| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Rights body 'clean break' for UN |
| 2006-06-19 |
| The UN Human Rights Council must mark a "clean break", UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the opening session. He called on the 47 member states not to become "caught up in political point-scoring or petty manoeuvre". The council replaces the discredited Human Rights Commission, which had been widely accused of protecting countries with poor human rights records. Members now have to be elected by the UN General Assembly and can be suspended if they commit violations. "This council represents a great new chance for the United Nations and for humanity, to renew the struggle for human rights," Mr Annan said. "I implore you not to let the opportunity be squandered. "The eyes of the world - especially the eyes of those whose human rights are denied, threatened or infringed - are turned towards this chamber and this council." Difficult negotiations The hope is that the new council will be more democratic, less politicised and, above all, more effective in upholding human rights, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says. UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL African group: 13 seats, including Ghana, South Africa and Algeria Asian group: 13 seats, including India, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Western European and Other States group: 7 seats, including Germany, France and the UK Latin America and the Caribbean group: 8 seats, including Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay Eastern European States group: 6 seats, including Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic It has taken months of difficult negotiations to create the new council. Human rights groups believe it has the potential to be much more effective than the old 53-member commission, which had members whose own rights record were suspect. Some former commission members like Sudan and Zimbabwe decided not to risk the hurdle of winning election at the General Assembly, and are not on the new council. Iran tried for election and failed, but China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia succeeded despite their poor human rights records. The US did not stand, although it has not ruled out joining in the future. It was against the council's creation, arguing it did not go far enough to prevent countries with bad rights records from winning seats. The issues remain divisive, our correspondent says, and the new council members' willingness to let go of narrow political interests in favour of universal human rights is being seen as a key test. This first meeting of the new council runs until 30 June and will aim to set out its operating procedures, including how it should carry out its human rights reviews of the 191 UN member states, and how often. The council is also expected to adopt a resolution against forced disappearances and a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #6 time for Tough Love™ for the UN membership. Close the wallet |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-19 20:52 |
| #5 The hope is that the new council will be more democratic, less politicised and, above all, more effective in upholding human rights, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says. Translation: They expect the new council to be more vocal in condemning the US. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-06-19 20:37 |
| #4 The hope is that the new council will be more democratic, less politicised and, above all, more effective in upholding human rights, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says. Meaning the HRNGOs are hoping for more influence. Considering who's on the Council, they'll get more of the 'right' cases. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-06-19 20:25 |
| #3 That breakdown looks like it is 40/47 or about 85% major human rights violators to me. How the living f*ck can they make a clean break with that? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-06-19 16:33 |
| #2 I think most americans at this point would wish the UN a fair well and let them move to Geneva, minus the US and Japan of course. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-06-19 16:05 |
| #1 "I implore you not to let the opportunity be squandered. Meaning if you piss off the Americans again, they will *never* give us any money. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-06-19 16:03 |