Candidate Vetting for the United Nations Human Rights Council - Research Paper Example

 Candidate Vetting for the United Nations Human Rights Council Abstract As the newly appointed ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations, the country I would choose to fill a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, between the Netherlands and France in the Western Europe region, is the Netherlands. Both countries have decent human rights records that have met minimal international standards. However, after weighing and assessing the relative merits of the two regarding human rights structures and enforcement, I would choose the Netherlands. While both Western European countries have a developed network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and independent oversight bodies intended to monitor, assess, and prevent violations, the Netherlands appears to be more open to implementing recommendations and dedicated to raising awareness of its problems among its citizens. Additionally, France’s primary area of human rights violations seems more reprehensible, since it stems from within administration, specifically, abuse of power by the police forces, a problem that has persisted for years. As was done in this paper, future candidates to the United Nations Human Rights Council should undergo a vigorous vetting, wherein each category of human rights is investigated for infractions, recommendations, openness to and successful implementation of recommendations. Candidate Vetting for the United Nations Human Rights Council The United Nations Human Rights Council is an “intergovernmental body” instituted by the United Nations, consisting of forty-seven countries. The council was created to protect human rights world-wide by making recommendations in regards to incidents where those rights are violated (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007). Understandably then, as models for the rest of the world, potential members to the council must be thoroughly vetted in order to ensure that their own human rights records comply with proper guidelines. Such guidelines are laid out in the internationally recognized document Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed in December 1948 (United Nations, 2009). For the purpose of this paper, France and the Netherlands will be touted as two viable candidates for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Both Western European countries have laid out their own policies regarding human rights. As France points out, its long history has made it privy to the progression of human rights over time, dating back to its Enlightenment period. France’s past efforts to recognize human rights include the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 and the adoption of UDHR in 1948 (with one of its own citizens, Rene Cassin, having a hand in the document). The country declares itself an avid advocate of international independent committees working with countries in adhering to UDHR guidelines. (French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, 2008) Non-governmental structures and embassy reports help France to monitor and address human rights violations. In 1947, the National Consultative Commission of Human Rights (NCCHR), an independent advisory board, was instituted. This Commission monitors all areas of human rights from police conduct to discriminatory hiring practices and provides overall recommendations on policies to the government (FMFEA, 2008; U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2009). Another main human rights structure is the independent National Security Ethics Commission (CNDS) which looks into allegations of misconduct by law enforcement officials (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2009). As the Netherlands professes in its official human rights policy, the country works to abolish the death penalty worldwide, supports the rights and freedoms of women, children, and religious minorities, and is against discrimination towards homosexuals (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2007). Like in France, independent bodies exist within the Netherlands to monitor actions of administrative authorities and to prevent and/or address human rights violations. For example, an office established in 1999 is the National Ombudsman, who is responsible for looking into public authorities’ actions either by the request of citizens or by his own volition. Another instrument is the Equal Treatment Commission, which makes recommendations to legislators and enforces the Equal Treatment Act, an important piece of legislation enacted in 1999 that protects Dutch citizens from any and all forms of discrimination. (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2008) The Netherlands also serves as host to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and provides headquarters for the International Crime Tribunal for Rwanda. Additionally, in 2008, Netherlands pledged to establish a national human rights institution that would conduct research, give recommendations on policies, and effectively respond to complaints. (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2009) Overview of countries’ human rights records According to human rights reports issued by the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, both the Netherlands and France have respected the majority of human rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights include the following: freedom from extrajudicial killing and disappearance; freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; freedom of speech, press, and peaceful assembly; worker rights to associate and organize; prohibition of child labor; and establishment of acceptable conditions in the workplace (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999, 2008). However, in the remaining human rights categories, neither country can boast a spotless record. To the contrary, patterns of violations emerge upon closer inspection, violations that were issues at least a decade ago, and continue to be perpetuated, to an extent, today. There are a few areas of human rights that the Netherlands and France have traditionally had trouble with. For France, the main ones are that of police misconduct along with lengthy pretrial delays and effective impunity for law enforcement officials, ill treatment of detainees, and poor prison conditions (Amnesty International, 1998; 2006; 2008). For the Netherlands, the primary problems are discrimination and racism against immigrants, minorities and women, trafficking in women, questionable asylum procedures, and detention of irregular migrants (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999, 2008; Amnesty International, 2008). France’s most recent Penal Code, established in 1994, was the first incarnation to define torture as a distinct crime and hike up the penalties for those who perpetuated such acts; it also provided a special article that targeted acts of torture committed by public officials. This was, in part, prompted by streams of reports in the early 1990s regarding allegations of shootings, deaths, and ill-treatment of unarmed people at the hands of law enforcement officers. Often, “excessive use of force” stemmed from identity checks; incidents of abuse were also found to be inflicted on detainees held in police custody as well as prisoners within various facilities. Disturbingly enough, victims were disproportionately non-European ethnic minorities, specifically originating from the Middle East, the Maghreb, and Central and West Africa, which would seem to signify a high rate of discrimination against foreigners and immigrants. (Amnesty International, 1998) As Amnesty International (2008), a human rights organization, notes, the French Penal Code, despite denoting “torture” as a crime, fails to set out a specific definition for the act, which can cause significant trouble with prosecution and prevention. In addition, the system of “appropriateness of prosecution” offers state prosecutors the choice of not pursuing cases involving law enforcement officers or of not ordering an investigation into the crime. According to past records, cases that are selected to proceed often encounter lengthy delays, and are sometimes drawn out for years; police officers who are indicted often walk away with “token penalties” disproportionate to the severity of the offense. (Amnesty International, 2008). Predictably, plenty of non-governmental organizations and human rights agencies have called to remedy such blatant human rights infractions. France has responded over the years with an evolution of various independent “oversight bodies” and “complaint mechanisms” (Amnesty International, 2008). In January 1998, the Conseil superior de la deontologie de la securite (CSDS) was created as an institution that would monitor the conduct of police and private security forces. However, one of its flaws was that it did not cover prisons or detention centers, which were the sites of many human rights violations (Amnesty International, 1998). This was partly remedied in June 2000 with the creation of National Security Ethics Commission (CNDS) which had the authority to investigate alleged abuse by prison officers as well. On the other hand, lacking “independent powers of sanction,” this instrument is not perfect either; one of Amnesty International’s (2008) issues was that those who wished to lodge complaints had to do it through an intermediary, who could arbitrarily decide to pass or not pass on the complaint. In October 2007, another independent body was created for inspection of places of detention, which encompass prisons, psychiatric hospital wards, and border detention facilities (Amnesty International, 2007). It should be noted, however, that this body can only visit places on French territory, and detention center authorities are free to refuse inspections for various reasons. In addition to the abuse of power by law enforcement officials, prison conditions, although meeting minimal international standards, were nevertheless criticized in France — they were reported as an issue in 1999 by the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (1999), and remained so in a report issued in 2008. According to the observations of NGOs, in various facilities, inmates lacked sufficient sleeping space, light, meals, blankets, and proper medical care. Overcrowding was also an issue. Suicide was the leading cause of death for prisoners. Additionally, there were many reported incidents of prison officials committing acts of abuse against inmates, particularly those of African descent, again indicating discrimination (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999). Detention centers containing irregular migrants, not only in France itself, but in overseas French territory, also suffered from the same overcrowding and unhygienic conditions (Amnesty International, 2008). The Netherlands has become increasingly diverse over the course of just a few decades, with just under twenty percent of its residents being of non-Dutch origin, a change that has increased tension and manifested in numerous incidents of discrimination. (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2008). The discrimination occurs primarily against Jews and Muslims, which number 45,000 and 850,000 in the population respectively. This discrimination occurs in a variety of areas, including but not excluded to housing, employment, and the Internet. Racially motivated incidents consist of “racist pamphlets, painted slogans, bomb threats, harassment, physical abuse, and destruction of property,” in addition to verbal abuse and intimidation. (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999, 2008). The Netherlands has developed a variety of instruments to combat discrimination, often working in conjunction with NGOs. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, there is the Equal Treatment Commission which enforces the Equal Treatment Act. In July 1999, the National Bureau to Fight Racial Discrimination was created to collect nationwide statistics on discrimination, and consolidating previously ineffective local bureaus. The Discrimination on the Internet Registration Center also keeps records of complaints regarding discrimination on the web. In 1998, the Act on the Stimulation of Labor Participation by Ethnic Minorities was established to increase diversity within the workplace and stimulate opportunities for minorities. The Netherlands government has embarked on an active public awareness campaign to decrease discrimination. Complainants can also go to the National Ombudsman (as described earlier), the Commercial Code Council, the Council for Journalism, as well as civil and criminal courts. (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999, 2008; Amnesty International, 2008) Two other areas of human rights concern in the Netherlands are trafficking in women, and detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. With the first, the Netherlands unfortunately is a major destination as well as country of transit for trafficked women, with the majority of victims being immigrants. The Netherlands combats this problem actively with NGOs such as Comensha (formerly the Foundation against Trafficking in Women), which helps victims, the National Crime Squad’s Expertise Center on People Trafficking and Smuggling (EMM), and establishing special units within local police forces. (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999, 2008) Regarding the issue of detention, there have been many incidents in the Netherlands of asylum-seekers being detained for unnecessarily long periods in inappropriate conditions, regardless of whether they were minors or trafficking victims. Often they were held in centers designed for prisoners. Numbers decreased following protests by NGOs and other human rights organizations and government changes to the policy that decreased the detention period for families, and improved conditions in centers. (Amnesty International, 2009) Analysis and Recommendation The countries France and the Netherlands have human rights troubles in similar areas, although to varying extents. While incidents of police brutality did occur in the Netherlands, the country, in creating committees and improving training programs, was able to tamp down on the problem. Unlike France, the Netherlands does not have an issue of impunity involving its law enforcement forces with lengthy pretrial detentions and token penalties. Both countries suffer from subpar prison conditions in various facilities. France too has problems of anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic discrimination although to a lesser degree. And like the Netherlands, France wrestles with trafficking in women although the country serves more as a transit point than either the country of origin or destination (U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2009). In light of the available facts, I would recommend supporting the Netherlands as a member to the United Nations Human Rights Council because compared to France, the country has adjusted its policies more accordingly and willingly to outside recommendations. France has a longstanding issue of police misconduct, a problem that continues to be an issue, particularly because law enforcement is supposed to prevent rather than inflict human rights violations. Independent oversight bodies created to oversee this problem, particularly the CNDS, have been criticized as too underfunded and little-known by the public to be effective (Amnesty International, 2009). Clearly, it is important for a member of the Council to have administrative instruments that effectively preserve the rights of its citizens; however, France is falling short in this area. Conclusion In conclusion, compared to France, the Netherlands would appear to be a better candidate for the United Nations Human Rights Council. Future selection of countries to the Council should have their past human rights record similarly investigated to determine violations, and effectiveness of legislative and administrative responses to those violations. A country that intends to be an example for the other nations in the world may not necessarily have a perfect human rights record, but must show a certain level of success in attempting one. The Netherlands may not have a flawless record, but its trustworthy judicial and law enforcement system, and dedication to public awareness education, is laudable, and makes it a worthy candidate. References Amnesty International. (2008). Netherlands Human Rights. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/netherlands Amnesty International. (2008). France Human Rights. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/france Amnesty International. (2009). France – Amnesty International Report 2009. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/france Amnesty International. (2009). Netherlands – Amnesty International Report 2009. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/netherlands Amnesty International. (1998). Excessive force: A summary of Amnesty International’s concerns about shootings and ill-treatment. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR21/005/1998/en/c6fcebf5-dab6-11dd-80bc-797022e51902/eur210051998en.html Amnesty International. (2006). FRANCE: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Retrieved June 17, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR21/004/2006/en/54caca3c-d449-11dd-8743d305bea2b2c7/eur210042006en.html Amnesty International. (2008). France: Briefing to the Human Rights Committee. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR21/005/2008/en Amnesty International. (2008). The Netherlands: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR35/001/2007 Amnesty International. (2008). France: Recording interrogations is not enough – more safeguards needed for rights of detainees. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR21/004/2008/en Amnesty International. (2007). Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, July-December 2007. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR01/001/2007 Amnesty International. (2008). French Detention Centre Highlights Mistreatment of Migrants. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from Amnesty.gov website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/french-detention-centre-highlights-mistreatment-migrants-2008121 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2009). The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Washington, DC: USSD. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from U.S. Department of State website: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/ Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2007). Human Rights Strategy. Retrieved on May 21, 2009 from Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.minbuza.nl/en/themes,human-rights/human-rights/Human-Rights-Strategy.html French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (2008). France human rights policy. France diplomatie news. Retrieved on May 21, 2009 from http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/democracy-human Rights_1101/france-human-rights-policy_1672.html Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2007). The Human Rights Council. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/ United Nations Human Rights Council. (2008). Review of the Netherlands – National Report. Retrieved on May 21, 2009 from United Nations website: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080415 United Nations. (2009). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from United Nations website: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Read More