"DAUNTING". The President's reaction to her nomination as UN Human Rights Commissioner may be something of an understatement, as she awaits confirmation that she can pack her bags for Geneva.
That confirmation could come as early as Tuesday week, when the UN General Assembly may be asked to ratify her nomination. Three or four months later, she won't be cracking a whip and charging off to China. Not only is it not her style, but she could have some basic housekeeping matters to attend to before travelling anywhere.
Matters like money, manpower and poor morale, according to Amnesty International, which has been scathingly critical of her predecessor, the first commissioner, Mr Jose AyalaLasso.
During the Ecuadoran's term, a chasm developed between expectations and delivery. In a report which it sent to the UN Secretary General two months ago, Amnesty International described how he dealt out sweets rather than medicine.
The first crisis came on the commissioner's second day in the job, a job which was only created in December 1993. News came in of the killings of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, and of genocide in Rwanda. AyalaLasso proposed a special session of his commission and set off for Africa.
On his return, it was agreed to appoint a special rappoiteur to Rwanda. Arrangements were to be made for field officers. The commissioner also called for pilot technical assistance.
Both projects ran into "immediate difficulties", Amnesty International says. The UN Centre for Human Rights had no field experience; there was confusion over priorities and a lack of direction; and the UN memberstates which had approved the action failed to deliver the financial goods.
"The paradox is that states recognise the importance of accurate information from the field, but are unwilling to provide the means for this to be done properly," the nongovernmental organisation (NGO) says.
This was highlighted most recently by the behaviour of the UN Security Council on March 7th of this year. The council welcomed the dispatch of a UN fact finding mission to eastern Zaire, but made no attempt to provide the resources, logistical help, security or framework for the mission.
"As long as the High Commissioner for Human Rights is expected to respond to this sort of request with absolutely no capacity to do so, there will be a yawning gap between the expectations and the response," the NGO warns in its report.
President Robinson has not, as yet, officially drawn up an agenda; but it is understood that she values the Amnesty International critique. International lawyers have also criticised other aspects of the office, such as the snail like progress of the International Court of Justice in dealing with war criminals.
The budget for her job will be a mere £30 million, compared to £80 million for the office of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Granted, the bulk of the UNHCR's expenditure is on emergency programmes, at just under £500 million a year. The human rights office, however, which was expanded from a small division just over three years ago with a doubled budget, has 450 staff.
The 3 1/2 page brief for the job, outlined in UN resolution 48/141 of December 1993, gives an indication of the extent of the responsibilities. The officeholder is required to promote and protect effective enjoyment of all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; carry out tasks assigned by competent UN associated bodies, and make recommendations; give support through the Centre for Human Rights and other institutions; coordinate public information programmes; engage in dialogue with governments; enhance international cooperation; and play an active role in removing current obstacles.
The shortage of resources is compounded by the fact that half of the £30 million budget currently comes from voluntary contributions. Memberstates which prefer a "cosmetic" approach to problems may politely refuse to pay.
Then there are the differences in emphasis and interpretation. "Human rights" to western memberstates is synonymous with free speech, freedom of conscience, fair trials and eradication of torture. Asian and African member states place more emphasis on the rights of community and social and economic development.
China, in particular, has taken a firm stance against any attempt to interfere in its internal affairs.
Ireland's own priorities are outlined in the White Paper on Foreign Policy, and reflected in the new human rights committee chaired by Mr Tim O'Connor of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, initiated this week. Amnesty International has drawn up a shopping list; it believes that the incumbent should be committed to:
. confronting governments which violate human rights, publicly if necessary.
. working with the media in supporting both country and thematic strategies, and promoting maximum transparency in the work of the office.
. working with NGOs.
. restructuring the UN Centre for Human Rights in Geneva and strengthening the office in New York.
. defending attacks on UN human rights machinery.
Divisions within the Geneva office and Mrs Robinson's perceived lack of management experience will not make for a sinecure. The new incumbent will be relying heavily on the UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, for support. There is no reason to believe that he will not deliver.
"She will need a Bride Rosney," said one UN source. "Otherwise, she may trip up." Another says she may resign in frustration after three or four years, the post being a four year contract. Familiar words, those. Something similar was predicted when she took on the Irish presidency in December 1990.
