EU must speak out on human rights

Published in the European Voice
Vol. 12 No. 44 : 30 November 2006
http://www.europeanvoice.com/

By Leon Saltiel

The United Nations Human Rights Council convenes for its third session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva this week and is expected to discuss human rights issues. Few will be surprised if it does nothing of the kind.

The council replaced the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. But in the first five months of its existence, says Human Rights Watch, “the new council has already garnered a level of condemnation that its predecessor took decades to achieve”.

It bluntly fingers EU “anemia” as one of the main reasons why the new body has become the creature of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This has effectively seized control of both its membership and agenda.

Where is the EU in this sorry story? European diplomats are being careful not to mix it with the OIC, arguing that the first priority is to build strong institutions for this new world forum. The results have so far been predictable: a continuous stream of censures for Israel and something close to radio silence, unless you listen
very carefully, on Darfur.

EU passivity coupled with the fact that the US has elected to stay out of the council, have put western democracies on the back foot. For all the earnest talk about building a durable structure, European influence on the shape of the new institution is minimal.

One of the EU’s evident weaknesses in such multilateral fora is its rotating presidency. How to speak with one voice on behalf of – soon – 27, proud and diverse nations? The EU presidency has been called a “source of instability and discontinuity”, not least because its impact keeps changing, depending on the clout and political inclinations of whichever country happens to hold it.

Often, when certain issues are discussed in the UN plenary, the EU is unable to express an opinion because its membership has not reached consensus. At other times, the positions it adopts are feeble.

Finding excuses for all this is easy. But the remedy, or at least a partial one, is hardly very complicated. The EU presidency, supported by a strengthened troika, could ensure it prepared a coherent position by taking a look at the agenda – the issues are known in advance – and co-ordinating the EU position ahead of the
meetings. The Geneva-based ambassadors could also do better to support this effort.

The OIC manages, after all, often lining up two dozen of its members to monopolise the debate and dominate debates. If that is not to become the norm, the EU has to adopt a more forceful approach, making sure its presidency is among the first to address the UN plenary and to set out coherent and principled policies from
the beginning. Individual EU member states should be encouraged to take the floor and reinforce the EU message.

Nor is the EU showing much energy or imagination about marshalling support from Latin American, African, and Asian states. Consultation with democratic states around the world needs to be formalised and the EU should reward progress in human rights performance and a constructive approach in multilateral fora.

The failure to build that kind of alliance, or to assert itself at all effectively at the Human Rights Council, suggests an alarming failure of political will. Even without a constitution and the appointment of an EU foreign minister, Europe can really do better in standing up for what it claims is “a core value of the European Union”.

Leon Saltiel is a political analyst based in Geneva.

© Copyright 2006 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.