Wednesday, August 9

  Movement in the Human Rights Council

by WFUNA on Wed 09 Aug 2006 11:29 AM EDT

Written by: Teel Lidow

The new Human Rights Council is already finding itself in the thick of things.  After less than two months of existence (the inaugural session of the council was held on the 19^th of June) the HRC is now faced with two major issues: rights of indigenous peoples and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Two days ago, the Council affirmed the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples with only Russia and Canada voting against the resolution.  This marks a major step forward for the indigenous peoples’ rights movement in the United Nations, which has been pressing for such a declaration for the last twenty years.  The resolution, newly bolstered by the support of the Council, will move to the GA for approval later this year.

The Council will also be convening to discuss the current crisis in Lebanon in the coming days.  While it is uncertain whether action will be taken (it seems probable since the Council recently admonished Israel for its actions against Palestinians in Gaza), this movement within the council is proving the effectiveness of the new Human Rights structure: the special session was called under the new guidelines, which require only a third of the member states to endorse a special session request (16 states of the 47 backed a request made by Tunisia on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference).  The difficulty of calling such sessions was one of the criticisms levied against the old Human Rights Commission.

Any action taken by the Council on the issue of Israel should be interesting to watch: while the international community has generally looked down upon the “disproportionate” Israeli use of force in the conflict, any action taken on behalf of the Council will be politically contentious.  This is mainly because the United States, which has already objected to the constitution of the new Council, recently reacted to the Council’s focus on and criticism of Israel by threatening to cut Human Rights related funding to the UN.  Any further action relating to Israel may bolster the movement in the US senate to make good on this threat.  The Council will meet on the issue later this week. 

Written by: Gray Southon, Special Officer for UN Reform, UNA New Zealand

There are common calls for the UN Secretariat to be more efficient, effective, responsive, open and accountable with high quality staff. While these are all desirable goals, it is not often realised that they come at a cost, and can substantially conflict with each other. Let us consider each of these characteristics in turn.
 
Efficiency refers to minimising the cost of specific activities (e.g., running a specific form of conference). One needs to specify the activities and ensure costs are accurately allocated to that activity, and eliminating any costs that do not contribute. Focussing on efficiency reduces flexibility and broad thinking.
 
Effectiveness refers to the impact on broader goals (e.g. increasing the success of dispute resolution) which are complex with diverse inputs. It requires a broader approach and coordination of many different stakeholders which requires spare resources and flexibility of objectives.
 
Responsiveness means that the organisation will respond quickly to changing demands. It requires the capability to assess changes and adapt to them, which requires broad thinking and flexibility. This also requires spare resources.
 
Openness means that people outside can know what is going on, and have an impact on decisionmaking. The provision of information that is generally understandable is expensive, and managing the subsequent response may be intrusive and disruptive. Especially in a highly political environment, stakeholders may have objectives which are not consistent with achieving effectiveness or efficiency. Openness can lead staff to be risk averse, avoiding politically sensitive issues, and confine themselves to easily defended actions.
 
Accountability refers to more formal reporting on activities and achievements normally based on pre-defined parameters, often on the basis of prescribed performance indicators. If the operation is at all complex, such accountability inevitably overlooks a substantial part of essential activities. A strong emphasis on such accountability encourages the organisation to distort priorities away from those activities not specifically addressed. Some forms of accountability carry with them penalties for substandard performance, such as budget cuts or staff changes, and can provide an incentive to bias the information provided.
 
Quality Staffing requires sensitivity to staff needs, not just in their employment conditions, but in the attractiveness of the working environment, such as the clarity of the tasks they are given, the level of support that they have in achieving their goals,  potential for taking initiative and the recognition they are given for their work. It needs to be the type of organisation that quality staff will want to work in. Unwarranted attacks, intrusive scrutiny, unreasonable constraints, unproductive paperwork, uncertain goals and inadequate support all increase staff frustration. Because of the very special characteristics of many UN activities, many skills can only be developed through long term experience, requiring considerable stability and support for long term careers.
 
All of these characteristics are important, and in an effective organisation are well balanced. However, external forces can disrupt this balance and degrade the organisation. It is important, therefore, in putting demands on an organisation, that one is aware of the potential impact. It was therefore of concern when the US placed the threat of a budget termination over the Secretariat, apparently ignoring the destructive effects of this uncertainty. Similarly, the G77 insistence on continued close scrutiny of the Secretariat by the GA, with no recognition of the destructiveness of such “micromanagement”, demonstrates a greater concern for their exercise of power than for the health of the organisation. Also, the highly politically motivated scrutiny which the SG and the secretariat were submitted to over the Iraq food for oil program is destructive of morale and integrity of the organisation.
 
Given such destructive forces on the Secretariat, one wonders what sort of person would offer themselves for the SG position. Would it be a person ignorant of the realities of this position, a person so enamoured with the attendant glory that they overlook such pressure, a person with an ulterior motive which justifies the pressure, or a person with the arrogance to ignore it. Further, the level that the current SG has raised expectations will make them difficult to fulfil. One hopes that a person with the required sensitivity and the wisdom is sufficiently forbearing to submit themselves to this ‘impossible task’. 

Gray Southon is an organisational analyst specialising in the health industry. He is Special Officer for UN Reform for UNA New Zealand.