|
Hi,
Thought people might be interested in this, given the basis of
Howard's current whinging. There's two extracts below - Sorry its a bit
long.
This is from an article in today's paper where Mary Robinson
rejects Howard's complaints.
<begin extract>
Prime Minister John Howard's attack on the United
Nations
committee system has hit a snag, with UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson rejecting his central claim that governments are not given a fair hearing. Mrs Robinson has flatly dismissed Mr Howard's contention that the views of non-government organisations are given the most weight in the committees' deliberations on alleged breaches of UN human rights treaties. "The views of governments are not subservient - the primacy of government is clear for all the committees," Mrs Robinson said at the UN's New York headquarters yesterday. "The open dialogue with civil society is enormously important. I am very supportive of it," she said. "It is wonderful that representatives of Aboriginal communities in Australia can come to Geneva and have their voice directly heard. They go back feeling very empowered by that - and rightly so." <end extract>
What she says is forcefully backed up by Geoffrey Robertson,
the human rights lawyer and a bit of an expert on these matters. Notice
how his list of complaints is completely at odds with Howard's
assessment.
<begin extract>
The deficiencies in the UN committee system are due to the
endemic failure of that organization to allow for criticisms of its own members.
If the 'views' of the H R C are ever to be accorded respect, the following
structural problems will have to be overcome:
1. The HRC is meant to be comprised of 18 'experts', but
UN election procedures ensure that many are government mouthpieces (some being
actually in government service, as cabinet ministers or ambassadors) or else owe
their 'expertise' to defending governments. Some members are reasonably
independent academics or judges, but few, if any, have acted for victims. As one
long-serving member writes (delicately), appointment depends on 'the lobbying
effectiveness of the nominee's country's representatives at the UN, bloc voting
and general diplomatic bargaining ... as a result, a high premium is not always
placed on those individual qualities which are most important, such as
competence'?
2. The HRC only meets three times a year, and CERD twice,
for three-week sessions. The idea that nine weeks a year is a satisfactory
commitment to monitoring and problem-solving under the Covenant is
risible.
3. The HRC holds no 'hearings' and makes no provision
for oral applications or adversary proceedings. Everything is done on paper,
very slowly, without the benefit of live witness testimony or
cross-examination.
4. The HRC is entirely dependent on the UN Secretariat
in terms of structure and budget and status. It is not a quasi-judicial body,
much less a court: most accurately, it is a UN 'organ' which goes out of its way
to avoid criticizing UN members.
5. The Civil Rights Convenant concerns the duties of
states towards individuals, not the rights of individuals against states. The
HRC cannot compel or even pressure states to do these duties - most violators
stay outside it, or refuse to sign the Optional Protocol or (if they do) refuse
none the less to cooperate with the HRC. (Sound familiar?)
6. The HRC and other UN committees lack any independent
fact-finding capacity. Not only do they have no investigative powers, resources
or personnel, but they cannot even make visits to alleged crime scenes or call
for relevant documents or cross-examine witnesses and experts. This is a
crippling weakness for the HRC, which makes its monitoring role ineffective
(unless assisted by NGOs) and leaves it to find facts on the basis of written
communications, which in many cases is not possible. It has access, of course,
to fact-finding reports by the Human Rights Commission, but these (as we have
seen) are limited and inadequate.
7- The HRC work goes largely unreported and all but 650-odd
victims of human rights violations around the world (1986-95) have apparently
never heard of it. That is partly because its proceedings are closed and its
files remain confidential and its 'views', when published, are often not worth
reading, in the sense that they usually lack detailed reasoning.
8. It has no power to enforce its 'views', which states frequently ignore. Indeed, sometimes death row prisoners are targeted for execution precisely because they have written to the HRC - they, and their letters, are dead on arrival. These problems of the HRC are endemic
to CERD and all other UN bodies established to 'monitor compliance' with human
rights conventions. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (1981) has a committee which is permitted to meet
only for two weeks a year to discuss state reports; the Economic and Social
Covenant also has a 'committee of experts' which is permitted a third week each
year in which to discuss state compliance. These periods are ridiculously short,
and inevitably much of the consideration is superficial. The Convention Against
Torture, which came into force in 1987, adopts the same processes as the HRC
(i.e. state reports every five years and receipt of 'communications' from
individuals), although the committee established under it does, anomalously but
invaluably, have power to investigate on its own initiative in cases where it
receives 'reliable information which appears to it to contain well-rounded
indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a
State party'. This is, of course, an optional provision in an optional treaty:
states which systematically deploy torture (73, at the last count) do not sign
the Convention or, if they do, refuse to subject themselves to investigation.
The UN system cannot, by its very nature, offer satisfactory methods of
enforcing human rights, because it cannot compel violating states to join its
protocols. Should they do so, the UN's methods for 'monitoring' performance give
little confidence that this would expose violations or lead to greater obedience
to the rules of international human rights law.
<end extract> His complaints are virtually the opposite of Howard's - too
few independent experts; not enough criticism. I might add that the other
day international law expert Hilary Charlesworth also said that, if you read the
actual reports that the govt is complaining about, the language was 'very
mild'. Backs up Robertson's claim that "it (the HRC) is a UN 'organ' which
goes out of its way to avoid criticizing UN members."
Tim
|
