|
Technical
Cooperation:
Implications
of President Bush’s re-election on human rights
By
- Suhas Chakma, Director, ACHR
The
re-election of President George W Bush is not exactly what human
rights community, liberals and internationalists had wished for.
A sense of dejection seems to be the prevailing mood.
Yet,
during his second term, President Bush is unlikely to continue with
the unilateral policies, which question the core values of universality
of human right standards. It is not because of a change of heart.
The judicial setbacks in the United States on the detainees in Guantamo
Bay, the outrage against the crimes in Abu Ghraib prison and quagmire
in Iraq have already set the tone.
President
Bush will, however, continue its onslaught on international justice.
Although, the United States withdrew the resolution exempting its
peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) in the face of mounting opposition from UN Security
Council members in June 2004, Bush administration will continue
to obstruct the ICC. The trial of Saddam Hussein is unlikely to
be held consistent with international standards on the War Crimes
tribunals set up by the UN Security Council.
The
Bush administration will also continue its policy of targeting only
the countries which are part of the socalled “axis of evil”, in
addition to its long term betenoire, Cuba. Over the years,
the number of country resolutions adopted at the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have drastically reduced. At the
60th session in March-April 2004, the CHR adopted country
resolutions only on Belarus,
Cuba,
Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Democratic
Republic of the Congo (ex-Zaire), Haiti,
Myanmar, Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967, Sudan,
Uzbekistan
(1503 procedure) and the occupied Syrian Golan. The 60th session of the CHR also adopted resolutions
on technical cooperation and
advisory services for Afghanistan, Seirra Leone, Chad, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Burundi, Somalia and Cambodia.
The loss of moral authority by the United States because of the
legally and morally untenable positions taken by Rumsfelds in the
post September 11th and increasing cooperation for countering
terrorism meant that there is more agreements on the illegal methods
to be adopted by the States while countering terrorism. In the bilateral
dialogues, human rights are no longer an issue.
To
be fair, the United States cannot be solely blamed for this. The European Union led by the Big Three - United
Kingdom, France and Germany - has changed its policy towards country
resolutions at the CHR prior to the September 11th primarily
to do “business”. Since Denmark burnt its fingers after sponsoring
the resolution against China at the 55th session of the CHR in 1997,
Scandinavian countries have not been taking the lead for sponsoring
country resolutions. “Technical Cooperation” is the new mantra of
the European Union for engagement on human rights issues. The National
Human Rights Institutions, academic institutions and NGOs in Europe
have become partners for implementing technical cooperation projects
with Iran, China and many other countries as a part of the dialogue
and technical cooperation programmes.
The
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR), the principal agency of the UN on human rights issues,
finds itself increasingly competing with the institutions and organisations
from Europe. The lack of support from consolidated fund of the United
Nations is responsible for this trend. Funds
for the OHCHR for the biennium 2002-2003 were 1.8 per cent of the
United Nations regular budget for the biennium. Voluntary funds
constitute two thirds of the budget for OHCHR. According to 2004
Annual Appeal of the OHCHR, the OHCHR required US$ 54.8 million
from voluntary contributions in addition to a requested allocation
of US$ 27.1 million from the United Nations regular budget. According
to 2003 Annual Appeal, funding from the United Nations regular budget
covered 33 per cent of OHCHR’s activities during 2003 (expenditure
of US$ 25.8 million), while voluntary contributions covered 67 per
cent of activities (expenditure of US$ 52.5 million). In 2002 Annual Appeal,
the OHCHR expected an allocation of US$ 22,455,150 from the UN regular budget
and an additional US$ 55,778,746 from voluntary contributions.
The
key donors of the OHCHR - the
United
States of America, Norway, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, France, Germany, Switzerland,
Italy, Finland, Belgium, Spain, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Luxembourg
– are presently against scrutinising human rights record of the
States and in favour of technical cooperation. The voluntary contributions to the OHCHR therefore
imply more funds for Technical Cooperation Projects and less for
human rights monitoring mechanisms i.e. UN Treaty Bodies and Special
Procedures of the CHR. According to 2004 Annual Appeal, OHCHR required
US$ 14,270,999 for United Nations country teams and within United
Nations peace missions against US$ 3,992,942 to support the work
of the Treaty Bodies and the CHR, and US$ 3,116,500 to support the
work of the Special Procedures. Technical cooperation projects also
meant that the OHCHR is spreading too thin with skeleton field staff
in comparison to other UN Specialised Agencies.
Technical
cooperation also implies more funds or rewards for the illiberal
democracies and authoritarian regimes, which oppose any scrutiny
of their human rights record, whether by NGOs, UN Chartered Based
Bodies, UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures of the Commission
on Human Rights. After adoption of number of country resolutions
in the post Cold War period, the illiberal democracies and authoritarian
regimes formed what came to be known as Like Minded Group (LMG)
at the Commission of Human Rights during the review of rationalization
of the work of the CHR as a part of the mid-term review of the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action in 1998. The LMG consists of
Bhutan, China, India, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Sudan and Mexico (which
changed its position after President Vicente Fox came to power).
Having tasted blood by excising country specific resolutions from
the mandate of the Sub Commission on Human Rights since 2000 as
a part of the rationalisation of the work of the CHR, the LMG has
been trying to delete country resolutions under Agenda Item 9 of
the CHR, triennialization of resolutions and, if appropriate, of
the related reports and reduce the agenda items and of course, speaking
time for the NGOs. In addition, in order to destroy the monitoring
mechanisms and dilute the work of the CHR and funds of the OHCHR,
the LMG has been sponsoring “stating the obvious resolutions” such
as on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights
(E/CN.4/RES/2004/70), human rights and international
solidarity (E/CN.4/RES/2004/66), promotion
of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human
rights by all (E/CN.4/RES/2004/65), promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order (E/CN.4/RES/2004/64), tolerance and
pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection
of human rights (E/CN.4/RES/2004/54), the incompatibility between
democracy and racism (E/CN.4/RES/2004/38), strengthening of popular
participation, equity, social justice and non discrimination as
essential foundations of democracy (E/CN.4/RES/2004/31), promotion
of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect
for different cultural identities (E/CN.4/RES/2004/20) etc.
Defending
human rights is about making hard choices. In this age of globalisation
and war against terror, liberal democracies must choose between
technical cooperation programmes and scrutinising human rights records
of the illiberal democracies and authoritarian regimes. Certainly,
there is scope for critical engagement but “criticisms” are often
the missing parts of all technical cooperation projects/programmes.
During President Bush’s second term, technical cooperation will
take precedence over scrutiny of human rights violations.
Another
four years are quite long to stifle the voices of dissonance. The
confluence of the liberal and illiberal democracies because of globalisation
and war against terror in the post September 11th period poses the
most serious threat to the advancement made in the field of protection
and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the United
Nations in the last two and half decades.
|