LES PRÉSIDENTS DE L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE ET DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME RENCONTRENT LA PRESSE (en anglais)

Mr. Jan Eliasson, President of the General Assembly: I am very glad to be here in Geneva. I associate Geneva with very tough and difficult negotiations. I did the Iran-Iraq negotiations here in the 80s, I was here for Somalia in the 90s but today was a truly joyful occasion. The word historic was used very often and I think we could go as far as to say that this is indeed historic. I think it is very important that we have taken this first step to a new phase in the work on human rights. I would say that what we tried to do in the negotiations was to enhance the status and standing of human rights even more. It was a good standing before but I think the fact that the three aspects of security, development and human rights were put on the same level was a very important step. There were also other steps taken. The doubling of the resources to the High Commissioner’s work was another example of this. And when the resolution was negotiated it was natural to have high expectations of membership, living up to high standards of human rights, knowing that in cases of serious violations a suspension from the Council could come in play. And, of course, that everyone on the Council has to have its human rights record reviewed. All this to say that we wanted indeed to find this strengthening of the human rights work. But, of course, in the end we are going to be judged by what happens on the ground. I am always saying in the halls of the United Nations that we will be judged for what difference we make for human beings, that we need to bring two realities into the halls of the United Nations. One is the situation of the oppressed, the hungry and those who are in need. The other reality is the aspirations and, in fact, the dreams of the people of the world to make the United Nations meaningful. And I would hope that this is a qualitative step forward. And I am, of course, extremely happy that the President is my friend Alfonso de Alba, who I know from the past as a good diplomat, a good negotiator and committed to the values for which we stand, back to the Universal Declaration and to this resolution which we negotiated. And I am very deeply honoured and happy that the baton is now handed over symbolically to you and that we are in good hands and that you will be the one who will be working on the huge task of translating the words of the resolution and the words of the Universal Declaration to practical steps on the ground. Much is needed. We need to fight for freedoms. We need to fight for the standing of women. Trafficking is going on around the world. We have seen the most horrible ethnic cleansing and mass killing and genocide. We need to be vigilant. We have to enhance this work and by that create a stronger and more relevant work of the United Nations, and to prove that this Organization is the one that we must all nurture. By that we will help multilateralism. There are few matters more needed today than strong multilateralism and that’s why this work of the Human Rights [Council] is so important. With that, Alfonso, I give you the floor.

Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba, President of the Human Rights Council: Thank you very much. Let me start by saying how happy I am to be with you at this moment because I have a great admiration for the work that you have been doing for several years, as a very high official of the UN and as President of the General Assembly, and certainly you will continue that as Minister of Foreign Affairs. But basically, because we have something which is very much in common and that is the passion for multilateralism and the idea that the United Nations can do much better. But it takes the will of a collectivity, it is not the decision of one person. We need to join in making things happen and I am very happy that we are joining efforts, the General Assembly and now this new institution, through working together and taking the baton from you. I think we need to give the Council an opportunity to build itself in order to be different. If we push too much, we can go quite easily to the years of confrontation and accusations. In order to benefit from this second opportunity that history has given us, we need to be aware that this is a transitional period but the aims are high. And we are all working already in a spirit of better dialogue, better understanding, and above all of trying to understand the situation of everybody. There is no perfect country, there is no perfect situation of human rights and we will need to address the situation in every single Member State of the United Nations. But we will also need to adapt the new institution to be more opportune in reacting to massive violations. So we need to work on building an institution and, at the same time, be aware that no gaps will be produced, that serious situations would be dealt with in time. So, my last remark would be about the new element that I also tried to inject into the speech this morning and that is the importance of bringing together different partnerships, not only governments. I referred to, obviously, non-governmental institutions, national institutions, and I would add parliamentarians and the media. I think you will play a fundamental role in putting pressure, in making people understand what we are trying to achieve and helping us to achieve these goals because, in the end, these are the goals that we all share, which are the goals of protecting women and children everywhere in the world. Thank you very much.

Question: I have a question for both chairs. I wonder, the problem of the UN budget. Of course, I refer to the fact that there is a cap in spending until the end of this month. How and to what extent it would affect the functioning of the new Human Rights Council? Would it handicap its ability to realize its full potential?

Mr. Eliasson: I don’t think that it will have an effect. We have, of course, a budget which was adopted in December last year and that is a two-year budget. What we are talking about now is what might happen at the end of this month on this so-called spending cap. But I don’t think we should dramatize this. Work is going on in New York on management issues, on the development and ECOSOC resolution, on terrorism. We have concluded the work on the Human Rights Council as you see today. We have concluded the work on the Peacebuilding Commission. We have concluded other negotiations. So, I think we don’t foresee any major problem. I would hope that we will not have a problem with the budget. If it’s a problem of the budget, it would not only affect the Human Rights Council, it would affect everybody.

Question: You mentioned both of you the question of the victims of violations in human rights and although there are negotiations for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention on Forced Disappearances, they belong to the former Commission. I wonder if the two instruments will be ready for this first session or where do we stand now?

Mr. de Alba: The question that you refer to, as well as other reports coming from the working groups that belong to the CHR, are already in our programme of work for the second week. So we will be able to consider those reports. I personally think that in the case of the reports that you mentioned, on disappearances and the declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, that they are ready to be considered but it would be for the Member States to take that decision. They will certainly be making proposals and having some consultations during this week - all interested delegations - and it would be up to those delegations that are taking part into the process to agree on the way that we will take decisions on those. The Council should consider the reports; that’s already a decision.

Question: It was a very impressive opening, Mr. President, both Presidents, and may I ask, you said in your speech that you will ensure that civil society will be engaged in the new Human Rights Council. Could you elaborate on how will it be engaged in a more effective way than in the previous Commission? And the question of transparency and openness, how will you ensure it?

Mr. de Alba: Well, I think it is a common endeavour for the General Assembly as well as for the Council. The whole United Nations is working to get more involvement of civil society. In the context of the Council, we have the General Assembly resolution which instructs us to maintain at least the practices of the Commission but how we intend to do it, it is quite open. How do we enhance; it is quite open. I think we have started by incorporating the voices of civil society into the inaugural segment. And immediately after the so-called High-Level Segment, we will also have at least five representatives of civil society addressing the Council. But the most important point that we make is that it is not only the time that we allocate or the opportunity to take part in the discussion, but that it would be a new culture of building partnerships with civil society that will make a difference, that we would benefit from their research on the ground and their own proposals to build the new institution. The universal review is a very good example; NGOs are already putting proposals on how we should proceed to have a mechanism as soon as possible.

Mr. Eliasson: Can I add that I find this very important in today’s world, with globalization posing so many challenges, that we need to mobilize all actors on the international scene to achieve results. We need to talk about almost an international division of labour and civil society and NGOs are extremely important, like you are in the media. We had a meeting in New York a couple of weeks ago on HIV/AIDS. We had 800 NGOs in and they were part of this meeting in an absolutely intensive way and I think the end result was a good one. We know that the Charter of the United Nations starts with the first three words of “We the peoples…” But we also know that the nations are represented by governments. But we have to build that bridge and make sure that new dynamics come into the United Nations because, as I said, in the end we are going to be accountable to those who are in great need. So we hope very much for intensive cooperation for the whole UN system between civil society and United Nations organs.

Question: This is a question for both Presidents. I wonder what are your hopes for what can be achieved in this two-week session?

Mr. de Alba: As you know, there is programme of work already. I think it would be very important first to have the beginning of a relationship, which would be fresh and more opportune, with the High Commissioner through a dialogue with Member States. I think the consideration of the working groups’ reports that we mentioned is also important. And we have also opened a space to discuss pressing issues and some of the most pressing issues in the view of each of the members of the Council would be addressed under that heading. The outcome of that discussion will depend very much on the level of agreement that we may reach during the process of discussion or on initiatives that Member States will take on their own. But I think the message that we are not only focusing on procedural issues but we are already addressing part of the legacy of the Commission and, at the same time, realities – actual urgent issues – is quite important. That’s how I would sum up what we expect to achieve during these two weeks. Certainly we will need also to have at least a decision on a couple of working groups that will continue discussing issues or start the discussion on issues like the universal review and other issues on revision of mandates, etc. But I don’t want to go into details. They are all in the programme of work.

Question: How do you see the future relationships with the US, given the fact that the US has voted against the Council, that the US has not sent any high-level representative to this session? Even if it is not a member of this Council, it is an actor that we cannot ignore.

Mr. Eliasson: Well, this was of course one of the most important issues to deal with in the run-up to the resolution where I was facing the choice of waiting for consensus or going for a vote. I understood that the consensus was not achievable but I also was absolutely convinced that we had to take the step of coming to a decision because I feared very much that by starting the negotiations again, we would open a Pandora’s box and we would indeed delay this work. And I feel it is absolutely crucial that this pillar on human rights is established in the UN system. So much was at stake so we went to a vote. I was in close contact with the US Government and was assured only a few days before the meeting that, in fact, the United States would cooperate with the Council, would pay their dues for the Council and would in all likelihood be a candidate next year. This was the message that came and we saw that as a sign that the US was committed to the work on human rights. We hope, of course, that they will be an active observer. The observers have a very good, strong role here in Geneva, one of the many good things that the Commission brought about. And I hope that the United States will, of course, take advantage of that. I have received such signals from the United States. We need the United States with the human rights work. Indeed, we need the United States in the UN generally. But I also claim that the United States needs the United Nations. I have here in front of me my own Universal Declaration of Human Rights and my own copy was sent to me by a lady in Sweden. She was in New York in 1950 and she asked for the autograph of the person who was chairing the meeting and it happened to be “With best wishes, Eleanor Roosevelt”. So I think that the country of Eleanor Roosevelt should be on board for the human rights work and I hope they will be on board fully.

Question: The historic meeting started today and, of course, you are going to be involved in the High-Level Segment. Then next week the topics and debates will start. One country in the world, or one people in the world, is still under occupation – the Palestinian people – and you have a human rights angle to that, not only a political angle. How will you deal with it and what is your message to the Palestinian people? To the President of the General Assembly, you said in your remarks that this Human Rights Council has a strong message to the oppressed of the world. What concretely will make a difference to the oppressed of the world?

Mr. de Alba: I think the basic message we can say is that we will start looking into situations, including the situation in Palestine from the angle of human rights, as well as other issues that will come up in the process of discussion during this week and the beginning of next week. But we will be sending the message also, as I did in my statement, that we need to do it as constructively as possible. And with the new scenario, at least institutionally – because the Council will be able to meet all year round – we will be able to gradually look at it in a less confrontational manner, not necessarily through resolutions every time we discuss an issue. Different options will need to appear and be discussed. So there is a message of importance and concern among the delegations on different topics, not only on the situation in Palestine, but certainly we will have to deal with them in this new context of building the institution on the one hand, benefiting from the new tools that the General Assembly has given to us, and trying to get more results on the ground, not only resolutions that may repeat themselves.

Mr. Eliasson: To your question, I think one of the main achievements with this resolution is that we have taken a very strong stand against selectivity. And the fact that every country will have its human rights record reviewed, the fact that every member of the Human Rights Council will have its own human rights record reviewed, is a very, very important achievement. And this means that we should not only examine each other, as I said this morning, but we should also examine ourselves. And I hope that leads to another qualitative step forward. But I am very much in favour of moving into as concrete areas as possible. Even if you go to the thematic themes – torture, etc. – you have so many concrete examples to give and I think we should get used to giving examples. We always talked in the past about “naming and shaming”. I think we should take the drama out of that. There is the need to show the good practices, the good examples and, of course, the reverse. So I think, when we are facing world public opinion, this concreteness is necessary and I hope, even if it is sometimes difficult, that that will be the case. In this resolution there is more of qualitative language introduced than I can recall in any resolution I have seen in the United Nations. My great staff made some comparative research on this - Anna-Karin and Rachel - and I think it is correct that if you look at the expectations of membership, if you look at the fact that you have to make pledges and commitments, that you can be reviewed, must be reviewed, and that you can be suspended from the Council, and that there is a preventive clause, all is there. So we have a tool. Now we have to make sure that this sharpened tool will be used. And that is a heavy responsibility of the new Council and a huge task, with these expectations. And let us not disregard that the atmosphere in the world is difficult. It’s a difficult atmosphere in which to work so in many ways I don’t envy you, Alfonso. I have been President during the cartoon crisis. That’s only one example, when you think that globalization has gone so far but when you scratch the surface there is much lack of knowledge about each other. So, it is a big task but I think, as you said earlier, there is a mobilization around these goals by the civil society, by you in the media, by the world’s citizens, then I think we can achieve something.

Question (French):Les Etats Unis et plusieurs ONG estiment que le Conseil ne va pas fonctionner mieux que la Commission parce qu’il y a en son sein des pays qui sont assez peu connus pour leur respect des droits de l’homme, sans citer lesquels. Qu’est-ce que vous répondez à cette critique ?

Mr. Eliasson (French) : Il y a un grand nombre de pays qui n’ont pas été candidats au Conseil. Et aussi dans les élections, il y a des pays qui n’ont pas été élus. Et je crois que les pays qui sont au Conseil, savent maintenant qu’ils vont être sujet au « reviewed, they will be subject to review» et ça c’est quelque chose de nouveau. C’est une situation qui est nouvelle. La différence à la fin, dépend de la volonté politique, de la détermination des Etats membres.

Mr. de Alba: I would like to add that the attitude in Geneva has been a very constructive one and I have not had any hint to the contrary. They have repeated their commitment through the public, open sessions that we had and the new ambassador in Geneva has also reiterated that commitment. So I’m counting very much on the support of all Member States, observers to the Council included. I really don’t see a problem for the beginning of the process. Probably that’s an important point for you that even though we are only 47 members of the Council, most of the time in Geneva we will be working with all Member States of the United Nations because that has been quite a demand, that we be inclusive, that we work through open-ended processes. And I think it is quite important if we are building an institution to which observers will later become members, they need to have a say from the start of the process. So, in that sense, members and observers will always have a very important role to play from now on.

Mr. Eliasson: Did you notice, I just felt history in the room. When the Dutch Foreign Minister showed that the North-South divide does not exist in human rights. When you covered the span of history, when you heard that the Babylonian King Hammurabi laid down a legal code around 3750 years ago with provisions for removing biased judges and combating violence against women. And it also stated that the poor, the weak, the widows and orphans must be protected. This was King Hammurabi of Babylonia 3758 years ago. And then you heard in the room the Minister of Chile whose Swiss-Chilean husband had disappeared in Chile, who told the fate of her husband. By that you see that this is an eternal agenda that we have to deal with very actively. So, thank you very much for your attention.