The United Nations was formed on the initiative of the United States. The blueprint was negotiated among the delegations from the US, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China. It was born from the earlier disastrous failure of the US-led League of Nations in the aftermath of World War I.
Conceived as a peacekeeping body where nations in a multilateral setting could discuss issues rather than fight over those issues, the UN has gone far beyond that mandate primarily because all parties used it as a way to further their own national self-interests.
Today the UN is a vast and powerful bureaucracy with a budget comparable in size to the Philippine government’s and larger than half of its member-states. And like most all bureaucracies, it answers to no central authority, and equally lives to protect and service its own survival.
The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution last week that is unprecedented. The UNHRC has frequently looked at human-rights abuses in war zones (both civil and multinational) such as Syria and Sudan, and national situations where a government specifically targeted certain ethnic groups as in Burundi and Myanmar.
For example, the religious war in Sri Lanka prompted “a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations, and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties.” It also has provided assistance to nations in the area of human rights after a nation’s social and political structure disappeared, as in the case of Libya.
We have been unable to find a single example of a nation being examined for pursuing a legitimate law enforcement function, even in the face of alleged human-rights abuse complaints. In all other instances, including in Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the specific government target was the imprisonment and executions of the political opposition.
The resolution itself is interesting. It did not call for an “investigation” as sources within the council say members refused to vote in favor of that language. Instead, it calls “to prepare a comprehensive report on the Philippine situation.” Of the 47 countries on the UNHRC, 18 voted in favor, which is about 38 percent of the members. Suddenly, a majority vote is no longer important.
Iceland, with a population the size of Biñan, Laguna, and located almost exactly on the other side of the planet, was also an interesting choice to submit the resolution. Apparently with this great newfound interest in the Philippines, it may be time for a Jollibee Reykjavík.
However, there may be an unseen hand in the process. Agnes Callamard, the Special Rapporteur on summary executions, has been in a venomous word-war with President Duterte for some two years. Her predecessor, Philip Alston, released a scathing report in 2008 on extra-judicial killings saying, “There is impunity for extrajudicial executions. No one has been convicted in the cases.” Yet, there was never a resolution for a further action submitted to the UNHRC.
Is there any possibility that this could be a case of “walang trabaho, personal lang?”
Regardless, this puts the UNHRC and its efforts at protecting against human-rights abuses on a dangerous, slippery slope. Any nation’s law enforcement could be singled out without substantiated evidence. Further, it potentially disrupts the UNHRC’s credibility in future situations.