What will be different after this Human Rights Council? Does any of it matter? Isn’t it just diplomats fighting over words?
These are questions I sometimes get asked.
I can understand the despair at the sight of capable female Russian diplomats gutting a resolution upholding women’s reproductive rights, something we saw at this last session.
I understand the frustration when the Council passes its 21st resolution on human rights in Syria, as we have just done, and yet an end to the suffering seems as far away as ever.
And I understand the weariness of those who say human rights will never trump geopolitics or important bilateral relationships.
Like all countries, the United Kingdom has its own failings. Our parliament and government, our courts and civil society, struggle every day to get the balance right. Between upholding our freedoms and securing our safety from threats that exploit those freedoms. Between respecting the rights of our citizens and staying open to those in need. We are guided by democracy and the law, but our decisions are not infallible and we make mistakes.
Abroad, we operate in a world of states. The effectiveness of international law and international courts depends on the will of those states. And ultimately, the rights of citizens can only be improved with the support of their states. The UN can of course put pressure on states that violate human rights: item 4 resolutions in the Human Rights Council, UN Security Council sanctions, even Chapter VII authorisations to use all necessary measures including military force. But at the end of the day, after the intervention is over, it is still up to the state to improve human rights. One of the many lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are no quick fixes.
But something a British Prime Minister once said which I agree with, is that just because you can’t do everything does not mean you shouldn’t do anything. So at the start of every session of the Council, I ask myself: which of these many resolutions and debates will make the most difference to people around the world? And on which of them can the UK make the most difference?
And at the end of every session, I look back and take stock of the positive side of the ledger. Reflecting on the one that finished just last Friday, several things stood out for me.
The first was the appointment of Vitit Muntabhorn as the United Nations first ever independent expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Millions of people around the world can and will take heart from this recognition, by the world’s most legitimate organisation, that their rights and concerns are no longer considered marginal.
The second was the passage of the resolution on combating contemporary forms of slavery. When our Prime Minister, Theresa May, was Home Secretary she successfully championed domestic legislation to clamp down on slavery and people trafficking in the UK and to the UK. It was the subject of one of her first announcements when she became Prime Minister, and she held a meeting in the margins of the UN General Assembly to mobilise further international action. The renewal of Urmila Boohla’s mandate as the UN’s Special Rapporteur for combating slavery means we can take that momentum forward in practical ways.
The third was the resolution on Yemen. The mandate to send more international human rights experts to the OHCHR mission in Yemen, to establish the facts and the circumstances behind the human rights violations and abuses there, is not as far reaching as many would like. And in the absence of peace and a political solution, no amount of human rights experts can end the abuse and violations.
Some say the UK’s strong bilateral relations in the region blocked more robust action. Unsurprisingly, I see it a little differently. Our strong relationships in the Gulf played an important role in getting their agreement to this resolution. Without their agreement, we could have had a stronger resolution on paper. But in the real world, it would have been weaker. Without the cooperation of Yemen and its international coalition, the OHCHR would not be able to enter the country and carry out its activities, and its recommendations would be ignored. This is where we are with Syria, where the best we can do is keep up the condemnation and the prospect of accountability, one day. This resolution keeps alive the hope that we can do better in Yemen.
Lastly, I’m particularly proud of the cross-regional statement on the Race to the Top. This was a joint initiative by the UK and Colombia. While the Council’s role in shining the spotlight on the worst human rights abuses remains vital, we can do more to highlight the many examples of progress that countries make in improving their human rights. By finding ways to give these more profile in the Human Rights Council, we hope to be able to single out countries for what has gone right, not just what has gone wrong.
This list doesn’t do justice to the remarkable efforts of the UK’s human rights team in Geneva. Thanks to them, the resolutions on Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, CAR, the DRC, Counter-Terrorism and many more are materially more robust, more ambitious, more in keeping with the UN Charter. The team represents a combination of pragmatism, experience and idealism that does great credit to the UK.
We live in an imperfect world and the United Nations is an imperfect organisation. But thanks to the dedication and commitment of thousands of people in the UN, its member states, and civil society, the United Nations is helping to improve human rights in every corner of the world, every day.