Malaysia’s vote on protecting human rights defenders, diplomatic window dressing

Last week, the United Nations General Assembly in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) adopted a resolution on supporting and protecting the role of human rights defenders.

Voting in favour were 117 countries with 40 abstaining and 14 voting no. Countries that voted no are China, Russia, Syria, Iran, South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, Burundi, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Human rights activists in countries that voted no, such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, took to social media condemning their countries’ decision.

Fundamentally, the resolution calls upon all countries to take necessary measures to refrain from any act of intimidation or reprisal against human rights defenders. The resolution also calls upon all countries to halt the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention of these human rights defenders.

Many agreed that the resolution was timely as we witness the increasing trend of suppression against human rights defenders all over the world. Among the common challenges are the prosecution of defenders and criminalisation of their advocacy activities.

In essence, this resolution could be seen as a direct reflection of the growing repressive and intolerant atmosphere for human rights defenders, particularly in the countries that voted no to the resolution. Nevertheless, it also opens up another question.

What are the commitments of the 117 countries, including Malaysia, that voted yes to the resolution?

We have heard enough of the incompetency of the United Nations in ensuring the compliance of its member states to commit themselves to human rights protection.

The resolution is considered symbolic as it involved some challenges, especially during the negotiation phase.

Norway, as the main sponsor of the resolution had to face confrontation posed by some member states who were attempting to weaken the text. Furthermore, while normally adopted as a consensus resolution, China and Russia this time around requested for voting in this particular resolution.

At this point, the adoption of this resolution could be considered a success.

As in the case of Malaysia, it is not surprising that amid the heightened repression of local human rights defenders, Malaysia voted yes to the resolution. Given its active role and position in the United Nations Security Council, it would be odd if Malaysia had voted no to the resolution that received a majority support. Furthermore, Malaysia’s diplomatic strategy has almost always been gentle and non-confrontational.

In recent years, Malaysia has come under fire for the government’s harsh treatment of human rights defenders. A long list of human rights activists have been investigated, arrested or charged under various national legislations, mainly for being outspoken on Malaysia’s human rights performance.

Local human rights defenders generally welcomed the move by Malaysia, but with some scepticism way. Reasonably, it provides human rights defenders an added advantage to put further pressure on the Malaysia government in ensuring the protection of their right to advocate for human rights.

The scepticism is not without reason. Looking back at Malaysia’s record internationally, Malaysia has in many instances not walked the talk when it comes to international commitments on human rights affairs. One glaring example is their lack of commitment to the peer-review mechanism, Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

At this point of time, Malaysia’s adoption of the UN resolution in protecting human rights defenders does not reflect the reality back home. It was obvious that it is, at least for now, nothing more than diplomatic window dressing.

While a UN resolution such as this would help in many ways, human rights protection must start at home. – November 30, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.