Pamela Taylor - The countries of the former East bloc are uniquely placed to explain the dangers of forming rigid alliances that threaten to undermine progress in the Human Rights Council, whether North-South or East-West blocs.
In their Ministerial addresses to the 4th Session of the Human Rights Council last week, these recent totalitarian states all made reference to their experience in making the transition from tyranny to democracy and the importance of promoting human rights.
Romania, which assumes the presidency of Council in June, made clear its support for strengthening the role of independent investigators and making all states subject to review.
The merits of cooperation
“Drawing on Romania’s experience of working with civil society in advancing the process of democratic transition and protection of human rights,” said Foreign Ministry State Secretary, Adrian Vierita, “I would like to underline the merits of cooperation with all stakeholders in the human rights field.”
This tacit support for the process of Universal Periodic Review (UPR), making all states subject to review by the Council, was echoed by Poland. Foreign Minister Anna Fotyga noted that UPR should, however, not replace specific reports on an individual country, as some members want. “The country mandates do not have the role of denouncing respective states,” she said. “Their task is to bring about improvement in the human rights situation.”
Many observers and NGOs would like former East bloc countries take the floor more often on issues that they have a unique perspective on, such as how a group of nations can stymie the work of an organization. Thirty years ago it was the East bloc of Soviet states that prevented progress in the defunct Human Rights Commission. Today, the Council appears divided between two blocs which are hardening their positions, the Islamic and African nations on one side and the alliance of EU and so-called likeminded countries on the other.
Sabastian Gillioz, of Human Rights Watch, is one who wishes the former East bloc countries would go further. “They all should have something to say about special procedures and country Rapporteurs but so far they have not shown much engagement,” he said.
Each has a dark past
“Eastern countries don’t fit the Western pattern because they each have their own, recent, dark pasts. Their experiences give them great credibility on human rights issues. The problem is, whether members of the EU or not, they think they must vote a certain way for political reasons instead of voting what is morally correct.”
The Czech Special Representative in Geneva, Tomas Husak, agrees that East bloc nations tend to vote the EU line. “You might consider us among the ‘likeminded’ members of the Council, in that we don’t have many differing viewpoints. But at times we have different perspectives that could influence positions taken by consensus.”
Countries not in the EU, such as Azerbaijan and Ukraine, sometimes provide a ‘swing vote’ when they find themselves in the crossfire of divided allegiances like some Asian and African countries.
Alfred Moses, a former US Ambassador to Romania and head of the Geneva-based pro-Israeli NGO, UN Watch, said that while former East bloc countries tend to follow the Western lead on most issues, there is one notable exception. “On the question of Israel, many of those countries that formerly persecuted Jews are today more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians.”