At end of tenure, UN advocate for rights expresses hope

By Marlise Simons
Tuesday, July 1, 2008

True, she has no illusions that human rights abuses are on the wane. She also says plainly that the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council often use it as a forum for pushing national or regional interests rather than defending people against assorted horrors.

Nonetheless, Arbour, 61, a former Supreme Court judge in Canada and, prior to that, the chief prosecutor of the UN tribunals for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, sees some progress.
"It's a small miracle to see how far we have come since the 50 years of silence after Nuremberg," she said in an interview, referring to the trials of Nazi war criminals after World War II. "All things considered, in human rights law we have achieved more in the past 15 years than in the previous 50 in taking personal criminal accountability to where it is now."

In the view of some human rights groups, Arbour can share credit for this. Although she had no powers to punish abuse, Arbour has sharpened the profile of the high commissioner's office, not only by almost doubling its annual budget to close to $100 million and widening its presence in the field, but also by persistently raising her own voice.

Amnesty International said that Arbour, who formally left the job Monday, had been a champion for human rights and that replacing her would not be easy. Ban Ki Moon, the UN secretary general, is expected to appoint her successor shortly.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Arbour had been principled and outspoken. In an interview by telephone from New York, he added, "Our hope is that the next commissioner not be excessively inclined to practice quiet diplomacy when outspokenness is called for."

That said, Arbour's forthright views have alienated many governments and interest groups. Earlier this year, the Zimbabwean justice minister, Patrick Chinamasa, said Arbour had turned her office into a "deified oracle which spews out edicts we all must follow." Pro-Israeli activists have called her an idiot. The Bush administration, too, has objected to her frequent complaints about what she has called its use of torture, secret arrests and disregard of international law as part of the battle against terrorism.

Yet Arbour herself does not regard naming-and-shaming as the high commissioner's most effective tool. On one of the last days in her office on the banks of Lake Geneva, Arbour sounded almost defensive about sometimes using quiet diplomacy.

"On my travels, I can see presidents and prime ministers and foreign ministers," she said. "A lot of nongovernmental organizations don't have this kind of access. But that calls for a different tone of interaction. There's no point in screaming if you cannot compel anything."

She has, however, pressed her way into places like refugee camps and prisons, to the discomfort of her official hosts.

"She'd ask to see political prisoners or rape victims," said Scott Campbell, an aide who has often traveled with her. "It's difficult to say no to Louise Arbour."

Some have said no. North Korea and Myanmar refused to let her in. China said she was always welcome, but recently, when she wanted to visit Tibet, she was told this was not the right time. She visited Sri Lanka, but the government has not let her open a field office there.

Pakistan kept postponing her visit, finally offering her a date three days before leaving office. She accepted. Last week, she admonished President Pervez Musharraf and other high officials about human rights issues, including "disappearances" and the lack of independence in the judiciary.

But it is what Bush administration critics call the serious erosion of human rights in the United States that has haunted her work. In many countries, she says, when she raises human rights concerns with a president or prime minister, "I can write the script. The first response I get is: 'Why aren't you in Guantánamo? Why are you coming here?"'

But, she went on, when she admonishes the United States, she has heard the opposing view.

"I recently had a meeting with a group of congressional aides," she said, "and they complained, 'Why aren't you criticizing Myanmar instead of spending your time criticizing the United States?"'

In Geneva itself, pure politics often seems to dominate the Human Rights Council, which in 2006 replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights. Arbour said she welcomed the council's adoption of a policy under which every country's human rights record is examined every four years, but she lamented the council's pursuit of what she described as parochial political agendas

The council's work has often been paralyzed and distorted by regional groups, notably the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African bloc, which have not only focused overwhelmingly on Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but have also blocked discussion of topics like sexual identity, female genital mutilation and so-called honor killings.

"It seems to me that anything that is related to full gender equality is a fundamental human right," she said. "But the dictates of culture or religion or tradition are often put forward as clashing with that. It's the wrong debate.