"Pardon, ou est les bureaux de l'UNHCHR?"
The Swiss soldier consulted a map.
"UNHCR?" he asked.
"Non, l'UNHCHR."
"Non, l'UNHCR."
The alphabet soup of aid- and relief-organization headquarters in and around the United Nations nerve center in Geneva can be a bit confusing to the casual visitor, apparently for security as well. Up the hill from the main gates on the Place des Nations is the looming presence of the stark ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) building -- not to be confused with the IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies), which is just around the corner. The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) is a little out-of-place just over the train tracks on Avenue de la Paix, with UNICEF a bit further down, where the road runs into Rue de Lausanne.
Tucked in amongst all these groups are the offices of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCHR), just a few hundred yards and a single letter away from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). If the former acronym looks familiar to American eyes, it should. Earlier this year, after a controversial round of voting at its annual meeting, the United States was dropped from the U.N.'s human rights oversight group it helped to create. And now, as the world seems to convulse minute by minute in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the United States lacks a seat at the table of the UNHCHR, the world's most important human rights organization. (Sudan, China, Libya, and a host of other known violators do have seats on the Commission.)
The danger now is that action by the group could lead to the United States being branded as bad as some of the current members.
During the 57th session of the group in May of this year, voting for membership for the upcoming year left America out in the cold. The three places reserved for "Western countries" in this latest round went to Austria, France, and Sweden. Commentators came up with three general explanations:
1) Defenders of the decision said the expulsion was an embodiment of worldwide attitudes toward American aloofness on international agreements. Human rights-specific issues involved an abstention on a resolution regarding the availability of drugs for AIDS patients and a no-vote on another on the right to food. From the ban on landmines to chemical weapons to the formation of an international criminal court, America has a vast history of disengagement and lack of action on a variety of international issues. Many date back to previous administrations, but some don't: The current administration has planned violations of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and has announced a refusal to adopt the Kyoto agreement on global warming.
2) American conservatives derided the vote as further evidence of the general worthlessness of the United Nations. Put simply, if America can be booted out of an organization aimed at protecting human rights worldwide, what can that organization be worth?
3) Swiss papers said the Red-Green German government screwed up. Seen as the leader of the Western nations in the organization, it was down to Germany's representatives to ensure the voting went as planned. It didn't.
Regardless of the reasons, the question remains: Does it really matter? Much of the UNHCHR's activities are symbolic, and those undertaken this year have brought the legitimacy of the group into question. First came the expulsion of the United States. Then a "no action" vote let China off the hook for various human rights violations. And in August, the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, organized and held by the UNHCHR, ended in fiasco, with the United States walking out just before the passage of a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
The organization's head, former Irish president Mary Robinson, a widely respected figure in diplomatic circles, is perhaps its only saving grace. She has been making the rounds since the attacks on America, warning China not to use the current war on terrorism as an excuse to limit civil liberties -- and at the most recent General Assembly in New York, Robinson expressed further concerns about more general rights violations worldwide related to the international action revolving around Afghanistan.
"Worst-case scenario: condemnation of the U.S. action in Afghanistan," said Peter Muller of the German rights organization IGFM. "In the UNHRC there are conditions and majorities which are quite different from the Security Council."
Member states include many with regional interests: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
This is aside from potential criticism of actions taken within the United States. Cracks may already be showing. On November 16, Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, the UNHCHR's special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an appeal to President Bush expressing concern about the recent military order he signed. The order calls for the establishment of military tribunals to hear potential terrorism cases at the discretion of the president.
Cumaraswamy's appeal was concerned about "the wrong signals it sent, not only in the United States, but around the world. . .The very fact that such powers are available to the Executive strikes at the core of the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law and the principles of a fair trial."
It went on to say: "I am fully conscious that this Order is made to meet the national emergency declared on September 14. However, I am not convinced that such repressive measures curtailing the core values of the rule of law and a fair trial are necessary."
Another appeal from Cumaraswamy issued the same day expressed concern about the independence and fairness of judicial proceedings in Malawi. This is not the kind of company the United States wants to be keeping.
An additional appeal came the day before from Asma Janagir, the organization's special rapporteur (the UNHCHR has lots of these) on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, over worries about violations in Afghanistan. As the partners of the coalition, the Northern Alliance, rolled into cities throughout the country, world leaders -- including Bush at his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- called for the respect of human rights by both the attackers and the retreating Taliban. This came amid reports of widespread executions of Taliban soldiers by the Alliance troops.
The question remains whether the U.S. government is prepared to reassess its approach to international organizations in light of the world situation -- or even if it feels it needs to. Will there be a change on any of the international agreements the United States was reluctant to join or plainly refused? Given Bush's steadfast position on the ABM treaty, change is unlikely.
In the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, there has never been a greater need for international cooperation. The U.S. government has gone to great lengths in building the coalition against terrorism, and the language of President Bush throughout the current crisis has sought to tie the fortunes of America with the entire world. "We are all Americans now" read headlines across the globe immediately after the attacks; "Either you are with us or with the terrorists" said the president. A by-product of the largest terrorist actions on U.S. soil has been a re-emphasis of the importance of the United Nations in terms of American interests.
This is where the UNHCHR dilemma lies. If the United Nations does not have the authority to rule over human rights, then who does? Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are effective as watchdogs but lack the power of enforcement. Any inability to effectively serve its purpose not only knocks the UNHCHR, but the United Nations at large.
So America languishes outside the group. It still has the power to lobby and to bring proposals to the table if it can find a member-nation co-sponsor. But America lacks voting rights. It is likely that the September 11 attacks will hasten its re-entry when the next round of voting occurs in May of 2002. In the meantime, China -- riding high off the awarding of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to Beijing and inclusion in the World Trade Organization -- will likely go unchallenged on human rights issues. Post-Taliban Afghanistan is also a potential problem, given the history of the animosity between the rival factions within the country.
The soldiers in front of the U.N. headquarters were not much help. One pointed in the direction of what turned out to be the U.N. High Commission on Refugees building. The UNHCR, not the UNHCHR. A somewhat surprisingly permanent structure -- in an oddly defeatist way -- the refugee commission's staff didn't seem to know where the human rights commission's offices were either.
"American?" asked a guide at the front desk. "Why do you care where it is?"
