Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 67 together.

The report by the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, In Larger Freedom, proposed an agenda for action at the UN 2005 World Summit which took place last month. The central premise of the Secretary General's recommendations was that "we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights." Against this background, and among other proposals, he recommended that the existing Commission on Human Rights, CHR, be replaced with a smaller standing human rights council. The Secretary General justified this on the basis of his view that the CHR suffers from declining credibility and professionalism and is in need of major reform.

In the view of the Secretary General, the creation of a human rights council would accord human rights a more authoritative position, corresponding to the primacy of human rights in the Charter of the United Nations. He stated it would be for member states to determine the exact status and composition of the council. In contacts with foreign minister colleagues in pursuit of my role as envoy of the Secretary General in the lead up to the summit it was clear to me that there was a broad measure of support for the Secretary General's report, not only in the wider Europe but also beyond. However, this support was not universal.

Together with our European Union partners, Ireland warmly welcomed the Secretary General's proposals which we regarded as an opportunity to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery. As the Secretary General stated, it would elevate human rights to a more authoritative position within the UN system. A key objective for the EU has been and will remain that the human rights council should preserve the best features of the Commission on Human Rights. These include its country and thematic special procedures and NGO participation, as well as the right of human rights defenders to call Governments to account.

The European Union, under the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies, maintained this position in the negotiations with other states in the lead up to the summit. However, as other states had different views on aspects of the Secretary General's proposal, it was not possible to reach complete agreement in advance of the summit. Nonetheless, the outcome document agreed at the summit commits member states to create a human rights council. There is as yet no agreement on whether the council should be a principal organ of the UN or a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. It will be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner. It will address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It will also promote effective co-ordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the UN system.

The summit outcome mandated the president of the General Assembly to conduct negotiations to establish the mandate, functions, size, composition and other institutional aspects of the council and the process of discussion is now beginning.

See this speech in context