Universal Periodic Review: Same practices, another name.

Human rights has been an important global issue since the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1945. To list a few, the human rights discourse has helped transform international norms, set basic standards, and shape domestic policies. Other international and Non-governmental organizations have also been incremental in assuring strict human rights standards are met domestically and internationally, but that has been accompanied with a lot of doubt and backlash. Critics are questioning the United Nations contributions in the promotion and protection of human rights standards. Are they still needed to implement and report human rights standards? Can they be trusted to assure fair and monitoring practices for developing and developed nations?

These are questions scholars are still exploring as the UN try to implement new changes in the way they monitor human rights in nation-states. The Universal Periodic Review  (UPR), is a fairly new monitoring and evaluating tool that took the place of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The old system was criticized for being politically focused and not fairly reporting on human rights issues for both developing and developed nations.  UPR is a report “which aims to promote a universal approach  and equal treatment when reviewing each country’s human rights situation” (Cowan & Billaud, pg 1176). As much as this change is needed, one still has to consider if credible reform is actually taking place or is this another tool to label nations as equals while practicing unfair reporting?

UPR allows UN member states, NGOs, and the Secretariat to rate and score human rights standards and offer recommendations to nation-states. They also use reports from other agencies to help with the concluding evaluation. Evidently, this reporting system turns out to be a juvenile scoring system, like Cowan and Billaud put it in their article, “a school with hierarchies, cliques, ruses, and exam anxieties” (pg. 1177). Developing countries will score lower because they are still trying to combat domestic human rights problems, while developed countries will most likely hide or cover up many of their human rights abuses. For example, the United States will not be judged on their human rights abuses towards African Americans because their are legal justifications to cover up those abuses. Countries like China and Russia will be reluctant to allow certain nation-states to investigate their domestic human rights abuses. Those that are chosen will be allies and are unlikely to be objective. It is also important to consider the historical and cultural context of human rights in different regions and states.

Cowan and Billaud makes an important point by mentioning how the historical context of states can be the root causes of human rights situations. Many states are not on a level playing field due to how history has effected them. The global south continues to struggle with human rights abuses such as poverty, lack of social freedom, child labor, and etc…  due to their colonial past. The global north has advanced tremendously as a result of colonial rule. Nations-states can not be held on equal standards because they have not been on equal playing field for decades. The authors also left out how culture and tradition play an important role in shaping human rights.

Many developing created policies and have governed based on cultural and traditional norms. African countries has a long history of tribal values that are of high importance to different tribes. For example, Female Genital Mutilation is considered a human rights issue but north and west African tribes have practiced this for centuries. Domestic governments are working to eradicate these practices but are left with tension between tribal leaders and government officials. How can UPR take this into account when reporting on human rights situations for each country?

It is idealistic to think the Universal Periodic Review will continue as a equal, fair, and non-political evaluation mechanism. Nation-states are not on an equal playing field and Western countries should not be used as a template to strive for human rights. It is time the United Nations step back and allow more objective bodies to monitor human rights situations and recommendations. There should be a more holistic approach to human rights monitoring which include historical, cultural, and traditional considerations. Nation-states should not be involved in evaluating their counter parts. Until their is a holistic approach to human rights reporting, monitoring and evaluation the UN contribution will always be biased.

Mega-Regional vs. WTO…Competition or Collaborator?

Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), there has been global trade cooperation with limited barriers. Everyone in the international community; whether a highly developed or under developed country; has had the opportunity to experience little or no tariffs on importing and exported goods and services. This has been one of the few successes of the organization. This success has been accompanied by “a narrative littered with missed deadlines, disappointments, and failed negotiations”(Lehmann). These failures has already contributed in deepening the gap between the North and South. Currently, trade agreements may undermine the WTO as a result of its failures.

Mega-regional organizations like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has been the newest trade agreement that is attracting large trading partners. For over a year President Obama has promoted TPP and encouraged Americans to support membership in the organization. In a speech given to the Nike Inc. in Oregon, President Obama engaged the audience by illustrating how important it is for “America to write the rules of global economy.” He played on the audience connection to domestic production and international human rights standard by stating that TPP offers “strong, enforceable provisions for workers, preventing things like child labor” (Obama). As well thought out and auditory pleasing as his proposal was, I can not help to wonder how this new membership would enforce or ensure it’s proposal.

What exactly is the Trans-Pacific Partnership? The TPP is a regional trading partner that is focused on “China’s geopolitical nature”(Lehmann). This agreement will stengthen economic relations amount its 12 member states; USA, Japan, and Canada; just to name a few. There is a push to cut tariff barriers among its members to allow for more trade goods to be imported and exported among its members. Provisions in the TPP has said to include; wage equalities in member countries, enforcing human rights laws, and opportunities to start labor unions. For a domestic economist and the president of one of the biggest economies in the international community; this may seem like an opportunity to increase small businesses by offering export opportunities, and grow domestic labor force without having to compete with lower wage economies. Invertently, there is an opposite effect for developing countries.

Strengthening economic ties among already strong and rich developed economies only continues to deepen the gap between the Global North and South. Many developing countries are left outside this trade agreement by excluding “Bangladesh, China, Africa, India, Pakistan and Indonesia” (Lehmann). Developing countries will not have the capacity to compete with large economies which will further isolate them for the international agenda. Many workers will lose their jobs and livelihoods. With growing populations, these economies may weaken while having the potential to create internal conflict and become vulnerable to non-state actors like terrorist organizations. This will continue to feed into global instability; like climate change; the actions of the global North will in turn negatively impact those living in the South. It might sound like a straight pessimistic view on mega-regional agreements but we need to consider the reality and how all international actors play a key role in economic affairs and trade arrangements.

There is still hope for positive global trade transformation which includes the WTO and mega-regional trade organizations. Similar to President Obama push for empowerment for domestic small business owners, there needs to be more of a voice for developing countries in the global South. TPP needs to include more membership from developing countries and small business owners in those countries in order to contribute stregthing their economies. To do this, it is important to encourage more union formations in those countries, help create export markets for domestic products, and encouraged manufacturing as well. An example can be found in Ghana where there is large domestic production of Shea butter. This product is used in many hair, skin and body products globally. If there were more cooperation between manufacturers in larger economies to buy Shea from Ghana, potential is presented to create more jobs domestically, encourage export trade, while also enforcing fair labor laws and minimum wage in Ghana.

Mega-regional agreements has the potential to help close the income inequality gap between rich and poorer countries. It is essential to take this opportunity to rewrite the wrong done by the WTO and established fair trading agreements globally. While this proposal is still in its implementation phase, members should include the involvement of the global South. If membership is only focused on its 12 members then this will just continue to widen the gap between the North and the South. As we have seen in recent years; the importance of non-state actors has grown in international relations; it is important to help strengthen domestic economies of vulnerable developing countries reduce their attractiveness to terrorist groups and other non-state actors.