Download FORUM-ASIA’s briefing paper on Asian candidates in Word Format

(8 may 2006) Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and China rank as the bottom four among the eleven Asian candidates with the lowest number of specific commitments they have made in their pledges. In particular, China has obtained a full house score of zero on this matter.

On 9 May 2006, the first historic step may be taken towards better implementation of human rights standards worldwide. The election of the 47 inaugural members of the newly established United Nations Human Right Council (Council) will take place at 10:00am (GMT -5:00) in the UN General Assembly Hall in New York.

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) has analysed the pledges that have been made by eleven candidates from Asia that fall under the mandate and scope of FORUM-ASIA and its members and partners.

They include four countries from South Asia: Bangladesh India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; four countries from South East Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand; and three countries from North East Asia: China, Japan and South Korea.

The pledges are intended to provide interested candidates the opportunity to enumerate their commitments to the promotion and protection of human rights, thereby demonstrating their suitability as the first members of the Council.

However, despite the clarification made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that States should include in their pledges “specific, measurable and verifiable commitments”, we are disappointed by the vague and paltry pledges made by the Asian candidates.

Our research has shown that Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and China rank as the bottom four among the eleven Asian candidates, with the lowest number of specific commitments they have made in their pledges. In particular, China obtained a full house score of zero on this matter.

Table 1: Ranking of Asian candidates:
from those with the most number of specific pledges to the least

Asia remains a region with low ratification records of international human rights treaties, devoid of a regional human rights mechanism and where the situation of human rights is rapidly deteriorating. In the recent months, we have witnessed the escalation of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, whereby perpetrators of violence and indiscriminate attacks go by unpunished; the continued rise of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines; and thousands of people belonging to tribal and scheduled communities who are evicted as a result of development projects in India.

These are only fragments human rights situations of Asian candidates’ countries. The scant pledges made by the Asian candidates provide little in terms of concrete commitments to remedy such exigencies.In addition, most Asian candidates have submitted “pledges” that contain self-glorifying remarks about their human rights records rather than specific commitments that they will take to promote and protect human rights. FORUM-ASIA is alarmed by the implementation gap between such rhetoric and the reality on the ground.

To objectively compare the commitments contained in the so-called pledges, FORUM-ASIA has created three simple tables that provide comparative information between these eleven Asian candidates on (1) who submitted the most number of specific commitments; (2) which pledges have been most commonly supported by Asian candidates; (3) what specific pledges the eleven candidates have made at national and international levels.

Recommendations

To ensure that the Council will have a fresh start and acquire legitimacy, FORUM-ASIA calls upon all Member States to vote for the members of the new Council based not on vested political interests, but on the specificity of the pledges and their human rights record.

We remind all Member States once again that the General Assembly Resolution 60/251 stipulates that when electing the members of the Council, Member States must take into account:
(1) the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights
(2) their voluntary pledges made thereto.

We have hereby attached tables that objectively compare the pledges made by the eleven Asian candidates, which is indicative of their commitment to make the Human Rights Council work. We appeal to all Member States to take into consideration such objective information, as well as the human rights reality on the ground as a basis of their voting decision tomorrow.

Common messages conveyed by Asian candidates

1) Aversion to the system of Special Procedures

Firstly, unlike candidates from other regions, none of the eleven Asian candidates have made a specific pledge to extend standing invitations to the Special Procedures, to respond positively to communications by the Special Procedures’ mandate holders, or to ensure follow-up to their recommendations (please see refer to Annexes I and III).

Such silence clearly underscores the apprehension of Asian governments to the role and mandate of the Special Procedures. The pledge to “rationalise” the system of Special Procedures by Governments such as Bangladesh is also a worrying sign.

We remind all governments that paragraph six of the General Assembly Resolution 60/251 affirms that where necessary, the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights may be reviewed, improved and rationalized in order to “maintain a system of procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure” .

In contrast to the treaty monitoring bodies, the system of Special Procedures allows quick response and action on urgent cases of human rights violations. FORUM-ASIA is concerned by the Asian candidates’ silence on this matter and urges all candidates to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures.

2) Keeping reservations in place to defer treaty obligations

The second commonality between the pledges by the eleven Asian candidates is the fact that none of them, except for South Korea, have made any pledge to remove the existing reservations to the human rights treaties. Even in the case of South Korea, it has not pledged to remove all of the reservations, which leaves two in place.

These reservations hinder the effective implementation of the rights that are promoted and protected under each of the treaties. For example, Bangladesh has entered two reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), claiming that the principle of non-discrimination, elimination of violence against women and elimination of discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations “conflict with Sharia law”, thereby “considering itself not bound by these provisions”. Such reservations null the entire purpose and intent of the treaty which seeks to ensure equality between the sexes.

Apart from the Philippines and Sri Lanka, all Asian candidates have entered reservations to the treaties that they have ratified. Malaysia has the highest number of reservations among the candidates despite having one of the lowest ratification records in Asia—with a total of sixteen reservations in place to the two treaties that it has ratified.

Yet Malaysia, along with the majority of the Asian candidates, has failed to take this opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to human rights by taking specific actions such as removing reservations.

3) Hesitancy to improve access and role of NGOs at the Council

Thirdly, the majority of Asian candidates have avoided specific commitments to improve opportunities for contribution to the Council by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (please see Annexes I and III).

Despite the acknowledgement made in the General Assembly Resolution 60/251 that “NGOs play an important role at the national, regional and international levels in the promotion and protection of human rights” , the majority of Asian governments have failed again to commit themselves to guaranteeing effective participation and input to the Council by NGOs .

At the final session of the Commission on Human Rights , the Asian Group was the only one out of the five regional governmental groups that did not make any reference to the role of NGOs in the Commission’s history or in the future Council. Other regional groups such as the Eastern European Group, Western European and Others Group and the Latin America and the Caribbean Group specifically emphasised that the Commission’s positive achievement has been the participation of civil society and NGOs in its work, which should be further enhanced in the Council.

In contrast, the Asian Group’s statement merely made a broad remark that NGOs can play a role in “enhancing dialogue and broadening the understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions” .

4) Disinterest in establishing a regional human rights mechanism

Fourthly, despite the urgent need for a regional human rights mechanism in Asia, only the Philippines and South Korea have made a commitment to establish such a mechanism. However in both cases, the pledges are general and non-time specific.

The Philippines has pledged to “continue its role as initiator in building the Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN)’s capacity to strengthen human rights by being in the forefront of organizing ASEAN human rights meetings…with the end goal of establishing an ASEAN human rights mechanism”. We note that this is more of a self-congratulatory statement with the establishment of a sub-regional mechanism tacked on at the end, rather than a specific or measurable commitment which stipulates when such a mechanism will be established. We are concerned and disappointed by the fact that it has already been thirteen years since the ASEAN governments committed themselves to the establishment of an ASEAN human rights mechanism in 1993 .

Similarly, South Korea has pledged to “participate actively in the discussions for the creation of regional machinery in the Asia Pacific region”. While FORUM-ASIA welcomes these process-oriented pledges by the two candidates, we urge all Asian governments to take verifiable steps forward to translate overused rhetoric into reality.

5) Unease and suspicion towards country assessments

Fifthly, eight out of eleven Asian candidates did not make any commitment to establish a robust universal periodic review . Some candidates such as Bangladesh merely reiterated the criterion already set out in the General Assembly Resolution by stating that that as members, they will be prepared to be “reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism” .

Caution towards country-specific analysis of the situation of human rights was most recently expressed by Asian governments at the final session of the Commission in March. In its regional statement, Asian governments stressed that in the work of the new Council, “efforts should be made to avoid country specific actions and resolutions” .

Without an effective universal periodic review mechanism with concrete procedures for follow-up at the country level, the Council will be nothing more than an exclusive talk show with little meaning to human rights victims around the world.

FORUM-ASIA reminds all Member States that the Council is intended to be “result-oriented”, in accordance with paragraph 12 of the General Assembly Resolution 60/251.

6) Willingness to engage constructively with the work of the Council

However, despite such common aversions expressed by Asian candidates, FORUM-ASIA welcomes the fact that the majority of candidates have also pledged to engage constructively in the work of the Council.

We look forward positively to the implementation of this pledge, and the constructive role that Asian members will play to ensure that the Council will address situations of human rights violations effectively.