The US, the UN, the Sudan and Human Rights

By Steve Paterno

May 17, 2009 — The United States of America (USA) has for the first time seeks out for a seat in UN Human Rights Council. Running without any opposition, America won the seat overwhelmingly by 90 percent of the votes casted. The UN Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System, created in 2006 with the “main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them.” The Council replaced the then defunct United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). UNCHR was heavily criticized for allowing countries with the most severe human rights violations to comprise its membership. As such, countries with the worst human rights records that one can think of, like China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, amongst others were members of the Council. Those countries used their positions in the Commission to protect their records and point fingers at others. The failed UNCHR was, therefore, viewed as a body that did not take human rights abuses seriously.

Since then, the US administration under President George W. Bush, opposed the UNCHR. When Sudan was reconfirmed in the Commission for the third term in 2004, the US had enough and literally walked out in protest. The administration furthermore voted against the creation of its replacement, the UN Human Rights Council, citing the same issues that plagued its predecessor. When the Council resolution was adopted against the US vote, America stayed out of it and eventually withdrew its financial support from the body.

However, the current US administration of Barack Obama with its practical engagement approach reversed the previous administration position. By obtaining a seat in the Council for a 3-year term, the administration pledges its commitment and financial support for the “promotion and protection of human rights in accordance” with the Council’s resolutions. The sheer presence of the Obama’s administration in the Council does not make the body an ideal institution that fights for and protect human rights around the globe. There are more huddles that the Obama administration has to grapple with.

First, the Council is still the same like its disgraced predecessor, hence; there is need for more work and reform within the body in order for it to perform effectively. For example, countries such as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia, with flagrant human rights violations are enjoying seats in the Council alongside the US. It means the same criticisms are still marred over the Council and its practices. Despite strong oppositions by human rights groups against electing countries with worst human rights records, the countries managed to win their seats easily. The fear now is that they will use their privileged positions within the Council to protect their records and circumvent on that of their friends. For instance, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, are going to shun off the records of Sudanese regime in Khartoum, given the level of cooperation between these countries and Sudan. Much depends on the Obama administration if it wants to be effective; it must use both the Council, and when necessary, go it alone to promote human rights to all people from across the world. The US effort should not merely be bogged down in a defunct UN system controlled by human rights abusers.

Second, the Obama’s administration has already drawn criticism from the human rights groups for its current and seemingly rapprochement policies with the despotic Sudanese regime in Khartoum. In a show of seriousness in dealing with Sudan, the administration started rightly so by appointing a Presidential Special Envoy, Gen. Scott Gration. The Envoy has already traveled to Sudan twice and engaged with many of the major stakeholders in Sudan. However, his appeasement gesture toward the regime in Khartoum is worrying to many around the human rights circles. The US abandoned its condemnation of Khartoum’s expulsion of aid agencies from the Darfur troubled region and had called for normalizing relationship with Khartoum. This rapprochement has not played well with those who view Khartoum as a potential danger not just to Sudan’s stability and peace, but to the US interest. The human rights activists are particularly alarmed by Gen. Gration who privately confided to them that the US is willing to ease the sanctions imposed on Khartoum and remove the regime from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Jennifer Windsor, a former Clinton administration official and an executive director at the Freedom House, warned that the administration officials should not “set a pattern they will regret later on.” Joshua Muravchik, the author of “Exporting Democracy,” pointed to the fact that the Obama administration is turning its back to “democracy and the victims of the abuse of human rights.” Eric Reeves, an activist for human rights in Sudan echoed the same fears by deploring President Obama’s policy in Sudan as that of “capitulation.”

In order for the administration to be effective in this front, President Obama needs to live up to its campaign rhetoric, promises, and hopes that it has inspired not just within the human rights movements, but to the suffering people in Sudan. During the campaign, President Obama promised that the US under his leadership will not support dictatorship, because “that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks.” Today, the Obama Administration is not only trying to normalize relationship with a dictator in Khartoum, but appeasing a regime led by an internationally indicted sitting president for war crimes against its own people. Now what will “these other folks” who suffer with impunity under this brutal regime “sense” from this administration of Obama?

Third, in its effort to reform the U.N. Human Rights Council, the US administration must ensure that certain elements are correctly reflected in the reform process. Case in point; in Universal Periodic Review, when examining the human rights records of Sudan, the South Sudan records must be examined separately, though the regional autonomous government is part of the united Sudan, it is a separate independent government entity that commits its own human rights violations against its own people. The UN Secretariat under Secretary General has already done great job in this respect by setting precedent for such separate reporting mechanism—on issues within South Sudan territorial governing body through the Secretary General briefings to the UN Security Council. In Secretary General’s reporting to the UNSC, the highlights identified some of the gruesome human rights violations, which occurred and or are committed in South Sudan. In its January 2009 briefing, Secretary General reported that in “Southern Sudan, weak administration of justice still has a negative impact on the full enjoyment of basic human rights as people are held in detention for prolonged periods of time without having access to legal assistance, including those facing the death penalty.” On the issue of accountability, the Secretary General went on to say that “many reported human rights violations not properly addressed by authorities at the state and regional levels.” The report gave as an example of an incident in Eastern Equatoria State, “where an exchange of gunfire between civilians and SPLA led to the death of 14 civilians and 7 soldiers and the burning of parts of Logurony and Iloi villages. According to the Secretary General, “so far there are no indications of any action taken to investigate and prosecute those responsible for this incident.”

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) also did similar separate reporting in South Sudan. In one of its recently released reports, entitled, “There is No Protection: Insecurity and Human Rights in Southern Sudan,” the organization detailed those abuses and concluded, “the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) has made limited progress in addressing impunity and establishing the rule of law. Soldiers and other security forces that commit human rights violations and other crimes against civilians are rarely brought to account. The nascent justice system suffers from systemic weaknesses leading to arbitrary detentions, prolonged pre-trial detentions, and very poor prison conditions.”

For the autonomous government of South Sudan that is struggling to establish itself and aspire to be part of the community of sovereign states, it must be taught to respect the rights of its citizens and be held accountable for its own actions through mechanism such as Universal Periodic Review. The US with its newly found position at the UN Human Rights Council must take a lead in this respect and make sure that it uses its influence for the process to be effectively reflective in the Universal Periodic Review of the existing governments like the one of South Sudan.
As for the US in its new approach to protect human rights and fight its abuses, the Obama administration must endeavor to reform the UN Human Rights Council from within, revaluate its rapprochement tendencies with the despotic regime in Khartoum, and ensure that all the human rights abusers are held accountable either by collective efforts in the UN or through unilateral US actions. With the current situation the US finds itself in, it seems unlikely that it will have any significant impact. However, with the right sets of policies that include carrots and sticks, the US can pull a miracle in leading the world in protection of the rights of all. Nevertheless, the United States of America through its history revealed its resilience and virtue on how to lead with the political will of its people and leaders. Hence, America is once again positions itself and is called to lead the world even when everything seems to be at peril.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Roman Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]