An Evaluation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Earlier this month, UN Watch published a report that evaluates the performance of Canadian Louise Arbour as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.By Pablo Brum
Earlier this month, UN Watch published a report that evaluates the performance of Canadian Louise Arbour as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The report, titled “The Right to Name and Shame”, examines how the person in charge of the top United Nations post that deals with human rights performed her mission in the last four years. As the document explains, it is a post that can only criticize and monitor United Nations member states, since it has no coercive power. Therefore, the key lies in examining what actions and statements Arbour displayed during her term.
According to the evidence gathered by UN Watch, Arbour criticized governments of all types during her tenure: both in free countries and in dictatorships, as well as everything in between.
In regard to the world's worst human rights crisis, the genocide imposed on Darfur by the regime that governs Sudan , Arbour proved to be very active. In 2004 she even visited the warzone, at one of the worst times possible. When it came to some of the most repressive governments in the world, like Myanmar 's, she also pronounced public condemnations.
However, one of the first criticisms that arise is that the Commissioner chose not to denounce with any strength the gruesome violations of their own citizens' rights committed by the governments of Russia and China , which is logically the consequence of a power calculation. However, the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights exists precisely to ignore such considerations and examine every country equally.
One of the most striking aspects of Arbour's term is the intensity –although not the amount- of condemnations made against certain democracies. For example, Arbour publicly stated certain American troops stationed in Iraq should be tried as war criminals –a proposal she did not even propose in the Sudan case. Furthermore, she displayed an unusual level of solidarity with former members of the Saddam Husayn regime sentenced to death in Baghdad , something she failed to do with any other person sentenced to death around the world.
Arbour's mistaken priorities were also prominent in the Middle East . According to the report,in 2007-2008 the High Commissioner “ published four strong criticisms of Israel ; one moderate criticism of Egypt ; four moderate criticisms of Iran ; three strong criticisms of Iraq (which, as mentioned above, could also be considered criticisms of the U.S. ); and one weak statement regarding Lebanon ”. Not one of those criticisms was directed at Saudi Arabia , a country in which this very week a woman was jailed for the crime of driving a car. Additionally, she did little or nothing to stop her own organization and the Human Rights Council's craven obsession with Israel .
Arbour's performance is further stained when considering she abstained from condemning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust while simultaneously proposing a new one, but she did take the time to publicly condemn the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad exploited in the Muslim world to commit barbaric acts.
The conclusion UN Watch reaches is that Louise Arbour's performance was mixed. Although she grossly deviated from her job when it came to establishing priorities and in her criticisms of certain democracies –while at the same time ignoring much harsher human rights situations around the world-, it is also true that at times she did her job and condemned regimes like Sudan or Myanmar's. Hopefully, new Commissioner Navanethem Pillay will surpass Arbour's inconsequence.
Earlier this month, UN Watch published a report that evaluates the performance of Canadian Louise Arbour as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The report, titled “The Right to Name and Shame”, examines how the person in charge of the top United Nations post that deals with human rights performed her mission in the last four years. As the document explains, it is a post that can only criticize and monitor United Nations member states, since it has no coercive power. Therefore, the key lies in examining what actions and statements Arbour displayed during her term.
According to the evidence gathered by UN Watch, Arbour criticized governments of all types during her tenure: both in free countries and in dictatorships, as well as everything in between.
In regard to the world's worst human rights crisis, the genocide imposed on Darfur by the regime that governs Sudan , Arbour proved to be very active. In 2004 she even visited the warzone, at one of the worst times possible. When it came to some of the most repressive governments in the world, like Myanmar 's, she also pronounced public condemnations.
However, one of the first criticisms that arise is that the Commissioner chose not to denounce with any strength the gruesome violations of their own citizens' rights committed by the governments of Russia and China , which is logically the consequence of a power calculation. However, the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights exists precisely to ignore such considerations and examine every country equally.
One of the most striking aspects of Arbour's term is the intensity –although not the amount- of condemnations made against certain democracies. For example, Arbour publicly stated certain American troops stationed in Iraq should be tried as war criminals –a proposal she did not even propose in the Sudan case. Furthermore, she displayed an unusual level of solidarity with former members of the Saddam Husayn regime sentenced to death in Baghdad , something she failed to do with any other person sentenced to death around the world.
Arbour's mistaken priorities were also prominent in the Middle East . According to the report,in 2007-2008 the High Commissioner “ published four strong criticisms of Israel ; one moderate criticism of Egypt ; four moderate criticisms of Iran ; three strong criticisms of Iraq (which, as mentioned above, could also be considered criticisms of the U.S. ); and one weak statement regarding Lebanon ”. Not one of those criticisms was directed at Saudi Arabia , a country in which this very week a woman was jailed for the crime of driving a car. Additionally, she did little or nothing to stop her own organization and the Human Rights Council's craven obsession with Israel .
Arbour's performance is further stained when considering she abstained from condemning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust while simultaneously proposing a new one, but she did take the time to publicly condemn the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad exploited in the Muslim world to commit barbaric acts.
The conclusion UN Watch reaches is that Louise Arbour's performance was mixed. Although she grossly deviated from her job when it came to establishing priorities and in her criticisms of certain democracies –while at the same time ignoring much harsher human rights situations around the world-, it is also true that at times she did her job and condemned regimes like Sudan or Myanmar's. Hopefully, new Commissioner Navanethem Pillay will surpass Arbour's inconsequence.