Quotes of the Day

"Having Cuba serve again on the Human Rights Commission is like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security." That was White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's reaction to Cuba's recent reelection to the world's foremost human rights forum. The vote — by the U.N. Economic and Social Council — came just weeks after the Castro government rounded up nearly 80 political dissidents, independent journalists and others, and also executed three men who tried to hijack a ferry to the U.S.

Critics of Cuba, says José Antonio Fernández, of the country's U.N. delegation in Geneva, will have "to endure our discourse for three more years." Cuba has been a member of the Geneva-based commission since 1989. As a major player among nonaligned countries, it has essentially been guaranteed a regional-representative seat by its Latin American neighbors. Criticism has increased, however, given the spotlight generated by the latest crackdown on dissent — Cuba's worst in years.

Along with the U.S., Human Rights Watch and others, critics also now include some longtime Friends of Fidel. Italy and Canada sent protest messages, Sweden warned of potential harm to Havana's relations with the European Union and a host of prominent left-wing writers once close to Castro expressed dismay and disappointment. The Portuguese Nobel laureate José Sarmago said Cuba had "cheated my dreams," while Carlos Fuentes wrote to a Mexico City newspaper: "As a Mexican, I wish for my country neither the dictates of Washington on foreign policy nor the Cuban example of a suffocating dictatorship."

"What happened in the last month and a half is really very dramatic," says one European observer. "That the ex-dictatorships of Latin America would give Cuba a free ride for another three years is very disappointing." (Similarly, Russia remains on the rights commission thanks to a "free ticket" from the East European regional group.) "When they have an opportunity to act in a principled way and not let these countries on the commission, they don't take it."

Despite the passion that Cuba arouses in Washington — and its current status as a lightning rod on rights — it is not alone in provoking observers within governments and NGOs to feel it should be under the scrutiny of the Commission on Human Rights, rather than sitting on the panel. Along with Russia — which has come in for severe criticism over Chechnya — the other 22 countries elected to the 53-nation body for 2004 include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They take their places alongside China, Sudan, Zimbabwe and others singled out by Human Rights Watch as members of an "abusers club" — governments hostile to human rights that have consolidated their positions and blocked key initiatives.

Among the greatest disappointments for commission-watchers: failure of resolutions on the human-rights situations in Chechnya, Sudan and Zimbabwe; discontinuation of resolutions regarding countries of the former Yugoslavia; lack of resolutions on China, Iran and Nepal; and weak resolutions on Iraq. "The commission appears to be in really serious decline," says Joanna Weschler, H.R.W.'s representative at the U.N. "Governments this year were even less outspoken in criticizing the worst human rights violators worldwide."

Cuba — like Egypt, Zimbabwe and others — also has drawn fire for refusing to accept visits by U.N. human rights monitors. "The human-rights commission conducts much of its work through independent experts," notes Ian Seiderman, a legal adviser with the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, which protects and promotes human rights through the rule of international law. "At the very least, the criterion for membership should be cooperation with these experts." They include working groups on disappearances and arbitrary detention, torture and execution, as well as special rapporteurs for a range of countries.

"It is not good to have commission members who are not cooperating with the organs of the commission itself," says Seiderman. "That's something that can be objectively measured. And that's definitely a reform that we and several other organizations would like to see." Of the U.N.'s 191 member nations, only 47 — including, recently, Croatia and Sierra Leone and five other countries — have issued standing invitations to human-rights monitors.

Human Rights Watch is among those wishing to establish "clear criteria" for membership of the commission: ratification of core human-rights treaties, compliance with reporting obligations, issuance of open invitations to U.N. experts and no recent condemnation by the commission for violations. "The commission is trapped," says Weschler, "between governments intent on undermining it and those that lack the political will to take them on." Many, she adds, are "more concerned with protecting each other than protecting the victims of human-rights abuse."

One aspect of the problem is regional bloc-voting by developing countries on resolutions critical of specific countries. Most African and Asian nations (and Cuba) assert that fingerpointing — naming and shaming — is counterproductive. The primary focus of human-rights work, they argue, should be on economic development and social justice, rather than more abstract concepts. "I feel they say that because they don't want to be named and shamed," says Weschler. "If it didn't matter, they wouldn't care and wouldn't try to undermine the process."

The Africans voted against a resolution on Zimbabwe and, with the exception of smaller neighbor Uganda, against a resolution on Sudan. "Naming and shaming is one of the very few things that work," contends Weschler. "No government in the world likes to be called a violator. Just the threat of identifying them as such can sometimes change policies." Seiderman agrees. "Preparing a neutral, depoliticized report is one of the most useful functions that the U.N. can fulfill," he says.

While supporting country resolutions, Amnesty International, however, takes a different tack regarding the commission itself. "Amnesty takes a carrot rather than a stick approach," according to Melinda Ching, the organization's representative in Geneva. "We do not, like some other NGOs, call for criteria or benchmarks for membership." With only a relative handful of countries capable of "cutting the mustard" if the commission were to become only a "good-guys club," says Ching, "what is absolutely critical is that those countries that join or aspire to join should adhere to human rights at home." As a sign of goodwill and confidence in the commission's work, she adds, they should "adhere to the rules" — ratifying international covenants and allowing individuals to make complaints, particularly at the national level.

In not singling out commission members for personal criticism, Amnesty also does not specify who might belong to a "good-guys club." The commission, Amnesty says, carries a responsibility to show leadership — both nationally and internationally — and "must take a proactive approach in order to realize a wider agenda for human rights." Human Rights Watch, on the other hand, cites "among the few to hold a firm and principled line" on many key issues such countries as Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. The E.U. is often divided. Noticeably absent is the United States, which came under fire on several fronts, including the use of the death penalty, particularly in the cases of juveniles and mentally ill people. "The U.S.," says Seiderman, "now stands almost alone in defending the use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders."

While highly critical of Cuba, Libya and other nations, observers say, the U.S. has been isolating itself even from its friends and, in Seiderman's words, "throwing its muscle around everywhere." He adds: "This hyper-unilateralism is affecting other parts of the U.N. system. A lot of diplomats in Geneva are very upset by the U.S. I get the sense that there is a lot of irritation among its allies, that the U.S. seems not to know when to fight for something on principle and when to play the game of diplomacy and compromise. No country is 100% satisfied with any resolution, but it's a process of give and take. And it has gotten quite a bit worse in the current administration."

Iraq is a case in point. NGO representatives were greatly disappointed that at the recently concluded session of the Commission on Human Rights no extra time was set aside for debate on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and that the previous mandate of the special rapporteur for the country was not extended to include the current situation. "Human rights abuses in Iraq started before this war," says one NGO observer, "but it's unconscionable and unthinkable" that the inquiry be limited to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Chile's representative in Geneva, Juan Enrique Vega, abstained on the resolution — rather than vote no as instructed by his government — and was promptly recalled to Santiago. Vega's stand came just weeks before the U.S. signed a free-trade agreement with Singapore, a supporter of the war in Iraq. Chile had been expected to sign a trade agreement first, but the U.S. has let it be known that it is not pleased with Santiago's failure to fall into line on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council.

While such politicking — inside and outside the commission — is nothing new, Sergio Vieira De Mello, the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights, chastised the panel at the close its session for, at times, "losing sight of the noble goal of protecting human rights in the very body whose duty it is to promote them." Asserting that the commission's problems are not structural but a matter of will, the Brazilian diplomat told the delegates: "When a charge of partiality — of failure to recognize the indivisibility of human rights — destroys a resolution on an important question, this is not to be celebrated. It is a disaster. It is a failure to take up the burden. At worst, it may even be a betrayal of the hopes of people who desperately need you."

There are indeed strange bedfellows in the commission's chambers, where political point-scoring is nonetheless rife, but divergent interests do coincide. At the just-concluded session, Muslim-bloc nations — via procedural filibustering and helpful rulings by commission chairwoman Najat Al-Hajjaji of Libya — took the lead in running out the clock on a Brazilian resolution reaffirming the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Abstentions by Ireland and four Latin American countries (attributed to lobbying by the Holy See) and by the U.S. (pressured by its Christian right) helped Islamic nations to defer a vote for a year.

Between the Muslim and Christian groups, says an NGO representative, "the goal was definitely shared. Both were unhappy with the resolution. They were saying privately, weeks in advance, that this would be a big showdown for them, that they would not tolerate it." The dispute on cultural and religious values — in which a one-page resolution reaffirming that people are entitled to rights and dignity regardless of their sexual orientation — was tactically buried under an avalanche of amendments from several countries, points up the difficulties the rights commission faces.

The delay, says one disappointed observer, "does give civil society another year to focus on the spurious arguments and to defeat them." While it is too early to speculate about what may transpire in early 2004, the battle lines clearly will be drawn again.

• MARYANN BIRD
• Cuba's re-election to UN panel after crackdown raises concern