Vaclav Havel critical of human rights horse trading

Vaclav Havel has a timely op-ed in the New York times about the failings of the UN Human Rights Council.

It's called "A Table for Tyrants" but New Zealand still comes in for some criticism:

Now, it seems, principle has given way to expediency. Governments have resumed trading votes for membership in various other United Nations bodies, putting political considerations ahead of human rights. The absence of competition suggests that states that care about human rights simply don’t care enough. Latin America, a region of flourishing democracies, has allowed Cuba to bid to renew its membership. Asian countries have unconditionally endorsed the five candidates running for their region’s five seats — among them, China and Saudi Arabia.

In past years, Western countries encouraged rights-respecting states from other regions to compete for election. This year, they have ceded the high ground by presenting a non-competitive slate for the council elections. New Zealand withdrew when the United States declared its candidacy, leaving just three countries — Belgium, Norway and the United States — running for three seats.

More on UNHRC

There has been quite a bit of criticism of New Zealand's candidature in the blogosphere and the media. For example this from Fran O'Sullivan.

Within the Israeli community, there are concerns that neither politician wants to say anything on record that might disturb New Zealand's campaign for a seat on the two-year-old United Nations Human Rights Council.

But Beehive officials say travel disruption at Wellington Airport meant that Rotem's meeting with Peters was cut short and the resultant meeting was not all-embracing. Goff's media availability has been constrained due to a family bereavement.

The unfortunate upshot is a perception that neither politician wants to speak frankly about Iran in case New Zealand's UN campaign is jeopardised by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which is one of the dominant forces on the rights council.

Firstly I would say that Canada is leaving the Council and has been the only reliable vote for a balanced assessment of Israel. I hope, perhaps in vain, that we would continue the same role.

Secondly I would say that the situation with Iran here makes me uneasy also, if true. However, there is quite possibly room for some work sharing here. It may be more important to have Canada and Australia speaking out robustly against the nuclear program and New Zealand on the Council rather than Canada, Australia and New Zealand speaking out robustly against the nuclear program and none of these countries on the Council.

Kiwiblog has also been on a crusade against our candidature. It seems that his main objection is to some of the abuses that I referred to in my previous post and to some of the more dubious members of the Council. It seems to me that if we withdraw rather than attempting to continue the process of reform then that is a very serious message that we have lost faith in the UN and the possibility of UN reform more generally. The consequences of this are serious, and particularly with the Bush administration shortly to depart the scene I can't see that we should be ready to do that yet. Can I just note that Iran is not now and has never been a member of the Council contrary to what DPF appears to believe. (Saudi Arabia seems to me the most egregious admission to membership of the Council.)

Finally the Hive has a series of useful posts on this issue. Although I can't quite decide if they are in favour of or against our candidature.

New Zealand's Candidature for UN Human Rights Council

The UN Human Rights Council has had a bad year. Finger wagging at Israel and the UK. Removing monitors from Belarus and Cuba. Writing a requirement to investigate criticism of world religions into the role of the UN's free speech watch dog.

Nevertheless this is a new organisation. New Zealand put a lot of effort into helping to set up the council in place of its late, unlamented predecessor the Human Rights Comission. New Zealand has a long and proud history of involvement in the UN and we stand to gain a lot from the existence of an effective multilateral body like the UN. UN reform is and should be a major goal of New Zealand diplomacy.

Moreover, Canada's term on the Council is coming to an end and Canada and Australia are supporting our candidature as a representative of the CANZ grouping.

The Human Rights Council is far from perfect but I am not ready to give up on the UN as an organisation that can provide leadership on human rights, particularly in this the 60th anniversary year for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have a lot to contribute and I wholeheartedly support New Zealand's candidature for the UN Human Rights Council.

This WSJ opinion piece on the Council is more negative than I am but it's conclusion seems exactly right.

A forum that serves as a real tool in service of human rights is worth fighting for.