B RIE F POL I CY
The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 review Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner
In the last year, some deep-seated European illusions about S Over the last year, the EU has struggled to the United Nations human rights system have been badly
U make an impact on human rights at the UN, shaken. During the Bush era, debates at the UN may have despite working more closely with the Obama been increasingly cantankerous, but it was easy to blame this administration than it was able to do with the on America’s confrontational attitude.1 The European Union MMAR previous administration. As a result, it is now clear that deepening divisions over human and other liberal advocates of multilateralism (notably Latin rights at the UN were not just a by-product American democracies) faced a two-front battle, opposing US of Bushism. The EU’s ‘voting coincidence initiatives to undercut the UN on the one hand and the efforts score’ – reflecting the level of support from of powers such as China and Russia to set limits to human other countries for its positions on human rights on the other hand. The Obama administration, with rights in the General Assembly – has fallen from 52% last year to 42% this year. There its strategy of engagement, seemed to offer a way out of the have also been splits within the EU on votes in impasse. However, this has not become a reality. the Human Rights Council on Israeli actions in the Middle East, which has weakened the In our last annual analysis of voting on human rights, we EU’s reputation for coherence on fundamental noted that the new administration had lowered tensions Y values at the UN. over human rights in its first months in office, not least by This update – the second annual update to ending the Bush administration’s boycott of the UN Human ECFR’s 2008 report on the EU and human Rights Council (HRC).2 But there was not yet a dramatic rights at the UN – underlines important long- transformation at the UN. In the 12 months since then, a term trends. The Obama administration’s few countries have moved toward US and EU positions. Yet policy of engagement at the UN has only persuaded a few countries to shift their this has been offset by a group of states that are swinging the stances on human rights and big non-Western other way – including African states and former EU allies democracies – especially Brazil – continue to such as Brazil. drift away from the EU’s positions. Attempts to reverse this trend through technical reforms As a result, it is now clear that the deepening divisions over in the UN’s human rights system will likely fail. A European drive for broader UN reforms human rights at the UN were not just a by-product of Bushism. such as expanding the Security Council would be a gamble but could persuade rising powers to rethink their positions on human rights. 1 Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit of European Power at the UN (ECFR, 2008). 2 Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, The EU and Human Rights at the UN: 2009 Review (ECFR, 2009). 2 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW • • • Although the Obama administration declared that it would it that declared administration Obama the Although The post-Bush effect 3 EU-US relations at the UN remain surprisingly testy at a at testy surprisingly remain UN the at relations EU-US Egypt – were viewed as naïve by battle-hardenedbyEuropean naïve as viewedwere – Egypt In fact, the new administration’s engagement has underlined Thesecrises raise questions about the role ofthe EUand the Iranandstability inSudan are–crowding outhuman rights US in debates on human rights at the UN. For western powers, atthe EU’s expense inmultilateral talks. USofficials dismiss develop a shared agenda and persuade rising powers to work SecurityRussia’snewCouncilgainedandsupportChinafor diplomats. The Europeans still grumble that the US is often is USdiplomats. EuropeansthegrumblethatstillThe calendar. engage in UN human rights diplomacy from January 2009, January from diplomacy rights human UN in engage with them on human rights? reckoning at the UN. The question was, could the EU and US new American team’s efforts at engagement – such as co- as such – engagement at efforts team’s American new robust approach at the UN, particularly on Iran, where it has ready to concede too much to Asian and AfricanAsianandconcedenegotiatorstomuchready totoo rather than reduced some rifts. In particular, three crises crises three particular, In rifts. some reduced than rather tactical level. They have improved since 2009, when the the when 2009, since improved have They level. tactical sanctions. The last year has thus marked a delayed post-Bush more a engagementconditionswithoutto strategyofinitial sponsoringresolutiona theonstereotyping religionsof with its new approach has started to make an impact only in the in onlyimpact an make startedto approachhasnew its have shown the limits of UN human rights diplomacy: issues to an ever greater degree. on sanctions as such – considerations security immediate last12 months, partly because of the UN General Assembly’s Iran: Sudan: Gaza: EU and the US have shifted toward pragmatic support for supportpragmatic toward shifted have US the and EU Israel-Palestinedispute has long poisoned diplomacy at the UN. Now it is harming the EU’s image as a cohesive force for Court’s indictment of Sudan’s president for genocide, the the genocide, for president Sudan’s of indictment Court’s commandos killed members of a humanitarian flotilla flotilla humanitarian a of members killed commandos the overdispute over Darfur at the UN by backing the International Criminal to shame Tehran over its repression of the Green Revolution, to condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza, culminating in the the in culminating Gaza, in actions Israel’s condemn to theregime in alast-ditch attempt to avert looming violence in South Sudan. human rights. resolutions until late 2009. quarter of each year – so the Obama administration could notThe set majority a new courseof votes on onthese human rights in the General Assembly take place in the last by only 56 of the 192 member states. but a June declaration condemning Iran’s record was signed bound for Gaza in disputed circumstances in May 2010. The The US, backed by the EU, has tried through the HRC European governments have split over whether whether over split have governments European Havingpressureput Sudanesetheon government 3 The administration has also shifted from its its from shifted also has administration The Mavi MarmaraMavi incident, in which Israeliwhich incident,in 2009-10 session of the General Assembly, 15 human rights human 15 Assembly, General the of session 2009-10 5 4 However, this greater agreement between the EU and the US despite these disputes, the EU and the US have hung together on humanon rights thetheatonUNstrategic level. During the resolutions came to a vote. The US and a united EU voted voted EU united a and US The vote. a to came resolutions the same way in two-thirds of these. There has been a similar Nevertheless, pettiness. World Old than more little as this in 2009. has had only a limited effect on other countries’ behaviour. countries’ other on effect limited a only had has level of agreement in the HRC since the US took up its seat its up took US thesince HRC the agreementin of level Jorge Marirrodriga,“Brasil esunpaísserioyestecaminosin retorno”, 20 May2010. of European Power at the UN See Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, that the G20 lacks, and so remains Brazil’s priority. País told he as – Council Security the on seat a deserves country his that view Lula’s share to likely is president Brazilian any But again. positions EU to closer move more a might Brazil by that possible is it president candidate, conservative as replaced is Lula If General. Luiz InácioPresident Lula Da outgoing Silva wants that to become UNrumoured Secretary- is it and Africa, in especiallycountries,developingmany ininvestment its Brazil’sdiplomacy notsolelyis altruistic. increasingisIt on human rights matters at the UN. liaise todocumentsstrategic joint commitmentin their growingThe divide betweensanctions. the EU andof Brazil comestypes despite any than effective more far is argue, they engagement, dictatorship: from experience emerging own their of terms in position this HRC officials frame Brazilian summer’s repression. this Iranian sign on not declaration did Brazil Chile, and (forfirst thetime,2009)in Myanmar. the UnlikeArgentina on and Korea abstained North Iran, on also resolutions country-specific but HRC, the and Assembly developing countries with ongeneric developments sided issues intheGeneral only not It time. the of third a UN. Last year, it voted with the EU on human rights only humanevidentalsorightsitsdiplomacyisthatin the at Brazil’s actions on Iran were consistent with a worldview in May 2010. Irannuclearwithdeal aforge efforts capitalstoits with case of Brazil, which surprised Washington and European rights. economic and social as such issues on EU the against countries developing with sided still they UN”, the of thatwhilethese countries sawthemselves “upholdersas democracies such as Brazil and Chile. But we highlighted saidthat Europe’s closest allies included Latin American we UN, the at power EU’s the on reportoriginal our In Brazil: an absent friend at the UN? this year, the Council has decision-making power power decision-making has Council the year, this 4 This division has expanded significantly in the the in significantly expanded has division This (ECFR, 2008), p.27. A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit 5 El País
El El , Voting coincidence with China, the EU, Russia and the US on human rights votes in the General Assembly, 1997–2010 (in cases of EU consensus)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 52 (1997-1998) 54 (1999-2000) 55 (2000-2001) 56 (2001-2002) 57 (2002-2003) 58 (2003-2004) 59 (2004-2005) 60 (2005-2006) 61 (2006-2007) 62 (2007-2008) 63 (2008-2009) 64 (2009-2010) 53 (1998-1999)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION
EU US CHINA RUSSIA
In fact, the last year has arguably highlighted differences The Obama administration has dropped some of its between the “West and the Rest” in the UN – and, ironically, predecessor’s ideological votes. However, the EU and the this is because the Obama administration has cut through a US still clash with non-western countries on generic issues lot of Bush-era policies. ranging from high principle (religious freedom) to the UN’s internal politics (“equitable geographical distribution in the Before 2009, the US habitually opposed a series of generic membership of the human rights treaty bodies”).7 It also human rights resolutions (for example, on issues such as continues to fight over resolutions on four cases: Iran, Israel/ the rights of the child and the right to food) that virtually all Palestine, Myanmar and North Korea. The US shift may have other governments supported. The supposed goal of such ended some disagreements, but it has narrowed the focus on opposition was to stem the tide of global governance. The EU others. picked up easy wins by voting against the US on these issues. In 2008, we noted that the EU enjoyed a “voting coincidence In statistical terms, this shift stripped away the EU’s score” (indicating the amount of support received from other artificially-inflated level of support. In 2009-2010, its voting states on human rights issues in the General Assembly) of coincidence score fell to 42 percent in the General Assembly. 55 percent. But this was inflated by the EU’s opposition to The US score was close to the EU’s at 40%.7 China and Russia quixotic US positions: “exclude these essentially symbolic meanwhile both scored 69%. votes . . . and the EU’s support level on human rights is as low as 40 percent.”6 However, these figures cannot capture the complex diplomacy on individual votes. An annual resolution raising concerns about Myanmar’s human rights situation – passed
6 See Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit of European Power at the UN (ECFR, 2008), p. 21. 7 See UN document A/Res/64/173. 3 4 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, (16 non-EU European states usually voting with the EU): Wider Europe tank, majorities are typically opposed to EU positions. as“free” or“partly free” byFreedom House, the USthink- time.lessthanhalftheEvenamongcountriesEU defined with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries) vote with the the Cotonou Agreement of (the EU’s trade of “axis and aidsignatories framework of the quarters three of than More members sovereignty”. or voters” “swing are Union Mediterranean the of members non-EU the of half than More EU. the for bad look still figures the Nonetheless, less than 25% of the time. EU the withcountriesvotingSovereignty” as of “Axis the defined have we – opponents EU’s the among categories complicatedstatistical factors involved – and to the clarify the of Because ago. years two 16 just to the compared time, of third a than less EU the with voted countries 92 2009-10, In text). main the in (described positions era Bush- unpopular some drop to decisionadministration’s Obama the by shaken been have numbers the year, This away from the liberal bloc towards the Axis of Sovereignty. In last year’s update we reported that countries were drifting EU less than 35% of the time. and (iv) the “Axis of Sovereignty”, countries voting with the Voters”,countries voting with35-50%theEUthetime; of voting with the EU more than 50% of the time; (iii) “Swing countries non-European Internationalists”, “Liberal (ii) Union; the with voting typically neighbours EU’s the of non-EUdivided states we into UN, three groups: the (i) on “Wider Europe”,report a 2008 bloc original ECFR’s In Voting Patterns States of America. United Timor-Leste, Seychelles, Korea, South Principe, and Tome Sao Samoa,Peru, Palau,Zealand, New Nauru, Micronesia, Mexico, Islands, Marshall Kiribati, Japan, Israel, Gambia, Fiji, Chile, Canada, Australia, Argentina, (22 non-European countries voting with the EU 51%-75%):Liberal internationalists
Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia. Emirates, and Arab United Uganda, Trinidad Turkmenistan, Tobago, Thailand, Swaziland, Suriname, Africa, South Somalia, Singapore, Grenadines, the and Vincent Saint Nevis, and Kitts Saint Qatar,Philippines, Pakistan, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Guyana, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Eritrea, Lesotho, Kuwait, Kenya, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Iraq, Grenada, Ecuador, Gabon, Republic, Ethiopia, Dominican Dominica, Djibouti, Congo, of Republic Democratic d’Ivoire, Côte Colombia,Congo,Republic,AfricanCentralChad,Verde, Barbados, Bahrain, Benin,Bhutan, Bahamas, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Angola, Afghanistan, EU less than 35% of the time): Trending towards the Axis of Sovereignty (voting with the Tanzania, Uruguay, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Malawi, Maldives, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Burundi, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, EU 36-50% of the time): Trending the Liberal Internationalists (voting with the (93 countries voting with the EU 26-50% of the time): Swing voters Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. Sudan, Lanka, Sri Senegal, Russia, Oman, Iran, Korea, North Indonesia, India, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Malaysia, Libya, Laos, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea, Guinea, Equatorial Egypt, Congo, of Republic Democratic Cuba, Comoros, China, Bolivia, Belarus, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Algeria, (34 countries voting with the EU less than 25% of the time): Axis of Sovereignty
EU performance in votes on resolutions adopted by the HRC (2006–2010)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
EU WIN EU DEFEAT EU ABSTAIN EU SPLIT
with 80 votes in favour in 2008 – won 15 extra supporters. Conversely, the EU has successfully tabled consensus But it lost nine others, including Brazil and Norway. Similar resolutions on human rights in Myanmar and North Korea fluctuations were repeated across a wide range of votes. this year, in addition to some generic resolutions. But, as the Continuing recent trends, African states moved further away EU’s own annual report Human Rights and Democracy in the from Western positions. World admitted in 2009, the EU is defensive about whether the HRC should track individual countries’ human rights The overall message from the General Assembly is clear. The situations at all.8 Obama administration’s re-engagement in UN human rights diplomacy has persuaded some non-Western countries to European officials continue to be publicly optimistic about the rethink their positions. But, in general, the drift away from Universal Periodic Review (UPR) – a mechanism by which the West continues, and core disagreements will continue to all countries’ human rights records are regularly reviewed by split the UN membership in the years ahead. There are also other governments at the HRC – although others complain divisions within the EU over how to limit the damage of these that its impact is limited. splits. Some governments favour launching more resolutions on social and economic rights to mollify developing countries, The US has made a point of preparing for its first appearance but the Czech Republic in particular opposes any suggestion before the UPR in 2010 with care, organizing internal that Europe should dilute its commitment to political and consultations in symbolic spots such as New Orleans and individual rights. Birmingham, Alabama. But the UPR’s impact on countries with poor human rights records is still unclear. While The situation has been even tougher for the EU and the US the Democratic Republic of Congo accepted a series of in the 47-member HRC, where opponents of liberal positions suggestions on improving its human rights – many of them are in the majority – and non-European democracies split from EU members – in 2009, UN experts report little with the EU even more frequently than in the General progress on them a year later.9 Assembly. In the final session of the HRC in 2009, the EU did not support a single one of the resolutions that were In both the General Assembly and HRC, therefore, the EU ultimately passed on a contested vote. Although there have and US have yet to engineer a deep change in the politics been few votes so far this year (see chart), the EU has split on a number of prominent resolutions concerning the Middle East, which will be described in the next section. 8 See Human Rights and Democracy in the World – a Report on EU action between July 2008 and December 2009, p. 110, available at www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cmsUpload/A4_HR_200pp_EN_def.pdf. 9 The author is indebted to Alice Richard of ECFR for this point. 5 6 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW European divisions on the Middle East 10 2010showed thatthehumanUN rights system stillis thrust The first was the over the Goldstone Report on Israel’s Israel’s on Report Goldstone the over the was first The Thecentrality theIsrael-Palestineof conflict humantorights UN, Middle Eastern crises leave it split. However,thelasttwoyears have seriesseen a incidentsof in Palestinian issues that come round at the GeneralAssemblythePalestinian atround come issuesthat Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9. The 2008-9. of winter the in Gaza in Lead Cast Operation and Poland) boycotted the UN’s “Durban II” conference onconference II” “Durban UN’s theboycotted Poland) and every year. These votes – which pitch the US and Israel against diplomacy at the UN is so well-known that many analysts treat centre-stage in at least one region: the Middle East. And, And, East. Middle the region: one least at in centre-stage of human rights. Does this matter? Many analyses suggest suggest analyses Many matter? this Does rights. human of racism in Geneva in protest over the anti-Israeli implications of nearly all other states, including the EU – have a ritualistic air. whilethe EU usually maintains unity on human rights at the the outcome document. This year, there have been bigger splits. the Middle East disrupt UN diplomacy even more severely than that countries’ positions on human rights resolutions have resolutions rights human on positions countries’ that it as a given. Our study of UN voting patterns, like those in those likepatterns,voting UN of study Our given. a as it states (the Czech Republic,Czechstates(theNetherlandsGermany,Italy, the similarrecentstudies, excludes largethenumber votesof on usual – with a particular impact on the EU. Last year, some EU little impact on their domestic human rights situations. Press, 2009),pp.185-191. See summaryinEricA. Posner, SUPPORTED NEITHER SUPPORTED HRCSTATEMENT ONLY RESOLUTION ONLY SUPPORTED GENERALASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY ANDSTATEMENT AT HRC SUPPORTED IRANRESOLUTIONINGENERAL The PerilsofGlobalLegalism (ChicagoUniversity General AssemblyandStatementatHRCtheUN,2010 Supporters andopponentsoftheIranresolutionin 10 But A second split opened up over the Assemblypassed anannual resolution raising concerns about While Palestine has topped the HRC’s agenda, the EU and the EU look weak. These divisions not only made headlines, but are also significant USvoted against the resolution, Slovenia voted in favour, and US havebeenfrustratedUS factthattheIran’sbyhuman rights HRC’scallforinternationalan report theon the damaged have they Crucially, inception. its since HRC Belgium, France, Slovakia and the UK abstained. as they representthetheyalmost as and the EU divided again. Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and raisedpossibilityandthe prosecution ofInternational the in Goldstone-typeinvestigation. NetherlandsItaly,thethe and abusesnotdogetsimilar attention. lateIn2009, theGeneral CriminalCourt. The HRC voted to endorse the report in 2010, efforts to foster. The EU’s unity, it appears, does not extend to bloc’sgreatunion’sdebates,mademembersthehavewhich whichten people were killed. The HRC discussed the incident report, which was commissioned by the HRC and published in thehighest itemtheonUN’s human rights agenda. Thismay a for calling resolution a adopted and month following the the UK abstained. the incident with international observers– but it stillto pressure makes Israel the into launching an internal investigation into image of the EU as a cohesive body in UN human rights rights human UN in body cohesive a as EU the of image have some diplomatic utility–France and Britain leveraged the SlovakiawhileFrance–voted USthedidagainstand as – it September 2009, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes only
Mavi Marmara European divisions at theEuropeandivisions at MaviMarmara incident, in human rights in Iran. As with Myanmar, a number of states switched their votes on this from 2009, which resulted in a The African agenda small rise in the number of countries in favour from 69 to 74. Although Saudi Arabia was one of those to back the resolution African issues, including the large UN peace operations for the first time, those that opposed or abstained included in the Congo and Sudan, continue to take up a huge Brazil, China, India and Russia. Turkey did not vote. amount of time in the Security Council. However, African governments have successfully pushed back against EU In the spring, with the US ratcheting up pressure for new and US efforts to concentrate on the continent’s human sanctions on Iran, Tehran ran for a seat on the HRC. It was rights situation at the UN. This pushback has involved generally believed that if it succeeded, the Americans would significant efforts to curtail UN human rights monitoring have to walk out of the HRC. However, the crisis was averted of African situations – although the EU has defended when Iran dropped its candidacy in return for a seat on a UN the roles of UN special rapporteurs in Burundi, Sudan committee dealing with women’s rights. and Somalia. African states have also argued that the International Criminal Court (ICC) focuses too much on In June, having won a new sanctions resolution, the US joined their affairs and serves Western interests. Norway in sponsoring a statement at the HRC (open to all states to support) commemorating the first anniversary of Although EU members have kept up a formal defense of Iran’s Green Revolution and condemning Iranian repression. the ICC and the HRC in African affairs, they have also This was backed by 56 states, including all members of the had to make de facto concessions on the decisive case EU. However, no Arab countries signed. In fact, the only of Sudan. Although Sudan’s President Bashir is under signatories from outside Europe and the America were Liberia, indictment for genocide by the ICC, the EU and the US Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. Pakistan’s ambassador have given his regime uneasy support over the last year to the UN explained that members of the Organization of as it held (controversial) elections and prepared for a the Islamic Conference (OIC) disapproved of “naming and referendum on independence in South Sudan in January shaming” countries at the HRC.11 Although the statement won 2011. There is widespread concern that the referendum media attention, it made the West’s influence look depleted. may lead to significant violence: bloodshed is already rising in the region. While the EU and the US say they still want to see Bashir answer the charges against him Human rights diplomacy in a multipolar world one day, concerns about stability– or at least justifiable humanitarian concerns for the people of southern Sudan While the EU and the US have tried – but only very fitfully – trump justice for now. Important African governments, succeeded – to revitalize human rights diplomacy in the such as South Africa’s, say they want better relations with General Assembly and HRC in 2009 and 2010, there has the EU on human rights. But they have already indicated been an inevitable sense that the real action is elsewhere. the terms on which they will deal. This is true in two ways. Firstly, the UN itself was eclipsed in 2009-10 by the rise of the G20 as a centre for multilateral engagement – although the G20 lost its momentum as the worst of the global economic crisis seemed to pass. rights diplomacy remains marginal to the main thrust of deal- making in the emerging multipolar world. It can be argued Secondly, even when international attention has focused that the HRC’s difficulties add up to a sort of “intentional on the UN, human rights have appeared to be of secondary redundancy”, allowing states to “vent and posture” for importance. Initiatives to censure Iran for repression have domestic and international audiences while continuing taken a back seat to the pursuit of sanctions through not constructive talks elsewhere.12 only the Security Council but also mechanisms including the G7 and the EU. Similarly, ongoing human rights abuses in These uncomfortable conclusions should not detract from Darfur have been overshadowed by the search for stability in efforts to make gradual improvements in human rights South Sudan. through new mechanisms such as the UPR. But it is highly unlikely that significant improvements in the UN human Even the HRC’s brief moments in the limelight in debates rights system can be achieved through solely technical over Palestine seem insignificant in retrospect. The US initiatives. Diplomats are pessimistic about an inter- drive to conclude a peace deal between Israel and Fatah has governmental review of the HRC slated for 2011. There is eclipsed – if far from erased – memories of Goldstone and the little incentive for countries that oppose Western agendas on Mavi Marmara. human rights to reduce their current leverage at the UN.
Thus, although the Obama administration has done away with the confrontational diplomacy of the Bush years, human
11 Stephanie Nebehay, “U.S. Claims Victory After Iran Rebuked at U.N. Human 12 See Richard Gowan and Bruce D. Jones, “Conclusion: International Institutions and Rights Body”, Reuters, 15 June 2010, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/ the Problem of Adaptation”, in Bruce D. Jones, Shepard Forman and Richard Gowan, idUSTRE65E40W20100615. Cooperating for Peace and Security (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 314. 7 8 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW usually back EU positions . . . Freedom think-tank House(www.freedomhouse.org), 50%fewerthan American the by free rated countries Among EU members of this new grouping. can only rely on regular support from roughly half the non- In spite launching the Mediterranean Union in 2008, the EU partial democracies. and full among also and world,developing of the in contacts circle wider its and neighbours close its among down Thesepie-charts supportshowhowpositionsEUfor breaks UN. The data from the last year only confirms this challenge. win natural allies over to its positions on human rights at the As ECFR’s 2008 report emphasized, the EU often struggles to 76%–100% 76%–100% Mediterranean Union Free Countries 51%–75% 51%–75% Level of Support for EU Human Rights Positions in the UN General Assembly by Groups of States, 2009-10 26%–50% 26%–50% 0%–25% 0%–25% the time. . . . while most “partly free” countries oppose the EU most of majority are Swing Voters. – countries Pacific vastsignatories a Cotonouthe–Agreement of EU the with and Caribbean African, the Among Liberal Internationalists and the European Bloc. listed on page 4: the Axis of Sovereignty, the Swinginto the Voters,four General the Assembly voting coincidence categories falls group each of percentagewhat showspie-chart Each 76%–100% 76%–100% Partly freecountries Cotonou Group 51%–75% 51%–75%
26%–50% 26%–50% 0%–25% 0%–25% Unless, that is, Western countries are prepared to create a very different set of incentives by proposing a far broader Methodological note set of changes to the multilateral system. There are some signs that they might do so. Speaking in New York this To calculate voting coincidence with the EU on spring, President Sarkozy said he wanted to use France’s human rights, we took all votes on draft human rights presidency of the G20 and chairmanship of the G8 in 2011 to resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in which launch an effort to reshape the Security Council.13 Then, in a the EU’s members voted “in favour” or “against” together. speech to ambassadors in August, he focused on the reform (Resolutions adopted without a vote were excluded.) We of international financial institutions, but predicted that this calculated the voting coincidence of non-EU members by would send “a strong signal to the UN General Assembly on dividing the number of votes cast by non-EU countries an interim reform of the Security Council.”14 coinciding with the EU’s positions by the overall number of votes, abstentions and no-shows of all non-EU British foreign secretary William Hague promises that his countries on these resolutions, giving us a percentage government will be “at the forefront of those arguing for the score for support for EU positions. expansion of the United Nations Security Council.”15 As we noted above, this may be the only UN reform that can satisfy We excluded those cases in which the EU split from rising powers such as Brazil. It would be naïve and foolish our calculations. When non-EU states abstained or to argue that the EU should embark on Security Council did not participate in a vote, their vote was coded as reform in an effort to strengthen its position in the HRC. partial disagreement, weighing half as much as full But it is possible that, if rising powers were given a greater disagreement. voice in mainstream diplomatic decision-making in New York, they might moderate their tone in Geneva. It is equally We applied the same calculations to China, Russia conceivable that expanding the Security Council might turn it and the US. “Human rights votes” refers to those on into another, more influential, version of the HRC. resolutions from the Third Committee of the General Assembly, which deals with “social, humanitarian and The EU is in a difficult position on Security Council reform, cultural” affairs. as its members still differ over Germany’s desire to have a permanent or (in UN jargon) “semi-permanent” seat.16 On For a full methodology, see www.ecfr.eu. the other hand, without serious discussion of the Security Council’s future, there is an equally good chance that the EU’s engagement of the UN system will continue to follow the pattern we have described here: exhausting, defensive and detached from real diplomacy.
13 Oyvind Gustavsen, “At Columbia, Sarkozy Calls for Change at U.N.”, New York Times, 29 March 2010, available at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/at- columbia-sarkozy-calls-for-change-at-u-n/. 14 The speech, to the 18th Ambassador’s Conference in paris on 25 August 2010, is available at http://www.franceonu.org/spip.php?article5123. 15 William Hague, “Britain’s Foreign Policy in a Networked World”, speech at Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 1 July, 2010, available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/ latest-news/?view=Speech&id=22462590. 16 UN experts have proposed “semi-permanent” Security Council seats that would last five or more years (as opposed to current non-permanent seats, which last two years and would be instantly renewable. This could allow countries such as Brazil, India, Japan and Germany to remain on the Security Council indefinitely. 9 10 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW www.ecfr.eu institutions. organisations but does not make grants to individuals or the Stiftung Mercator. ECFR works in partnership with other Communitas Foundation, the Italian UniCredit group and Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior), the Bulgarian Spanish foundation FRIDE (La Fundación para las Relaciones ECFR is backed by the Soros Foundations Network, the • • • that define its activities: ECFR has developed a strategy with three distinctive elements values-based European foreign policy. across Europe on the development of coherent, effective and objective is to conduct research and promote informed debate first pan-European think-tank. Launched in October 2007, its The A Ahtisaari, Joschka Fischer and Mabel van Oranje. within their own countries. The Council is chaired by Martti and feedback on policy ideas and help with ECFR’s activities thematic task forces, members provide ECFR staff with advice meets once a year as a full body. Through geographical and from the EU’s member states and candidate countries - which politicians, decision makers, thinkers and business people distinguished Council of over one hundred Members - A BOUT media outlets. of ECFR’ gatherings in EU capitals and outreach to strategic policy reports, private meetings and public debates, ‘friends focus. ECFR’s activities include primary research, publication of its objectives through innovative projects with a pan-European researchers and practitioners from all over Europe to advance ECFR has brought together a team of distinguished A communications. offices are platforms for research, debate, advocacy and ECFR plans to open offices in Warsaw and Brussels. Our Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome and Sofia. In the future ECFR, uniquely among European think-tanks, has offices in A pan- distinctive research and policy development process. physical presence in the main E uropean Council on Foreign E E CF uropean Council. R ECFR has brought together a R E elations U member states. (ECFR) is the former PrimeMinister Governor, NationalBankofPoland; M Deputy Director, ElPaís Lluís Bassets ( MP; formerForeignMinister D Management Consulting Founder, AICAndroschInternational H President oftheEuropeanConvention former PrimeMinisterandvice G President Management Initiative;former Chairman oftheBoard,Crisis M Party spokesperson fortheSocialDemocratic Committeeandforeignpolicy Affairs Deputy ChairmanoftheForeign Urban and ChairmanofBavarianNordicA/S President andCEO,A.J.AamundA/S A countries. candidate and states member EU the from figures cultural and activists leaders, business intellectuals, public ministers, and parliamentarians former and current commissioners, European presidents, ministers, prime former are Relations Foreign on Council European the of members Among Member ofEuropeanParliament D former StateSecretary Ambassador totheUnitedKingdom; N former HomeSecretary Charles Clarke (United Kingdom) California Catalunya andUniversityofSouthern Professor, UniversitatOberta de M Cooperation Minister forInternationalDevelopment G Writer andacademic I Minister (Taoiseach) Ambassador totheUSA;formerPrime former EuropeanCommission John Bruton ( Commissioner Vice PresidentoftheSenate;formerEU E President ofVenture EquityBulgariaLtd. Founder, CommunitasFoundationand S Foreign Minister Carl Bildt ( Council; formerPrimeMinister Chairman, PrimeMinister’s Economic Jan Krzysztof Bielecki (Poland) Reconstruction andDevelopment Chief Economist,EuropeanBankfor E GmbH Roland BergerStrategyConsultants Chairman, Founder andHonorary R an Buruma (The mma Bonino ( rik Berglöf ( vetoslav Bojilov (Bulgaria) oland Berger ( sger ora Bakoyannis ( aniel Cohn-Bendit ( annes icola Clase ( iuliano unilla Carlsson ( arek Belka (Poland) artti anuel Castells ( A A A amund ( htisaari (Finland) hlin ( A A ndrosch ( S mato ( weden) S S I S S weden) reland) weden) weden) pain) I taly) G D I S N S ermany) taly) enmark) G pain) weden) etherlands) A reece) ustria) G ermany) H Member ofEuropeanParliament A President, DEMOSHungary Tibor United States(Bratislava) Director, GermanMarshallFundofthe Pavol Parliament formerMemberofEuropean office; (Confindustria)-Brussels Industry Director, ConfederationofItalian G former PrimeMinister Member ofEuropeanParliament; Jean-Luc Poet andCulturalCritic A Commission Vice PresidentoftheEuropean President, FriendsofEurope;former E Aspen InstituteItalia Director GeneralInternationalActivities, M Minister former PrimeMinisterandForeign President, ItalianieuropeiFoundation; M Politico-Military Affairs, Council of the EU Director General for External and R – Brussels Executive Director, OpenSocietyInstitute (United Kingdom) H Minister Gulbenkian Foundation;formerForeign Trustee totheBoardofCalouste (Portugal) Teresa Patricio Economics Emeritus Professor, LondonSchool of (United Kingdom) A University Professor ofEuropeanStudies,Oxford (United Kingdom) Timothy Foreign Minister Speaker oftheParliament;former Jaime Chancellor former ForeignMinisterandvice- Joschka Fischer ( Foreign Minister President, ChamberofDeputies;former G Policy Representative forForeignandSecurity European Commission/EUHigh Adviser totheVicePresidentof S Musician andProducer Brian former ForeignMinister Chairman, BalticDevelopmentForum; Uffe newspaper Diena (BBSA); formerEditor-in-chief ofdaily Chairperson, Baltic to Black Sea Alliance S former FinanceMinister tienne teven armite obert Cooper (United Kingdom) ndrew leš nthony ans eather ianfranco ianfranco Fini ( arta assimo D E D E E llemann-Jensen ( D ebeljak ( G D ichel ( no (United Kingdom) essewffy ( E emeš ( D ama (Portugal) assù ( D E verts (The G G G lerte (Latvia) avignon (Belgium) D D uff (United Kingdom) arton rabbe iddens ’ ehaene (Belgium) A D G lema ( ell’ I S ermany) taly) S G lovakia) lovenia) A I A G ouveia taly) H
lba ( sh
ermany) N ungary) I taly) etherlands)
I taly) D enmark) Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France) Miroslav Lajcˇák (Slovakia) Ana Palacio (Spain) George Soros (Hungary/USA) Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution and former Foreign Minister; former Former Foreign Minister; former Senior Founder and Chairman, Open Society Center on International Cooperation High Representative and EU Special Vice President and General Counsel of Institute (New York University); former Under- Representative in Bosnia Herzegovina the World Bank Group Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Goran Stefanovski (Macedonia) Operations at the UN Pascal Lamy (France) Simon Panek (Czech Republic) Playwright and Academic Honorary President, Notre Europe and Chairman, People in Need Foundation Fernando Andresen Guimarães Director-General of WTO; former EU Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Portugal) Commissioner Chris Patten (United Kingdom) (France) Chancellor of Oxford University and Deputy Political Director, Directorate Managing Director, International Mark Leonard (United Kingdom) co-chair of the International Crisis General for External Relations, Monetary Fund; former Finance Director, European Council on Foreign Group; former EU Commissioner European Commission Minister Relations Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg Diana Pinto (France) Alexander Stubb (Finland) Juan Fernando López Aguilar Historian and author Foreign Minister (Germany) (Spain) Defence Minister Jean Pisani-Ferry (France) Member of European Parliament; Michael Stürmer (Germany) Director, Bruegel and Professor at former Minister of Justice Chief Correspondent, Die Welt István Gyarmati (Hungary) Universite Paris-Dauphine President and CEO, International Helena Luczywo (Poland) Ion Sturza (Romania) Centre for Democratic Transition Andrei Ple˛su (Romania) Deputy Editor-in-chief, Gazeta President, GreenLight Invest; former Rector, New Europe College; former Hans Hækkerup (Denmark) Wyborcza Prime Minister of the Republic of Foreign Minister Moldova Chairman, Defence Commission; Adam Lury (United Kingdom) former Defence Minister Ruprecht Polenz (Germany) CEO, Menemsha Ltd Helle Thorning Schmidt MP and Chairman of the Bundestag (Denmark) Pierre Hassner (France) Alain Minc (France) Foreign Affairs Committee Research Director emeritus, CERI Leader of the Social Democratic Party Head of AM Conseil; former chairman, (Sciences-PO) Lydie Polfer (Luxembourg) Le Monde Loukas Tsoukalis (Greece) MP; former Foreign Minister Professor, University of Athens and Vaclav Havel (Czech Republic) Nickolay Mladenov (Bulgaria) former President Andrew Puddephatt President, ELIAMEP Foreign Minister; former Defence Annette Heuser (Germany) Minister; former Member of European (United Kingdom) Erkki Tuomioja (Finland) Director, Global Partners & Associated Executive Director, Bertelsmann Parliament MP; former Foreign Minister Ltd. Foundation Washington DC Dominique Moisi (France) Vaira Vike- Freiberga (Latvia) Diego Hidalgo (Spain) Senior Adviser, IFRI Vesna Pusic´ (Croatia) former President MP, President of the National Co-founder of Spanish newspaper Pierre Moscovici (France) Committee for Monitoring the EU Antonio Vitorino (Portugal) El País; President, FRIDE MP; former Minister for European Accession Negotiations and Professor Lawyer; former EU Commissioner Michiel van Hulten Affairs of Sociology, University of Zagreb Gijs de Vries (The Netherlands) (The Netherlands) Nils Muiznieks (Latvia) Sigrid Rausing (United Kingdom) Member of the Board, Netherlands Managing Director, Government Director, Advanced Social and Political Founder, Sigrid Rausing Trust Court of Audit; former EU Counter- Relations, Burson-Marsteller Brussels; Research Institute, University of Latvia Terrorism Coordinator former Member of European George Robertson Parliament Hildegard Müller (Germany) (United Kingdom) Stephen Wall (United Kingdom) Chairwoman, BDEW Bundesverband former Secretary General of NATO Chair of the Federal Trust; Vice Chair of Anna Ibrisagic (Sweden) der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft Business for New Europe; former EU Member of European Parliament Albert Rohan (Austria) adviser to Tony Blair Wolfgang Münchau (Germany) Jaakko Iloniemi (Finland) former Secretary General for Foreign President, Eurointelligence ASBL Affairs Andre Wilkens (Germany) CEO, UNIFIN; former Executive Director, Director for International Relations, Crisis Management Initiative Kalypso Nicolaïdis Dariusz Rosati (Poland) Stiftung Mercator Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) (Greece/France) former Foreign Minister Professor of International Relations, Shirley Williams Chairman, Munich Security University of Oxford Adam D. Rotfeld (Poland) (United Kingdom) Conference; Global Head of Chairman of the UN Secretary Professor Emeritus, Kennedy School Government Affairs Allianz SE Christine Ockrent (Belgium) General’s Advisory Board on of Government; former Leader of the Lionel Jospin (France) CEO, Audiovisuel Extérieur de la Disarmament Matters; former Foreign Liberal Democrats in the House of France Minister former Prime Minister Lords Mary Kaldor (United Kingdom) Andrzej Olechowski (Poland) Daniel Sachs (Sweden) Carlos Alonso Zaldívar (Spain) former Foreign Minister CEO, Proventus Professor, London School of Economics Ambassador to Brazil Glenys Kinnock Dick Oosting (The Netherlands) Pierre Schori (Sweden) CEO, European Council on Foreign Chair of Olof Palme Memorial Fund; (United Kingdom) Relations; former Europe Director, former Director General, FRIDE; former Member of the House of Lords; former Amnesty International SRSG to Cote d´Ivoire Member of European Parliament Mabel van Oranje Wolfgang Schüssel (Austria) Olli Kivinen (Finland) (The Netherlands) MP; former Chancellor Writer and columnist CEO, The Elders Karel Schwarzenberg Gerald Knaus (Austria) Marcelino Oreja Aguirre (Spain) (Czech Republic) Chairman of the European Stability Member of the Board, Fomento de MP; former Minister of Foreign Affairs Initiative and Carr Center Fellow Construcciones y Contratas; former EU Caio Koch-Weser (Germany) Commissioner Giuseppe Scognamiglio (Italy) Head of Institutional and International Vice Chairman, Deutsche Bank Group; Leoluca Orlando (Italy) Relations, UniCredit former State Secretary MP and President, Sicilian Rem Koolhaas (The Netherlands) Renaissance Institute Narcís Serra (Spain) Chair of CIDOB Foundation; former Architect and urbanist; Professor at the Cem Özdemir (Germany) Vice President Graduate School of Design, Harvard Leader, Bündnis90/Die Grünen University (Green Party) Elif Shafak (Turkey) Writer Ivan Krastev (Bulgaria) Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa Chair of Board, Centre for Liberal (Italy) Aleksander Smolar (Poland) Strategies Chairman of the Board, Stefan Batory President, Notre Europe; former Foundation Mart Laar (Estonia) chairman of IMF and former Minister MP; former Prime Minister of Economy and Finance
11 12 ECFR/24 September 2010 www.ecfr.eu The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 REVIEW Acknowledgements authors the About Antony’s College, Oxford University. She has worked in Israel, Richard Gowan Richard Franziska Brantner [email protected] 35 OldQueenStreet,London, SW1H9JA,UnitedKingdom Published bytheEuropean CouncilonForeignRelations(ECFR), ISBN 978-1-906538-23-1 © ECFRSeptember2010. affiliated. institutions withwhichtheauthorsare European Parliamentorotherpartiesand the viewsofGreenGroupin of itsauthors.Itdoesnotrepresent Relations, representsonlytheviews of theEuropeanCouncilonForeign positions. Thispaper,likeallpublications Relations doesnottakecollective The EuropeanCouncilonForeign E [email protected] (Green Group), where she sits on the Foreign Affairs Affairs Foreign the on sits she where Group), (Green E [email protected] University’s Center on International Cooperation. He also also He Cooperation. International on Center University’s Heinrich Böll Foundation. Hans Kundnani expertly guided it towards publication. Thanks a research associate at the European Studies Centre at St St at Centre Studies European the at associate research a broadcasts and writes He Institution. Brookings the and Cooperation International on Center the of project joint a Insecurity,GlobalManaging assistantofdirector the as acts are also due to Emily Alinikoff, Ted Piccone and a number a and Piccone Ted Alinikoff, Emily to due also are Oostingof ECFR all gave very helpful advice on this paper and committee. A foreign policy analyst, she previously worked previously she analyst, policy foreign A committee. on Foreign Relations and an associate director at New York Newassociate directorat an RelationsForeign and on of European and UN officials for helpful discussions on the discussions on helpful for officials UN andEuropean of the US and central and eastern Europe, including for the the for including Europe, eastern and central and US the through the data, using the formula originally devised for ECFR international institutions. issues involved. Alice Bosley played a crucial role in sorting in rolecrucial a playedBosleyinvolved.Alice issues Susi Dennison, Anthony Dworkin, Mark Leonard and Dick and Leonard Mark Dworkin, Anthony Dennison, Susi for the Bertelsmann Stiftung in Brussels. She was also also was She Brussels. in Stiftung Bertelsmann the for and security European peacekeeping, on frequently by Christoph Mikulaschek. . is a policy fellow at the European Council Council European the at fellow policy a is is a Member of the European Parliament Relations. of theEuropeanCouncilonForeign requires thepriorwrittenpermission and non-commercialuse.Anyotheruse publication exceptforyourownpersonal circulate inanywaythecontentfromthis You maynotcopy,reproduce,republishor European CouncilonForeignRelations. Copyright ofthispublicationisheldbythe
R (ECFR/05) by Andrew Wilson, February 2008 of the Putin M (ECFR/04) by Daniel Korski, January 2008 war A (ECFR/03) Paweł Swieboda, December 2007 E Poland’s second return to (ECFR/02) Popescu, November 2007 by Mark Leonard and Nicu R of N Al Godement, April 2009 (ECFR/12) by John Fox and Francois R A (ECFR/11) by Daniel Korski, March 2009 S 2008 (ECFR/10) and Mark Leonard, December by Daniel Korski, Ulrike Guerot relationship R (ECFR/09) by Pierre Noel, November 2008 A (ECFR/07) and Andrew Wilson, August 2008 by Nicu Popescu, Mark Leonard G Can the (ECFR/06) by Nick Witney, July 2008 and A Leonard, October 2007 (ECFR/01) by Ivan Krastev and Mark H deal with Beyond (ECFR/08) Brantner, September 2008 by Richard Gowan and Franziska Power at the U R urope? haping e-energising elations elations e-wiring the U ights? fghanistan: Power Power ew erbivorous Powers eorgia? eeting G s S o lobal Force for oft Power and the D W avai efence Policy orld Order: The Balance A D E E M A A n U win the Peace in ependence: urope’s R l udit of udit of edvedev: The Politics ussian A a S udit of bl E uccession urope’s forgotten E N e urope’s S f - E E A r E G H U-China U- U fghan o E as uman
uropean m R H ussia
R E S ow to ise of CF ecurity S R urge
(ECFR/23) 2010 September Dworkin, Anthony and Dennison Susi by W S Towards (ECFR/22) 2010 June Godement, François by A (ECFR/21) 2010 May Korski, Daniel and Knaus Gerald Grabbe, Heather by E W Beyond (ECFR/20) 2010 March Wilson, Andrew by Ukraine D (ECFR/19) 2009 October Witney, Nick and Shapiro Jeremy by U E TowardsPost- a Gowan, October 2009 (ECFR/18) by Daniel Korski and Richard Civilian Capacities states? Can the (ECFR/17) Nicu Popescu, October 2009 D S September 2009 (ECFR/16) Leonard and Andrew Wilson, edited by Ivan Krastev, Mark W (ECFR/15) Brantner, September 2009 Richard Gowan and Franziska U The June 2009 (ECFR/14) Wilson, Nicu Popescu and Andrew the Troubled E The Limits of (ECFR/13) Anthony Dworkin, May 2009 Framework for Counterterrorism Towards a Beyond the “ uropean and U Balkan Policy Balkan U urope: upporting trategy for a Post- a for trategy
emocratic Transition ealing with Yanukovych’s with ealing N S ay Forward for for Forward ay orld hat does G
: 2009 annual review R lobal China Policy China lobal E elations U and human rights at the A A W E A review of U rebuild failing Power Power ait-and- n n N R M ew Transatlantic E ussia think? N E W U U oldova’s nlargement-lite: R eighbourhood ar on Terror”: H ussian Power in A uman uman A
merican merican S udit of of udit E ee: The The ee: W urope’s estern estern R ights ights E U-
Design by David Carroll & Co davidcarrollandco.com