Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
RECENTLY, Pakistan won its bid for a seat in the UNHRC by respectively participating from the Asia Pacific region. It secured 169 votes, Uzbekistan 164, Nepal 150, China 139 and Saudi Arabia 90 votes – ending Riyadh’s bid to again be a member of the UN’s top human rights body. Fifteen countries were elected to the 47-nation Council. Experts say with a number of countries with questionable rights records being elected, the current system of entry to UNHRC is in serious need of reform. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that Pakistan’s re-election to the HRC has provided a unique opportunity for highlighting the Kashmir issue. He added that the vote vouched for Pakistan’s performance in the Council over the past three years, adding that the country’s role was now being recognised by the world.
There is a growing recognition that as the Human Rights Council (HRC) approaches its twelve-year anniversary there is a need to undertake an inclusive, cross regional and structured dialogue to review how the HRC could best fulfil its mandate and purpose, as set down in GA resolution 60/251. This includes discussions around how the work and effectiveness of the HRC might be further enhanced and strengthened in the future. Calls for, and debates around, Council strengthening have steadily increased over the past two years. There appears to be a broad agreement on the need for a process of reflection and review with a view to improving the functioning of the Council even further. Today, the key difference between States is not over whether there is a need to bring improvement to the work of the Council, but rather how and when to proceed in that effort and what improvement is needed. Against this background, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Rwanda, Japan and Latvia, supported by the Universal Rights Group, organised, on 1st December 2017, a one-day conference designed to provide an open platform for States to exchange views on the question of Human Rights Council strengthening.
Between 2021 and 2026, the General Assembly (GA) is scheduled to consider the question of the status of the Human Rights Council (Council), i.e. whether it should remain a subsidiary body or become a main body of the United Nations (UN). Although the GA has not formally requested the Council to conduct a review of its work and functioning in advance of this 2021-2026 review, there is a growing sense among delegations in Geneva that the Council should provide a contribution. The present document, developed by the Universal Rights Group (URG) as part of a project supported by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, provides background information on the 2021-2026 review as well as thoughts on how the Council, as the UN’s key political body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights, might contribute to that review.
The Human Rights Council (Council) has secured a number of significant achievements since its establishment in 2006. It has continued much of the important work of the former Commission on Human Rights by, for example, providing a forum for debate; maintaining a system of Special Procedures; and widening the global framework of human rights norms and standards. At the same time, it has taken further steps to strengthen the relevance and delivery of the UN’s human rights pillar. These include: building a powerful new peer review mechanism (the Universal Periodic Review – UPR); focusing to a greater degree on supporting and following-up on the domestic implementation of States’ human rights obligations and commitments; contributing to the effective prevention of human rights violations and crises; promoting accountability for serious violations through the creation of fact-finding missions, commissions of inquiry and, in the case of Myanmar, of an investigative mechanism; and forging strengthened links with UN’s other two pillars – the development pillar and peace and security pillar.
The sixth Glion Human Rights Dialogue (Glion VI), organised by Switzerland and the Universal Rights Group (URG), in partnership with the Permanent Missions of Botswana, Fiji, Iceland, Mexico and Thailand, was held on 27-28 May 2019 and considered the topic: ‘Towards 2026 – Perspectives on the future of the Human Rights Council.’ In particular the Glion VI retreat and its four preparatory policy dialogues held in Geneva and New York looked at the 2021-2026 review of the Council’s status; implementation support and follow-up by the international human rights system; and emerging human rights issues and developing effective responses.
As for the role of the UNHRC vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue, it is argued the record of the Council remains very dismaying, yet now with Pakistan’s becoming the Council member, hopes are sprouted that the Kashmir issue will be highlighted further. In the words of the President of Azad Kashmir Sardar Massod Khan,’ This is really gigantic. India has bifurcated the state and taken away the recognized rights of the Kashmiris related to their permanent residence, employment, property. Before this act by India, [Jammu and Kashmir] had a semblance of autonomy: it had a flag, it had a constitution. And India guaranteed some form of autonomy because it was a disputed land and the people of Jammu Kashmir had yet to exercise their right to self-determination.
He adds, we are seeing something similar to what happened last century. In the interwar period you saw the rise of these fascist or Nazi demagogues. Then after winning loyalties and confidence of the people, they [turned on] the minority, the Jews. They sent them to gas chambers and just eliminated them, and then they moved into their neighbourhoods and started killing people there. And what was the rest of the world doing at that time? They were appeasing these dictators. So what I’m saying is that there should not be a repetition of the appeasement because this extremist philosophy is targeting the Muslims in India, targeting Kashmiris and the state of Pakistan. [The Indians] think that the state of Pakistan committed a cardinal sin back in 1947 by destroying the unity of India. These zealots — all the leaders of the BJP — they are saying that we will undo Pakistan to re-establish and restore the purity of the sub-continent. [The Hindu nationalists] even use the Nazi swastika’’.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law.
