The new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, marked the start of her tenure on 10th September with an inaugural address to the Human Rights Council (at the start of its 39th session). As with all inaugural speeches by new High Commissioners, the statement was closely watched by States, NGOs and the media for clues as to Ms Bachelet’s likely approach to the mandate, and any changes or innovations she may bring to the role. This was especially the case on this occasion, due to rumours that the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, wants to see a clean break from the approach of Ms Bachelet’s predecessor, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, and that Ms Bachelet was appointed, in large part, with this wish in mind, (a situation extensively analysed in recent articles in Foreign Policy magazine, openGlobalRights, and URG Insights).
High Commissioner Bachelet delivered a strong and carefully balanced first speech. While she may lack the oratorical brilliance of High Commissioner Zeid, she nevertheless chartered a careful course between (and yet embracing) the widely different expectations and demands of different UN interest groups, and wisely focused on a number of key issues that will determine the future effectiveness of the international human rights system, and the wider UN.
She began by acknowledging the courage and achievements of her predecessor; rightly noting that he had become, during his time in Office, ‘the spokesman for those who are voiceless: the victims of human rights violations.’
Balancing expectations
The first part of the High Commissioner’s speech then sought to set out the broad parameters of her strategic approach to her mandate. In particular, she sought to simultaneously allay the concerns, on the one hand, of civil society and some Western States, which are concerned she may choose to avoid, or at least reduce the frequency and volume of, public condemnation of serious human rights violations; and on the other hand, of other States (especially developing countries), which would like the new High Commissioner to forge a more cooperative relationship with States, emphasising dialogue, consensus and quiet diplomacy.
The High Commissioner wisely understood that this was a false choice, and thus chose to commit herself to pursuing both goals – in line with the fullness of her mandate as provided by the General Assembly in its resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993.
Regarding the role of the High Commissioner in calling out violations of human rights, and providing a ‘voice to the voiceless,’ Ms Bachelet was clear that this will remain a core part of her mandate and her work, and indeed, considering her personal background, it could never be otherwise. On the last point, she reminded Council delegations and NGOs that she has been ‘a political detainee and the daughter of political detainees; I have been a refugee and a physician – including for children who experienced torture, and the enforced disappearance of their parents.’
From this experience, and the wider experience of the brutal human rights violations committed by the regime of General Pinochet in Chile, she fully understands the importance of international condemnation of governments where necessary, and of the power of universal rights to engender and guide change.
‘Above all, I will advocate for the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that are the inherent entitlements of all people,’ she promised. ‘I will strive to be their voice and their strong defender, in complete objectivity, without fear or favour.’ ‘I bring with me’ she concluded, ‘my fundamental attachment to the courage, the dignity and selflessness of all defenders and activists for human rights.’
Furthermore, she reminded Council members that they too must never question or seek to diminish their responsibility, indeed their legal and moral obligation, ‘to speak out against every instance of human rights violations, regardless of sex, gender identity, race or ethnicity, religion, disability or migration status, or other characteristic. Irrespective of the type of political regime in a given country.’
After reaffirming her commitment to address situations of violations ‘without fear or favour’ and wherever they occur, Ms Bachelet revealed that she would nonetheless be different to High Commissioner Zeid, that she would chart a new course. In particular she explained her belief in working with States, which retain the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights, in a relationship characterised, where possible, by cooperation, dialogue and consensus.