Commission on Human Rights Faces Overhaul
Perhaps the most sweeping of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's proposals to reform the world body is an overhaul of the Commission on Human Rights.

With the backing of much of the international community, Annan has proposed creating a Human Rights Council to replace the existing Commission on Human Rights, a body that many member states and activists criticize for what they say is its inability to defend human rights around the world.

"The Commission on Human Rights has become such a liability for the whole system," said Joanna Weschler, the United Nations' advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The U.N. would be fixing more than human rights by getting rid of the commission and creating something more meaningful."

Annan has added to such criticism, writing in his proposal in March 2005 that "the commission's capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism."

"States have sought membership of the commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others," he wrote. "As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole."

One of the biggest criticisms of the commission has been that it allows states like Sudan and Libya -- regarded as notorious human rights violators -- to sit in judgment of other countries. That would not be allowed to happen on the proposed council.

Since its inception in 1946, the Commission on Human Rights has stood as the only multilateral body charged with protecting international human rights. In 1948, the General Assembly reaffirmed its commitment to human rights by passing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first internationally adopted document defending fundamental freedoms. Since then, the United Nations has passed treaties that legally bind member states to their human rights commitments.

"The broad picture has been good," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, a nonprofit organization that monitors policy at the United Nations. "However, the U.N. Human Rights Commission has been felt increasingly by human rights organizations and other observers to be kind of getting bogged down. It's not working well, and it's not been able to act effectively."

Many human rights organizations argue for increased U.N. intervention in regions of the world where violations of basic rights continue without serious threats of penalty. A joint statement issued by several nongovernmental organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, supported reforming the commission that, in their view, has come to lack credibility and effectiveness. The statement accuses the commission of preventing debate on legitimate human rights concerns, lowering international standards and allowing countries to shelter themselves from criticism.

Perhaps the most pressing example of what many say is the commission's ineffectiveness is its inability to do much to stop the killing of thousands of people in the Darfur region of Sudan, where government-backed militias have engaged in what the U.S. Congress termed genocide. The U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Darfur found in January 2005 that, "government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, and destruction of villages, rape throughout Darfur."

Yet the United Nations has so far taken little action to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, which human rights organizations say highlights its inability to respond effectively to an urgent situation.

The proposed Human Rights Council would exist as a permanent body with what supporters say would be greater authority to tackle such crises more immediately than the current commission, which exists as a subsidiary of the Economic and Social Council. Annan says that promoting the current commission to a council that would stand alongside the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council will prove the United Nations' commitment to human rights and give member states on the council the authority to act more aggressively in the case of human rights abuses.

Instead of convening only once a year for six weeks, the proposed council would meet year-round, which Annan says would help ease political tensions by allowing decisions to be made without often stressful time constraints. Annan also proposed reducing the size of the 53-member commission, citing the need for more focused discussions among a smaller group of representatives.

The council would maintain a strong relationship with nongovernmental organizations, independent experts, special investigators and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that serves as the secretariat for the current commission.

Members of the council would be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly to make them more accountable to, and representative of, the entire U.N. membership. Also, all members would have to be seen as fulfilling the human rights standards set by the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights.

The change to the commission also calls for regularly evaluating countries' human rights conditions and increasing funding for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure it has the resources to sustain long-term commitments. The office now receives 2 percent of the United Nations' regular budget. There has been no indication how much more it could get.

The proposed council, which has been praised by the U.S. delegation, has been hailed by many as one of the big-ticket items within Annan's package of reform proposals. Still, some are concerned that if the United Nations doesn't act on the proposal at September's summit, some states may try to weaken the proposal by replacing it with an open-ended group that would discuss, instead of create, such a council.

"This could mean indefinite delay and no guarantee that a new, stronger human rights body will be created that addresses the selectivity and excessive politicization of the Commission on Human Rights," Amnesty International said in an August 2005 statement.

-- By Anna Shoup, Online NewsHour