Obligations of the Human Rights Council
With the inauguration of this council, which will be celebrated during a ceremony to be attended by about 100 countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, a number of questions arise.
The reasons for making such a change, evaluating the report card of the Human Rights Commission, the causes for its failure, and world public opinion’s pessimistic attitude toward its reports and objectives, particularly in Third World countries, the juridical structure of the new council, its fortes and weaknesses, the obligations of the new council with regard to the previous experiences, and finally, the strategic and operational policies of the Islamic Republic in dealing with this newly established international organization are among the most significant questions that should be studied, not only by the general public but also by high-ranking officials, in order to find the best way to safeguard Iran’s national interests. Although finding answers to the aforesaid questions requires sufficient time and information, it is a national necessity. Therefore, at this juncture, it seems we should draw attention to some points:
(1) The human rights issue is one of the most attractive subjects that can be used to bring about the convergence of nations and reduce the problems of the modern world. Identifying the common points of human rights and binding all to respect and observe beliefs and values are ways to reach mutual understanding among all cultures, religions, and schools of thought. Reaching consensus on minor issues paves the way toward world peace and international security, and this is the philosophy behind the formation of human rights ideologies and organizations. But, have the abovementioned organizations, particularly the Human Rights Commission, been loyal to the philosophy of their establishment and have they approached the objectives behind their formation?
In fact, this commission has had some success in identifying minor issues. The world warmly welcomed the establishment of the commission and the fact that almost every country in the world has signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other similar treaties is proof of this relative success.
Undoubtedly, none of these endeavors have been flawless, and so these successes are considered relative successes.
However, it seems that these agreements can also serve as a basis for efforts to improve global security and safeguard the world from all the threats to humanity. With regard to these analyses, despite all the deficiencies, Iran has also joined at least ten of these treaties.
(2) Despite these “relative” successes in compiling criteria for human rights, international organizations have unfortunately not been successful in reducing the suffering of humanity and establishing the expected peace and justice in the world’s various societies.
Moreover, oppressed nations, whose inalienable rights have been violated, have become frustrated and have no hope in these organizations, and this is the most troubling reality that has given rise to identity crises among such organizations. In fact, how many people in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other crisis-stricken countries have pinned their hopes on these organizations to solve their problems? It seems that it is not too difficult to answer this question. However, it is quite difficult to answer the question of why such things have occurred in the modern world? Why do oppressed nations have no faith in these international organizations and regard them as tools to cover up the crimes committed against them?
The Working Group that was formed by the United Nations Secretary General to compile a report and evaluate the performance of the Human Rights Commission should have designated a significant section of its report to determining the reason for this situation. Otherwise, improving the juridical structure of the organization is not sufficient to correct the problem of the inefficiency of the commission.
(3) There were many reasons for the inefficiency of the Human Rights Commission and the global frustration with the organization. However, undoubtedly, the major powers abuse and domination of the commission is the most significant reason.
Double-standard attitudes toward how to implement and evaluate human rights criteria in different countries is the greatest injustice committed against these human rights organizations.
The authoritarian major powers are manipulating these concepts in order to justify their cruel behavior and have made progressive governments and nations quite indifferent toward these bodies, which could have been the sources and guarantors of world peace and security. Although this great oppression has become more apparent in recent years, it has a very long history.
(4) Despite all this, one should not neglect the potential of the dissolved Human Rights Commission and its affiliate organizations. All these abuses and manipulations have actually been committed to take advantage of this potential. Why should they be allowed to misinterpret these universally accepted regulations of the international community and use them as tools to realize their interests and dominate others?
Abandoning international values and withdrawing from organizations on the excuse that other countries have been illegally exploiting them is the same as submitting to the rivals, and it is exactly the reaction they want to produce.
It is outrageous that those who are the greatest violators of human rights accuse a country of violating human rights which, according to its religious guidelines, has the highest regard for human beings and whose government recognizes “the excellent values and dignity of human beings” (Article 2 of the Iranian Constitution) as one of its main pillars. When we have accepted all international conventions, despite their deficiencies, and are committed to them, why should we be deprived of their privileges?
(5) This UN restructuring in order to improve its performance, i.e. the replacement of the Human Rights Commission with the Human Rights Council, which is now one of the main pillars of the United Nations, requires the special attention of our policy-makers.
Of course, one can not easily uproot acquisitiveness from such organizations. However, by drafting and implementing a number of policies and programs, particularly if conducted through regional cooperation and collective activities of member states of groups such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), we can approach our ultimate target.
We should make use of this opportunity and not allow the newly established Human Rights Council to be turned into a new threat.
We should try to get Iran out of the defendant’s dock and assume the role of a judge or at least a prosecutor.
Pessimism and the continuation of the former policies prevented Iran from joining the council from among 18 Asian countries nominated for membership.
However, thirteen of the UN Human Rights Council’s 47 seats have been allocated to Asian countries, which are determined according to geographical regions.
When countries like China, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Bahrain can be among the selected member countries of the Human Rights Council, the Islamic Republic of Iran should not be categorized alongside Iraq and Kyrgyzstan, whose membership was rejected.
Therefore, from now on, we should regard the Human Rights Council as one of the pillars of the United Nations and pay due attention to it.