US:The new council's strong stance on Burma is unbalanced by its undue focus on Israel, writes Mary Fitzgerald
When the UN announced the establishment of its Human Rights Council in March 2006 it was greeted with muted fanfare and not a little scepticism. Its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, had cast a long, inglorious shadow.
Much maligned as corrupt, ineffectual and highly politicised, the commission counted Sudan and Zimbabwe among its members and reached what many considered its nadir in 2003 when Libya was appointed as its chair.
Then secretary general Kofi Annan called for the new body to represent a "clean break from the past," but others wondered how successfully it could overcome the controversies that had dogged its forerunner. The US government, for one, was certain the council would fail and decided not to seek a seat.
While supporters of the Geneva-based council highlighted the fact it would meet more often and be better positioned to react to emergencies than its predecessor, others have raised their eyebrows at the number of countries with poor human rights records - including China, Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia - appointed to the 47-strong council. More of the same, they shrug.
Nineteen months on, human rights organisations sum up the council's record so far as "could do better". They describe its recent response to the crisis in Burma as one of few promising moves in what has otherwise been a decidedly lukewarm performance.
A special session called by the council earlier this month resulted in a resolution on Burma supported by China and India, followed by a decision to dispatch a council rapporteur to the country. The outcome of its manoeuvring on Burma is widely held as a test of credibility for the council, a chance for it to prove it is something more than just a talking shop.
The meeting on Burma brought to five the number of special sessions the council has convened in 15 months, the same number the commission convened in 60 years - proof, some say, that it is better placed to respond swiftly as crises unfold.
"The fact it engaged so quickly on Burma and managed a resolution that had the support of the whole council including China and India, is an important step forward," says Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).
"This is exactly what we would like to see from the council, but there is still a lot of work to be done. The record so far has been quite disappointing. It has not engaged on human rights issues that deserve its urgent attention."
Human rights groups including HRW have slated the council for neglecting a number of countries with endemic human rights problems, including Uzbekistan, Somalia and Iran, and dropping country rapporteurs for Belarus and Cuba due to political pressure.
In a recent statement, HRW took the council to task over its tendency to focus overwhelmingly on Israeli violations in the Middle East, saying it had again ignored the call to "move from polemics to addressing the situation comprehensively, by including abuses by Palestinian armed groups and authorities, in order to improve its credibility and effectiveness".
HRW is not the only voice to criticise the council for its fixation on Israel. Last December Kofi Annan said he was concerned about what he called the council's "disproportionate" focus. "Not that Israel should be given a free pass," he added. "Absolutely not. But the council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."
Critics point out that three of the council's five special sessions and nine of its 12 country-specific resolutions have targeted Israel, and it is the only country designated as a separate agenda item.
Citing this as proof of bias, the US Senate earlier this year voted to withhold funding and President Bush used his address to the UN General Assembly last month to upbraid the council for focusing excessively on Israel.
Days later, the president of the Human Rights Council, Doru Costea, said he agreed, telling Swiss newspaper Le Temps that the body had "failed" to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a balanced way.
On Darfur, the council commissioned a panel of experts to report on the conflict, but critics say it has shied away from issuing stern rebukes to Sudan over its role.
Peter Splinter, Geneva representative for Amnesty International, believes the council's work on Darfur shows promise, "but unfortunately we won't be able to see until a year or so if that promise amounts to anything." Referring to the council's "growing pains", Splinter says much of the council's remit - including a new review process that will scrutinise the human rights records of all UN member states - has yet to be tested.
"In many ways the jury is still out," he says. "Given where the council was starting from, it will take time, but it's too early to write it off."
Peggy Hicks of HRW agrees. She also believes countries like the US should reconsider their decision to snub the body. "While the council is nowhere near what we would like it to be, there is an obligation on human rights supporters like the US to engage rather than back away. Backing away will only ensure further failures," she says.
Even one of its most vehement critics acknowledges the council's value as the only forum of its kind. "It's a forum, it's here to stay and because of that we need to make the best of it," says Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a Geneva-based group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.
"But we shouldn't blind ourselves to the abuses within it."