The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is one of the most difficult jobs at the international body.
On the one hand, some UN member-states are corrupt dictatorships that trample on the rights of their citizens, yet the high commissioner for human rights has no alternative but to cooperate with them. On the other, many states in the southern hemisphere view the UN and all its related organizations as instruments of the West. The new high commissioner, Volker Türk, must not exempt Western democracies from criticism, lest it lose the confidence of these countries.
What’s more, these tensions, which complicate the very notion of human rights, have been present almost since the United Nations’ creation.
The United Nations’ entire mandate is grounded in this idea: the conviction that human beings have the right to live in self-determination and dignity — that is, a life in the exercise of all general, inalienable rights, which people possess simply because they were born human beings, not as citizens of a particular state. These rights, laid down in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, resulted because of the experiences of World War II, in general, and National Socialism, in particular. The fundamental violation of the most elementary rights during this period taught the world that they are indispensable.
Unfortunately, the UN establishment — and the codification of human rights — did not bring an end to human rights violations. Instead, human rights themselves quickly became weaponized during the Cold War. Western nations rightly complained about the ongoing human rights violations in the Eastern Bloc. In their own policies outside North America and Europe, however, human rights have not been the guiding star of the West’s actions. In their choice of allies, it is the anti-communist stance that has played the decisive role, not those allies’ treatment of their own people. From Korea to Algeria to Vietnam, the United States and its allies have violated the most basic principles of human rights.
The Soviet Union took advantage of this factor and presented itself as a partner of the oppressed in the anti-colonial liberation struggle, without truly considering the rights of the local population. Human rights played no role in Soviet policy at home or abroad. Unfortunately, little has fundamentally changed even with the end of the Cold War, allowing dictators to blame global double standards by repeatedly casting the ideal of human rights as a mere pretext for interfering in their internal affairs.
Indeed, the leadership of Michelle Bachelet, whose term as high commissioner for human rights has just ended, fell prey to this fallacy. During her tenure, the United States was criticized frequently and harshly, but never as frequently and harshly as Israel. The Jewish state has faced more criticism than Syria, whose regime has been waging a brutal war against its own population for over a decade, with victims now probably exceeding half a million.
Let us be clear: Democracies are not entitled to a free pass. Their misdeeds should and must be criticized in the same way as those of all other states. Nevertheless, proportionality is essential, or we risk undermining the intellectual integrity of human rights. The most serious violations must be denounced most severely and those states responsible must be criticized most vehemently. Without this proportionality, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will continue to lose credibility; only with it can the office become the instrument it was originally intended to be.
The new high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, is taking on a difficult legacy in a tough office. This is why the world needs a strong UN human rights high commissioner, now more than ever. Türk will have the full support of the international Jewish community as he assumes this new role.
Maram Stern is the executive vice president of the World Jewish Congress. He resides in Brussels.