Geneva - The new president of the Human Rights Council said Wednesday that "bloc-politics" were a major challenge to the workings of the UN's main rights body and that he would work to enhance cross- regional dialogue. The other big obstacle was ensuring that "people on the ground feel a real difference," Alex Van Meeuwen, a Belgian national, told reporters. Victims should feel the council can offer solutions.
The council has not managed to avoid the pitfalls of a UN political body, specifically, the bloc voting and mutual adulation even when it is not entirely due.
At times, the "south-south solidarity" can be difficult to understand without considering the wider political significance.
Self-declared communist states, for example, have supported Islamic countries urging outlawing so-called "defamation of religion."
Nations have said the rights council should not get involved in "internal affairs" of countries, though all UN members are subject to periodic reviews of their rights policies as part of the council's mandate.
In some cases, interventions by Western states are seen as colonialist and raise objections. Also, if one country needs another government's aid money- be it northern or southern currency - it may prefer not to ruffle feathers for a moral declaration.
The council, which was established in 2006, following the demise of the largely discredited Human Rights Commission, has also started to attack and do away with professional observers for specific rights issues, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has been ignored.
Most recently, Pillay's calls, backed by the West, for an independent inquiry into Sri Lanka's rights record were rejected out of hand by a southern alliance.
"For our part, the United States hopes to reinforce the ability of this council to speak with one voice about situations that are an affront to human dignity," said Mark Storella, from the US mission to Geneva, when his country officially joined the 47-nation body last Friday.
The US joining the council under President Barack Obama was seen as a switch from the policies of his predecessor, George W Bush, who shunned the human rights body.
The US could wield its strong political and economic powers and bend the council from the inside, supporters of the move say, though others fear Obama is only giving credit to an unscrupulous body.
Losing credibility, or being so accused, due to floppy resolutions, should be a concern for the council, dismayed observers have said. On several occasions, though, many countries seemed to use the proceedings for short term gains with their audiences at home, putting aside the long term reputation of the body.
Peter Splinter of Amnesty International says council members hoping to be a positive influence should bear in mind that there are disparities between countries.
"There are places that would like to do the right thing, but are weakened by lack of capacity," Splinter said, urging dialogue and institutional assistance to improve their rights records.
"Others deliberately violate," he noted, adding that these were not always governments in the south.
