Conference on U.N. Reform
April 3, 2006

A conference on UN Reform was held in the Moot Court Room of Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law on April 3, 2006. Two topics were addressed - the newly established Human Rights Council and the Peace-Building Commission, which is already in formation.

The speakers for the Human Rights Council session included Will Davis, Director of the UN Information Center, Lawrence Moss, Special Counsel on UN Reform at Human Rights Watch, and Ruth Wedgwood, Director of the International Law and Organization Program at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Professor Karla Simon, who teaches Human Rights Law at CUA and is a member of the National Council of the UNA-USA, moderated the Human Rights Council panel.

The second panel included Peter Gantz, Peacekeeping Advocate with Refugees International, Fr. William Headley, Counselor to the President, Catholic Relief Services, and Dennis Hankins, Deputy Director of the Bureau of International Organization Matters in the Office of Peacekeeping, Sanctions and Counterterrorism in the United States Department of State. Associate Professor Maryann Cusimano-Love of the CUA Politics Department, who is a member of the Catholic Peace-Building Network, moderated the Peace-Building Commission Panel.

Sponsors of the event included the Center for International Social Development of the Catholic University of America, the Comparative and International Law Institute, the International Center for Civil Society Law, and the United Nations Association of the USA's Council of Organizations.

The Agenda for an a summary of the panel discussions follows.

Agenda Conference on U.N. Reform April 3, 2006
9:15 AM	Welcome by UNA-USA and Other Sponsors
9:30 AM	Panel on Human Rights Commission Speakers: Will Davis, UN Lawrence Moss, Human Rights Watch Ruth Wedgwood, SAIS Moderator: Karla Simon
10:30 AM	Coffee Break
11:00 AM	Discussion
12:00 PM	Break for box lunch
12:30 PM	Panel on Peace-Building Commission Speakers: Dennis Hankins, Dep't. State Fr. Bill Headley, CRS Peter Gantz, Refugees International Moderator: Maryann Cusimano-Love
1:30 PM	Coffee Break
2:00 PM	Discussion
3:00 PM	Conclusion of the conference

Summary of Panel Discussions

Human Rights Panel:

Will Davis spoke first and presented the rather contentious development of the Human Rights Council (HRC), including aspects of the US delegation's opposition to it (and eventual negative vote) from the standpoint of the UN. He asserted that although it may be flawed in certain ways, the new Council is a "big advance" over the previous oversight mechanism (the Commission) which had become captured by political forces at odds since the beginning of the cold war. In addition, it was clear that the mechanism for voting members onto the Commission had become seriously flawed, with notorious human-rights-abusing states having become members of the Commission. Mr. Davis suggested that the United States might now want to join the Council (it has opted out of the running for the first year) and indeed that it might have difficulties being elected given certain recent human rights problems such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. He suggested, however, that the failure of the United States to participate would weaken the Council, and he expressed hope that despite Ambassador Bolton's objections the State Department would promote US participation in the HRC.

Prof. Ruth Wedgwood was the second speaker, and she brought an additional perspective to the discussion as a current member of the UN's Human Rights Committee, which is another mechanism designed to assist the UN in examining countries' records for human rights violations. The Committee, in contrast with the Commission, is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its State parties. Prof. Wedgwood described some of the history of the Commission and its eventual inability to function because of factionalism, and agreed that the new HRC is an improvement. On the other hand, she saw no reason why regional groupings remain a factor in selection of members of the HRC, asserting that the UN should discourage them - their existence may contribute to the HRC becoming like the Commission, where everything was "all Israel, all the time."

The third speaker, Lawrence Moss, represented Human Rights Watch, which had consistently appealed for adoption of the HRC even if it was not as strong a body as had originally been hoped. He also addressed some of the history of the Commission and its lack of effectiveness as well as ways in which the United States delegation had been ineffective in negotiating for a stronger HRC. Mr. Moss suggested that there will be disincentives for violators to attempt to join the HRC and that open and competitive elections for spots on the Council will be helpful in alerting everyone to the human rights records of those seeking to be elected. It will also be important to continue to have objective inputs into Council investigations by NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In addition, the professional staff of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva should work together with the HRC to establish a system for universal periodic review of the human rights records of the States parties.

In the ensuing discussion the speakers and the members of the audience stressed repeatedly that the US role is crucial, but that the US may have difficulties of its own given its record. Indeed, the US is currently under review by the Committee Against Torture for its actions against civilians involved in the "War on Terror."

Peace-building Commission Panel:

Dennis Hankins of the State Department was the first speaker, and he described the need for the PBC as coming from the prior situation is this fashion: "the UN had gotten pretty good at peace-keeping and it had gotten pretty good at development, but there was a need for something in-between." He stressed the fact that simply pulling up stakes after a successful peace-keeping operation has frequently led to a collapsed state, but certain countries, such as Mozambique, El Salvador, and East Timor have had good records. The new system will marshal resources at the disposal of the international community to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict recovery, focusing attention on reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable development, in countries emerging from conflict. Mr. Hankins said that the Commission will bring together the UN's broad capacities and experience in conflict prevention, mediation, peacekeeping, respect for human rights, the rule of law, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and long-term development. In addition, the new mechanism will include persons from successful countries to give advice to those coming out of conflict. Fr. Headly of CRS first described CRS's reorientation to peacebuilding because of the crisis and genocide in Rwanda. As to the new PBC, he suggested that CRS must take a "wait and see" position at present. The positive notes with regard to the PBC include the following: 1) advising on integrated peace-building strategies; 2) improving coordination; and 3) developing a set of best practices guidelines for peacebuilding operations. But Fr. Headly also reminded the audience of certain pit-falls and obstacles to be avoided: 1) NGOs must be involved and as yet there has been no mechanism established to do that; 2) the UN must avoid the quagmire of internal estrangement, and the Security Council and ECOSOC must work together; and 3) the PBC must avoid possible paralysis that could be caused by the need for consensual decision-making and the fact that the PBC's role is merely an advisory one. Peter Gantz of Refugees International was the last speaker on the panel, and he referred to the topic as really being one of "conflict transformation" and the building of a "viable peace." He defined such a peace process as 1) providing security; 2) restoring the rule of law; and 3) moving toward economic development and good governance. According to Mr. Gantz, the approach must be a holistic one - elections are NOT the only goal. He suggested examples of failed or collapsed states such as Haiti, the DRC, and Liberia as proving his point. In part he blamed the US Congress for concentrating so much attention on elections and not on whether the country has made a successful transition on all fronts. In addition, he said that the UN's Peacebuilding Fund should be much larger. Mr. Gantz said that this is all much more important than some US politicians believe it is - it has clear security considerations for the United States, including the financing of terrorist operations by organized crime operations that move into failed states.

In the discussion period, one of the issues raised by Mr. Gantz was re-visited: the issue of conflict prevention as an alternative. The panelists and the members of the audience suggested that regional groupings such as APEC and NEPAD may be more effective at such tasks than an international body, but that "early warning" is a difficult thing to do correctly.