More Countries Are Voting ‘No’ on Advancing Human Rights in Africa – ScheerPost

By Kasmira Jefford / Geneva Solutions

African and Asia-Pacific countries are increasingly opposed to resolutions on human rights issues on the African continent, according to findings by two nongovernmental organizations.

Resolutions addressing human rights in African countries are becoming more contentious at the United Nations Human Rights Council, in a sign of geopolitical divisions and fractured relations between member states, a new report shows.

African NGOs DefendDefenders and AfricanDefenders analyzed how states from all regional groups have voted on Africa-focused resolutions since the Council’s creation in 2006.

Their findings showed that while most resolutions have historically been adopted by consensus, an increasing number are being put to a vote.

Of 176 resolutions focusing on human rights in African countries, only 28 have been adopted by vote since 2006, with the rest adopted by consensus.

However, the vast majority of these — 23 resolutions — have taken place in the last seven years. Fourteen were voted on in the last 10 sessions of the council alone.

“In the early years of the council, voting on African country resolutions was extremely rare, but over the years, it has become a normal situation to vote at least once per session on an African country resolution,” Nicolas Agostini, Geneva representative for DefendDefenders, told Geneva Solutions.

Agostini said the tide turned in 2016 when a decision to set up a commission of inquiry into human rights violations in Burundi was put to a vote, ending a six-year streak of consensus agreements. “Since then, we have a lot of resolutions on African countries adopted by vote, which means more confrontation, a more polarized atmosphere,” Agostini said.

Votes on country resolutions that used to be consensual, including South Sudan and Sudan, are now among the most divisive amid worsening conflicts in these countries and deteriorating humanitarian conditions.

On top of this, resolutions that are put to a vote are being adopted with closer margins.

A one-year fact-finding mission into atrocities committed in Sudan, where a civil war has raged for the last year, was approved at the Human Rights Council’s session in October, in a tight vote that saw almost as many votes against as there were in favor.

Agostini argued that this was not the case for resolutions on other countries, for instance, on Iran, Myanmar or Venezuela, which have been adopted in recent years with much broader margins.

“Some of the trends we identified are deeply concerning. Geopolitical divisions are not just increasing; they are becoming a defining feature of votes on Africa-focused resolutions,” Hassan Shire, executive director of DefendDefenders and chairperson of AfricanDefenders, said in a statement.

“We deplore this situation, cannot overlook it, and must act to address it and build a more consensual atmosphere.”

Countries voting against resolutions on Africa tend to be the African group of countries and the Asia-Pacific group, Japan and Korea being among the few exceptions, the report found.

“The main divide at the Human Rights Council is not between Africa and the rest, or between Africa and the West . . .  but between two regional groups and the other three [Eastern Europe, Latin American and the Carribean, and Western Europe],” Agostini said.

African countries, on principal, have historically preferred to abstain than to vote in favor of a resolution that has not been supported by the country in question.

A report published by DefendDefenders two years ago that examined how African countries vote at the Human Rights Council showed that an abstention by an African country does not necessarily imply the same as an abstention by another state. “Abstaining is sometimes a positive vote in disguise,” Agostini said.

But now, even countries that may have previously abstained are choosing to vote against instead. “African states have become less and less hesitant to use their clout. […] As the Human Rights Council approaches its 20th anniversary, this move from a relatively discreet to a more public use of their influence might be one of the most striking evolutions in multilateral dynamics.”

The fact that so many resolutions are agreed by consensus is, one the one hand, a positive sign as it shows states have been able to find common ground and avoid confrontation, Agostini said. “It’s always a positive outcome when a resolution is agreed on, provided it is meaningful and provided it is strong enough to address the issues in the country.”

But it can also indicate that resolutions are too weak to address the real key human rights issues. “Sometimes going to a vote is necessary if the country concerned doesn’t have any political will to advance its human rights situation,” he said.

As the Human Rights Council is underway, the fact-finding mission on Sudan will present an oral update eight months into their investigation.

But the mission remains significantly understaffed due to the UN’s liquidity crisis and with its final report due in September, civil society groups have been calling for the mandate to be extended. However, without the support of Sudan, it’s a resolution that, if tabled in September, is likely to go to a vote.

“Adopting strong resolutions on African countries is becoming increasingly challenging, even where human rights crises and/or armed conflicts tear societies apart and cause immense suffering,” Agostini noted.

“So, this is really what’s concerning for us and for African human rights defenders that advocate for meaningful resolutions. . . . Crises like Sudan, Ethiopia, South Sudan deserve much more scrutiny, and that means stronger resolutions at the Human Rights Council that provide for reporting, monitoring, public debates and strong mechanisms that document and investigate violations.”

Please share this story and help us grow our network!

Editor’s Note: It’s been four years since ScheerPost was born, maturing into an award-winning top news source on the most important issues of our time at a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes. Alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and we are one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing a “birthday gift” to help us reach our goal of $50,000 — we are less than $4,000 there. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.