Hamid al Bayati, the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations, was elected chairman of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the sixty-first General Assembly on 8 June. Photo/Melissa Gorelick

Q: Human rights issues have become central to the Third Committee. One of the newest additions to the UN human rights framework is the Human Rights Council. How do you think the delegates perceive the early work of the Human Rights Council?

A: I think people were excited to have the Human Rights Council, which is based in Geneva, for the first time. It gives the Third Committee a special importance this year. There was some debate among member states about whether the report of the Council should be referred to the Plenary or to the Third Committee. According to the rules of procedure, a subject should be referred to the committee that deals with that subject, and so we finally agreed to convey to the General Assembly - and the General Assembly approved this - that the report should be referred to both the Third Committee and the Plenary. The Plenary discusses the annual report, while the Third Committee deals with all of the Human Rights Council's recommendations.

People were also very excited about the launch of a study about violence against children, conducted by a special rapporteur, which was three years in the making. The head of UNICEF, the crown prince of Norway, and many ambassadors and politicians were there for this launch. It was another important and much anticipated aspect of the Committee's work this year.

Q: Many of the Committee's special rapporteurs expressed that they were having trouble conducting fact-finding missions to regions where human rights abuses had been alleged. How does the UN, and the Third Committee in particular, encourage transparency in human rights issues?

A: That is a tough thing to deal with. Many countries decline to allow special rapporteurs to come and see things on the field, which is important to their work. When one of these Member States objects to the Committee's views about its human rights record, we must say simply that you should have allowed us to visit. Then we could have more fairly reflected the view of your Government, along with our own view of the issue. Openness is essential to the work that the Third Committee does.

We decided early on in the Committee that transparency is especially important in our area, and we started working early this past summer on ways to handle this. We met with the Secretariat and with the outgoing Third Committee bureau to learn from their experiences. We agreed to work as a team, and with the full cooperation of the Secretariat, and to have constant consultations with the regional groups and the member states. And as a result, all of the resolutions that we've adopted in the Third Committee to date have been by consensus. We've managed to compromise whenever there have been differing views on an issue. Obviously at the UN there will be many different viewpoints, but we try our best to reach compromises. That takes a lot of time and effort, but we are glad to reach agreements whenever we can.

Q: There seems to be a fine balance to how much UN resolutions can focus on specific countries by name. On the one hand, you have an obligation to do so when there's an allegation of human rights violations, but on the other, many member states complain that they are being unfairly singled out. How well do you think the Third Committee handled this balance?

A: This is the most sensitive issue, and it's a very delicate equation. You don't always want to accuse Member States of certain things, but you certainly need to encourage them to do more about human rights. Much of the answer lies in the way that you address human rights concerns. One thing that I've noticed many Member States don't like is when certain countries present themselves as human rights gods - as if they have perfect records in the field of human rights - and when they criticize others as if they are, themselves, untouchable. This really upsets other nations, especially when they suspect that it's being used for political purposes. We need to put as much pressure as possible on countries to improve human rights conditions, and sometimes we are forced to follow the policy of name and shame - you name a certain country and make them feel ashamed that their record on human rights is not brilliant. However, we also don't want to provoke them unnecessarily or accuse them of false things.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a big difference between a country that allows UN special rapporteurs to visit and write a report, and one that does not. We try to praise countries that cooperate with the United Nations organization and with the special rapporteur.
Although there is always a margin of error in these special reports, most rapporteurs do a really excellent job. They spend a lot of time and do a lot of work gathering information, and this essential making the UN an accurate and trusted observer of human rights around the world.

Q: The Third Committee this year addressed specific human rights dimensions of migration. What kinds of human rights issues are unique to migrants?

A: When I was based in London before the change of the Iraqi regime I had the opportunity to work directly with many, many Iraqi migrants. They would come to me to tell me their stories, to recount their suffering and experiences. In many cases, migrants are people who are persecuted in their own countries; they become refugees or political asylum-seekers. These people are very vulnerable to gangs and smugglers. I've heard stories about the detention of migrants to take money from them, about the confinement of large numbers of people in small spaces, about migrants being transported places in trucks and suffocating.

On the other hand, we know that some countries need migrants for labor, so what we need is an effective migration strategy. On the one hand, we want to observe the human rights of migrants, on the other, we want to give them the opportunity to work in countries where they are needed. I think developed countries need to create strategies to observe the rights of migrants but also to make use of them, because they can improve a nation's economy - especially if they are trained and learn skills. We really want to help migrants achieve a better life in the countries they move to.

Q: What other Third Committee issues really stood out during this year's session?

A: This year young people played a very important role in the Third Committee. During the launch of the study of violence against children, we had a child who read a statement to the committee - she was amazing. She really gave voice to the reasons why we should stand together to protect children. I also noticed that there were very active youth delegations at the General Assembly, always distributing pamphlets and fliers, so I asked for a meeting with them to discuss their role in the committees. They told me that this youth movement started a few years ago and peaked last year with a record number of youth delegates attending the General Assembly. The idea of the program is to encourage Member States to send youth delegations to take part in the UN system, and especially in the discussions in the committees. I really liked the idea, so I encouraged them to create a proposal on youth delegations, for distribution to Member States. At the end of the day, they are the future of the world, the future of the nations, and this was the first time there has been such a strong youth initiative.

Another initiative we took was to meet with NGOs and listen to their views. We had an informal meeting with them over a lunchbreak, and they were very grateful - they said this was the first time the Third Committee asked NGOs to come forward with their opinions. And they had brilliant ideas, especially about converting resolutions to action. The Third Committee talks about human rights and poverty, but these NGOs correctly noted that talk is easy. Their ideas were about implementation and action.

Q: Is it difficult for you when issues regarding your home country of Iraq are discussed at the Third Committee?

A: There was only one occasion when I felt I couldn't chair the Committee because of criticism that was being made of my country. While Iraq is open to criticism, I didn't feel it was fair for me to listen to criticism without replying. So in that instance I instead let my delegation reply from Iraq's seat. Other than that occasion, I didn't have any difficulties listening to people talk about the situation in Iraq. In regards to human rights, in fact, Iraq - whose record is not perfect in this area - is making strides. We now have a ministry for human rights in Iraq for the first time in modern history.

Q: What was the hardest thing about chairing this Committee? What was the most rewarding?

A: The most rewarding feeling is to be serving Member States, and to be doing even a little bit to protect human rights. When you feel that you are providing assistance to the most vulnerable people - especially women and children - this is very rewarding. The most difficult thing is to come to a compromise. Member States are always ready to vote, but for a Chair a vote means you have failed to convince delegates to meet in the middle. I always tried to be neutral, I always tried to be transparent in my actions, and I always tried to put myself in the shoes of both sides. The best ways is to meet in the middle, but it is a difficult thing to always suggest the right kind of compromise.