Finland’s work must be closely monitored so that its goals do not remain empty declarations, writes Ville Similä, HS’s foreign journalist.
Hurrah! Thursday was a real day of joy and happiness. Finland was chosen after a persistent campaign Member of the UN Human Rights Council. There is a full three-year period ahead for the promotion of human rights until the end of 2024.
Why didn’t the people get upset?
By Friday afternoon, no information had been included in the HS delivery about citizens who had, so to speak, gone to the “market”, that is, to celebrate the achievement in the costume or costume of their choice in the Havis Amanda statue fountain, as Finns have been accustomed since time immemorial.
The most obvious the explanation for the restraint is the toothlessness and weak credibility of the HRC. It is difficult to celebrate access to a council with states that blatantly violate human rights.
Finland’s friends include Finland, Russia, Sudan and Libya. The Council has also seen Saudi Arabia and Syria. I guess inclusiveness should mean just that.
The explanation is that this is how the UN just works. No state is wanted and cannot be ruled out. The members of the Council are elected by a simple vote in which each state has one vote.
Another general argument is that no state is and can never be flawless in the realization of human rights. Human rights are indivisible and inalienable, but each state always has its own human rights problems.
basic are not entirely satisfactory, but these go.
Against this background, it is really good that the Council is not a steel fist. It can at most name the states that have committed human rights violations. Sanctions cannot be imposed or proposed by the Council – and indeed not even differentiate between its own Member States.
That does not mean that important work cannot be done in the Council.
In the Human Rights Council, for example, Finland could continue along the lines of Iceland and Denmark. They have carried out long-term country-specific work on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, write Program Director of the Foreign Policy Institute Katja Creutz.
“
Human rights are an issue where it is also easy for states to succumb to lazy posing.
Social in the media age, human rights work is kind of easier. No need to bother with embassy gates to whine, just click to go.
Lazy clicking is often just lazy clicking, but something is all too easy to blame. For example, sports stars and fans in recent years have succeeded in putting pressure on decisions to grant the Games to countries that blatantly despise human rights, such as Qatar and China.
States have not been able to respond to this pressure for decades, let alone the Human Rights Council. Indeed, human rights are an issue where it is easy for states to succumb to lazy posing.
Finland has declared the promotion of human rights, and in particular the rights of women and girls, as priorities in its foreign policy. In practice, Finland’s foreign policy is often marked by caution. And with a smile, human rights have rarely progressed, though it is also true that persevering diplomacy can be more impressive than shouting like a raccoon dog.
In the Human Rights Council, Finland is now at least in a place where it can make a better impact than outside the Council. You shouldn’t stay in the back row there.
Finland the work of the Human Rights Council must therefore be closely monitored.
“Domestic actors, including civil society, the media and researchers, should monitor Finland’s membership and, if necessary, put pressure on the country to take more concrete measures,” Creutz writes.
The call is appropriate.
In this sense, the abstention of citizens from the celebration on Thursday was well justified. Now there is a newly redeemed venue. Let us follow Finland’s three-year period closely and leave the “market” only when Finland has completed its term at least in accordance with the goals it has set itself.
Report to Instagram!
.
