human rights and serve oppressors.

If an agreement on effective monitoring procedures turns out to be impossible, will the Human Rights Council then be doomed to fail?

Nooke: It is too early to speculate about that now. On the one hand, we Europeans have to try to build bridges to those countries in Africa and Latin America that play constructive roles. On the other hand, we have to make our positions unmistakably clear. I do not think that we have yet spelled out precisely enough what we are prepared to tolerate – and what is plainly unacceptable.

Interview by Tillmann Elliesen

© Development & Cooperation 2007

This interview was previously published by Development and Cooperation.

Qantara.de

Roger Willemsen's 'Guantanamo Speaking'
Back to the Dark Ages: Open Season on Prisoners
In his book "Guantanamo Speaking", Roger Willemsen lets former inmates in the American prison camp have their say – creating a comprehensive document of an era stained by the perfidy of degrading interrogation techniques, humiliation and torture. By Martin Gerner

Interview with Heiner Bielefeldt
"A Ban on Torture Is an Absolute Ban"
Heiner Bielefeldt is the director of the German Institute for Human Rights. In this interview with Mona Naggar, he talks about the rule of law in times of terror, about the headscarf ban, and religious minority rights

Emran Qureshi and Heba Raouf Ezzat
Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?
In their correspondence, Emran Qureshi (journalist and expert for Islam and human rights) and Heba Raouf Ezzat (lecturer for political science and womens' rights activist) discuss the role of the sharia in Islamic countries and in how far sharia laws are compatible with human rights

www
Website The Human Rights Council
Wikipedia entry for The Human Rights Council