New York – The United Nations General Assemblys election of Human Rights Council members today was marred by lack of competition in three of the five UN regional groups, the NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council said. Although Azerbaijan was defeated in a competitive election, other rights abusers benefited from the lack of choices, said the human rights groups.
In most regions, the number of candidates was equal to the number of open seats, leaving General Assembly members without a choice of candidates. Only 20 countries competed for 18 open seats on the 47-member council.
The groups said that the US decision to run for the council for the first time was a positive step, but that a lack of competition among Western countries sent the wrong message. New Zealand withdrew its candidacy the day the US announced it was running for the council, allowing the US to be elected unopposed.
via UN: Lack of Competition Mars Vote on Human Rights Council | Human Rights Watch.
Read the full article at Human Rights Watch via the link above. It does a good job of explaining the need for competition over the available seats on the UN Human Rights Council. It will provide a basic understanding of how the council is formed.
I would be interested to know what led to New Zealand pulling out. The official statement is that we pulled out so that supporters of both the US and New Zealand would not be conflicted in their vote and because of a stated belief that US membership of the Council will strengthen it, and make it more effective.
Whilst I am glad to see the Obama administration putting its hand up to be part of the group, I can’t help but feel a little cynical about the politics considering New Zealand played an integral part in the establishment of the council and had campaigned for some time for a seat in this round of elections. I’m left wondering what conversations went on behind the scenes for that concession to be made.
Related posts:
