UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- There are only 14 candidates for the 14 seats on the Human Rights Council up for election on May 13. Despite opposition from some groups and requests by others, this almost certainly means that each of the 14 candidates, including Libya and Angola, will get elected to three year terms on the HRC, a body which last year converted a draft condemning the Sri Lankan government's murder of civilians into a final resolution praising the government.
In Libya, political opponents are imprisoned and disappear. In Angola, poor people are summarily evicted to make way for projects, while oil revenue continues to disappear. There are only two examples.
The one contested race that loomed for May 13 involved Iran running for a seat. The country withdrew, however, in exchange for a spot on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Click here for Inner City Press' Q&A with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about how Iran would use that seat. US Ambassador Susan Rice, being criticized for not opposing this Iran seat, may speak on the topic after Thursday's vote.
In the run up to the election, Inner City Press asked the representatives of two NGOs calling for the casting of empty ballots what they thought of the place of human rights in the UN since Ban Ki-moon took over in 2007. "Kofi Annan was good on these issues," replied Tom Melia of Freedom House. "That's my answer."
Hillel Neuer of UN Watch was more diplomatic, later providing Inner City Press with a detailed explanation of how the voting could go on May 13. He was responding to questions Inner City Press asked the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly, Ali Treki of Libya:
Inner City Press: Sure, Jean Victor. There was a presentation here in the UN by two NGOs about the upcoming vote for the Human Rights Council, countries to be on it. Among other things, they were urging, you know, I guess Member States, to vote against Libya and some certain other candidates for it. But it was unclear since the regional, and I couldn’t really get a straight answer from them how this would work, if the regional groups put forward only you know, two names for two African slots. If in fact a country like Libya were not to receive the 97 affirmative votes, what would be the procedure to actually, to fill that slot? I mean, what is, is being named by a regional group an automatic that you get the seat or is there some, do they have some basis to say that by choosing not to vote, this would somehow reopen it and another country could be elected?
Spokesperson Jean Victor Nkolo: I think we have to allow the General Assembly proceedings to be implemented in the full transparency that the Member States usually apply on these processes. Nothing is sealed, nothing is automatic. That’s why you have a vote. And there are…
Inner City Press: The vote is for two spots, with only two candidates. What happens if people choose not, just choose, as these two NGOs were urging, not to vote for one of the two. Then…?
Spokesperson: There are many votes in the General Assembly and in other organs, and in other proceedings of the UN when you have a limited number of candidates or in some other instances, many candidates. So, we should really not make a pronouncement on this very specific case. I will not comment on the particular of a specific country.
Inner City Press: [inaudible] I’m asking about the procedure, because they seem to be urging people to simply not, you know, not vote, and that this would somehow, you know, this could have an effect, is what they were saying. They were also saying that if people write in another country, that under the GA rules that is not supposed to be recorded as a vote for another, for somebody that is actually not on the ballot. But they say that it is.
Spokesperson: What I will be very happy to do is to put you in touch with our colleagues in the General Assembly Affairs who deal with these very complex, intricate proceedings. But, I believe that Member States should be given not only the chance, but also should be accepted as partners in these proceedings and they implement it quite fairly and transparently. If you do not have many candidates or if proceedings lead to the conclusion that you take these are your own conclusions. But…
Inner City Press: What I am asking, just to be clear, I am asking, this was done, this was inside the UN, it was Freedom House and UN Watch, they had a list, they have a report out; may be you can ask the President Ali Treki if has any response to this type of lobbying by NGOs. I just wanted to, you know, it’s a procedural…
Spokesperson: Well, this is lobbying by NGOs. This has nothing to do with Member States, per se. But, I will still ask the questions, and we will try to find out on the proceedings side. But these are proceedings that are set and that have to be implemented for the time being. I really see no procedural problem that might have been infringed, per se.
Neuer of UN Watch clarified:
Hi Matt, I saw your question to Jean Victor.... First, please note that officially the regional groups are not the ones who decide nominees, as you had indicated. Each country officially can decide on its own. In practice, however, we all know it doesn’t work that way, and that they tend to negotiate among themselves in the regional groups.
Here is how the process works, as diplomats told us, based on UNGA Rule of Procedure 94. A candidate may announce up itself to the actual first round of voting, but we have never seen anyone wait that long to announce. So regarding Libya on the African list — assuming it remains what we call a “closed slate” of 4 names for 4 spots — if Libya doesn’t get 97 the first time, leaving an empty space on the African list, there are two more rounds held for that remaining place. Only Libya’s name would appear on the ballot.
If there is still no conclusive outcome after these 3 rounds of the 1st ballot, the 2d set of three rounds begins and any name may be written in, not only those on the first three rounds. This is called “unrestricted” balloting. (It rarely goes this far.) A “new” candidate does not take the microphone and say “we’re running”, rather the delegates mull about the room and murmur as to what country may be interested/available/desirous/amenable/etc. to being placed on the ballot (this could all be pre-cooked, of course.) This scenario plays out very, very infrequently. It goes back to “restricted” for three and “unrestricted” again for three until there is an outcome.
Neuer also answered 3 questions from Inner City Press:
Q - What do you think will happen on May 13?
Neuer of UN Watch -- Unless Ambassador Susan Rice and her EU colleagues do what UN Watch and 30 other NGOs asked them to do today — lead a campaign to stop Qaddafi — I fear that the “closed slate” politics will win the day and Libya will be elected, along with all the others whom we rated as non-qualified or questionable. Let there be no mistake: the election of Libya will be the most damaging thing the 4-year-old Council has done to date. It’s not just the brutality of the regime, but also the folly that its leader exemplifies. He continues to hold a Swiss businessman hostage in a Libyan jail; last week he gave an interview calling for the dismemberment of Switzerland, which he called “a mafia”; now he’s sending an envoy to the Swiss-based council?
Inner City Press: What do you think of HRW's strategy of seeking commitments from those who are going to run and win, as they put it?
Neuer of UN Watch – I think it’s well-intentioned, but question whether the ones who really need to be held accountable will provide the rope with which to hang them.
Inner City Press: What do you think of next year's battles on the horizon?
Neuer of UN Watch – The new membership will make the OIC even more powerful and lower the democratic minority even further.
A seeming highlight for next year will be Georgia running for a seat, which Russia is expected to oppose. Inner City Press has asked the Russian Mission -- which said generally that Russia loves the Georgian people, just not the government -- watch this site.
