Mario Togni/Infosud - Souhayr Belhassen, who has headed FIDH, which groups of more than 150 organisations from around the world, since April 2007, sees her role at the current Human Rights Council to defend the UN country Rapporteurs against those who are calling for the termination of their mandates. FIDH considers that thematic experts for abuses such as torture and forced disappearances cannot replace country experts whose mandate covers all human right issues.
What do you think about the call to abolish some country expert’s mandates ?
Take the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which no longer wants to have a Rapporteur even though what is happening in this country is absolutely terrifying. There has been some progress, certainly, with the legislative and presidential elections in 2006 but we are afraid that the country will go backwards. Only this year, we estimate that 640,000 people have been displaced, journalists have been killed and an upsurge in sexually motivated crimes. So to reply positively to the request by Congo to abolish the UN mandate would be extremely dangerous.
To give another example, when a country like Haiti, one of those whose Special Rapporteur mandates is up for review, recognises that these experts can make things happen, that is very important in our eyes. Just as when a minister from Burundi says he supports the continued mandate of a UN expert. This shows that there are some really concrete results. This is the overriding reason we are here, to defend the country mandates, which are the only ones that give a global and long term perspective.
The divisions between regional groups are sometimes used as levers to obstruct the work of the Council. What does FIDH think about this ?
The politics of bloc voting is generally destructive and not to be encouraged. The case of Burundi is a good example of the blockages that can happen. On the one hand, Burundi wants to keep its Special Rapporteur because his presence ensures progress on certain things. On the other hand, the African group, which has other interests, is putting pressure for his mandate to be abolished
Of course there has been some abuse, there have been some mandates given for strictly politically reasons, some experts manipulated by the ‘West’ but here one is forcing a country to give up its mandate, against its will in return for a bloc vote on another subject. This is preventing certain countries from developing their own national strategy. On the other hand, when bloc voting helps progress, is forward thinking, then I have nothing against it. But this is not always the case.
Since FIDH represents smaller NGOs at the Council, what do you say about the complaint that you may not consult enough with them as much as with the bigger NGOs like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch ?
I don’t agree. For example, in order to defend the Special Rapporteurs whose mandates are currently under threat, we have specifically asked for input from representatives of a Haiwan NGO, the Lotus Group in DRC (Congo), from SOAT in Sudan and the Burundian Human Rghts League. These are grass roots activists who carry out their own investigations and they will all address the Council. It is they who know the reality on the ground and our role is above all to support them.
In general, what is the cooperation like among NGOs ? Do you have a common strategy ?
Certainly, each organisation has its own strategy. But on fundamental questions, we try to have common positions. In any case the time granted to NGOs at the Council is very short. It is therefore important to speak with a common voice in order to get results. To give you another example, concerning the Olympic Games in Peking, there is a multitude of NGOs who work together and our speaking time is limited to 8 common statements.
What do you think about the tendency among developed countries to caricature developing world countries as having worse human rights records ?
In the field of human rights, and I say this without mincing my words, there is no reason for the developed world to be arrogant. Unfortunately human rights violations may be common in developing countries. You have to take into consideration factors such as poverty, economic backwardness, environment. But even there the West does not help. It is western businesses that own the mines in Mali which dump toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
Does that perhaps explain the systematic opposition of certain countries to human rights issues raised by the developed world ?
Yes unfortunately. It is against this that we must fight by explaining that it’s in every country’s interest to have an objective expert who can come and look what is happening in their country and report back to the Council. He will report on the good and the bad things and he will have credibility. It is also a way to give credibility to the overall discussion of human rights in developing countries.