U.S. Department of State
New UN Human Rights Council
Mark P. Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary, International Organization Affairs Remarks to Congressional Human Rights
Caucus Washington, DC February 8, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Caucus:
I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to brief you on the progress that has been made toward
establishing a new more effective human rights body within the UN. As you know, the current Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) is in a state of such disrepair that the UN leadership and other nations have joined the United States' demand for
dramatic reform. The CHR has become a safe haven for the world's worst human rights violators, who use their membership
to protect themselves from reproach. It is deplorable when countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe, which lack the will to
protect the human rights of their own people, are charged with protecting the human rights of all people.
The CHR's problems are numerous enough and severe enough to warrant a clean break with the past. The Human Rights
Council (HRC) is the potential successor to the now discredited CHR. The United States has been extremely active in the
negotiations that will establish this body. We will not be satisfied unless this transition encompasses significant
procedural and substantive reforms.
On February 1, 2006 Ambassadors Arias (Panama) and Kumalo (South Africa) issued a new HRC draft in their capacity as
co-chairs. While the proposals it contains would constitute an improvement over the CHR, the United States will continue
to press for additional revisions. The text must meet high standards since it will be the basis for what will become the
premiere UN human rights body. Otherwise a historic opportunity will be squandered.
The HRC cannot be merely a change in name, it must provide a fresh start. The U.S. has two primary goals -- reform of
the membership and preservation of a strong mandate.
Membership
The US is deeply concerned about the quality of CHR membership. The UN Secretary General originally proposed that the
HRC's membership could be improved by requiring countries to be elected by a 2/3 majority, one of the options currently
listed in the draft resolution. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
As it stands, the draft merely asks Member States to "take into consideration" a candidate's human rights record when
voting. The US believes we can and should do more. To this end, we propose requiring letters from candidates pledging
their willingness to abide by human rights standards, and endorsements from regional groups. Sadly, this suggestion is
not included in the new text.
We must do more in order to demonstrate that there are some standards that every country must meet to merit membership
in the UN's human rights body. We support an exclusionary clause that would prohibit human rights violators from serving
on the Council, barring countries under UN Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism from the
HRC. We would be willing to consider alternatives, but remain committed to the principle that we must have a strong
mechanism for excluding standards.
Mandate
On the mandate, we have ensured that the HRC will preserve its ability to examine gross human rights violations in
specific countries. The US has successfully prevented Pakistan's efforts to require a two-thirds majority vote on
country specific resolutions. The new draft states that "the Council should address situations of violations of human
rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon." Along with most other delegations,
we also support a renewed emphasis on technical assistance. We have endorsed doubling the resources for the Office of
the High Commissioner for this purpose. Cooperative help is the first resort, but frank condemnation must be an
available tool as well.
The members themselves will work out the actual agenda of the HRC. It would be better for the new body to shape its own
agenda, rather than granting that power to the entire UN General Assembly. We envision the HRC's focus to be geared
towards country specific situations and technical assistance.
We believe that it is inevitable that countries will also want to discuss thematic resolutions. A promising opportunity
exists in remaking the CHR's agenda -- getting rid of the agenda item on occupied territories -- under which 3-4
anti-Israel resolutions fall every year.
Other Issues
Procedurally, the United States has identified several ways in which a new body could offer improved effectiveness. CHR
membership currently stands at an unwieldy 53 and the recently issued HRC draft called for a reduction in membership to
45. The United States believes that a more streamlined body would lead to maximum efficiency while still guaranteeing
full regional representation and creating less room for bad actors. The smaller HRC will be more responsive to human
rights violations as they arise. The present body meets once a year for no more than six weeks, six weeks of theater.
The U.S. envisions a standing body that meets 4 times per year for a total of 12 weeks. The HRC also will be able to
hold special sessions relatively easily. The U.S. firmly believes that a small, more regularly convening Council could
better coordinate urgently needed technical assistance to the countries that need it most, in order to improve a human
rights situation or prevent a human rights emergency. And where a government refuses assistance, it will be poised to
highlight unmet obligations for the international community.
One positive carry over from the old body is the continued participation of NGOs. This measure appears in the new draft.
Status of the Negotiations
We began consultations on the new HRC last summer and have been heavily engaged ever since. To be plain, the discussions
represent a struggle -- one group of countries seeks stronger human rights machinery while another seeks an impotent
body. The challenge is in bringing around the large pool of "middle ground" countries to take advantage of this exciting
opportunity to remake the UN's premiere human rights body, that is, liberal developing states which have been something
of a "silent majority." We are working on this in New York and in capitals. All of our embassies are engaged on this
issue, and our Department Leadership has been traveling and making phone calls and raising the HRC at senior levels.
The negotiations are not easy, and some delegations seem tempted to settle for "good enough." But we have taken the
decision not to compromise on our key goals -- this issue is too important.
Conclusion
We hope to make the transition to the HRC as soon as possible. The draft calls for elections in May 2006 and an
inaugural meeting the following month. The CHR is scheduled to meet in mid-March, but much remains unresolved. The CHR
may have a full or truncated session, or it may not meet at all, depending on the status of the HRC negotiations.
The US certainly has not given up on this once-in-a-generation opportunity to genuinely reform the human rights body of
the UN. Our task is to build consensus among countries that share the same vision and to replace the Commission on Human
Rights with a functional, credible, and effective body.
Released on February 8, 2006
ENDS