Statement by United Nations Watch, delivered by intern Jake Hyman before the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, 1 July 2025. Agenda Item 6, Universal Periodic Review of Angola.

Full Speech:

Mr. Chair,

United Nations Watch acknowledges Angola’s engagement in this Universal Periodic Review. However, while Angola asserts progress in human rights standards, a different reality is emerging.

Despite Angola’s official stance against torture, credible reports indicate ongoing impunity among security forces. We also remain deeply concerned by the prevalence of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and the use of excessive force against peaceful protesters—all of which are compounded by a lack of due process.

Incidents in Lunda Norchi and Uambo involving live bullets and fatalities highlight pervasive impunity, not isolated mistakes. The lack of transparent investigations further erodes public trust and shrinks civic space.

Mr. Chair, despite constitutional guarantees, fundamental freedoms are increasingly restricted. Criminal defamation laws intimidate journalists. We are concerned by new laws, including the Crimes of Vandalism Act and the National Security Act. Angola must repeal the latter to prevent encroachment on basic freedoms guaranteed under international human rights law.

Finally, systemic weaknesses limit vital human rights protection. Angola’s national human rights institution remains non-compliant with the Paris Principles, lacking an adequate mandate, resources, and visibility. Persistent legal loopholes enable child marriage and sexual exploitation.

Corporal punishment is legitimized under the guise of “justifiable correction.” Angola’s stated commitment to human rights is demonstrably undermined by an extensive culture of impunity and shrinking civic space.

Human rights victims in Angola need to see immediate and fundamental reforms. They need to see government compliance with international standards. We urge Angola to seize this critical moment to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality, for the dignity and rights of every citizen.

Thank you.

The post Angola’s Human Rights Record Called Out at UN Debate appeared first on UN Watch.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Current 2018 members of UN Human Rights Council include:
•Iraq
•Cuba
•China
•Qatar
•Angola
•Burundi
•Pakistan
•Venezuela
•DR Congo
•Afghanistan
•Saudi Arabia
•United Arab Emirates pic.twitter.com/Fy5S6M94bs

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) October 5, 2018

Here’s how UN Watch fights the dictatorships and defends human rights:

In 2017:

In 2016:

The post Farce: Meet 2018 Membership of U.N. Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

ELECTING THE 2018-2020 MEMBERS OF THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Ahead of the Human Rights Council elections by the General Assembly
at United Nations Headquarters, New York, October 16, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report evaluates the country candidates for the October 16, 2017 election of 15 new members to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Our evaluations applied the membership criteria established by UNGA Resolution 60/251, which requires members to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and to “fully cooperate with the Council.” In particular, we examined (a) each candidate’s record of domestic human rights protection; and (b) its U.N. voting record. The report finds as follows:

UNQUALIFIED

7 out of 16 candidates have poor records and fail to qualify: Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Qatar

QUESTIONABLE

4 candidates have problematic human rights and/or U.N. voting records: Mexico, Nepal, Senegal and Ukraine

QUALIFIED

Only 5 out of 16 candidate countries are qualified to be council members: Australia, Chile, Peru, Slovakia and Spain
The absence of competition this year in four out of the five regional slates undermines the very premise and rationale for holding elections. Nevertheless, this report emphasizes to U.N. member states that they have the legal right—and moral obligation—to refrain from voting for an Unqualified candidate—even if those happen to be running on closed slates.
­­­Instead, as detailed in the report, during the ballot they can actually defeat such candidacies, thereby freeing up the process for qualified alternatives to come forward. In regard to candidate countries deemed Questionable, they should, at a minimum, be asked to commit to redress the shortcomings identified in this report.

ANALYSIS OF “UNQUALIFIED” CANDIDATES

Afghanistan

• Click here for human rights record
• Click here for absurd UNHRC election platform

Angola

• Click here for human rights record
• Click here for absurd UNHRC election platform

DRC

• Click here for human rights record

Malaysia

• Click here for human rights record
• Click here for absurd UNHRC election platform

Nigeria

• Click here for human rights record

Pakistan

• Click here for human rights record
• Click here for absurd UNHRC election platform

Qatar

• Click here for human rights record
• Click here for absurd UNHRC election platform

CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE PDF OF REPORT ON UNHRC CANDIDATES
CLICK HERE FOR PRESS RELEASE FROM UN WATCH

The post UN Watch Report: Electing the 2018-2020 Members of the U.N. Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

Angola’s Human Rights Record

Angola commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Torture
• Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
• Restrictions on freedom of assembly
• Restrictions on free speech
• Restrictions on free press
• Corruption
• Impunity
• Unlawful deprivation of life
• Potentially life-threatening prison conditions
• Arbitrary arrest and detention
• Lack of due process
• Judicial inefficiency
• Forced evictions without compensation
• Violence against women and children
• Child labor
• Trafficking in persons
• Forced labor

Discussion

Angola’s president José Eduardo dos Santos was one of the longest serving African presidents before he stepped down in August 2017 after 38 years in power. [1] His reign was characterized by endemic government corruption, economic crisis, inflation, poor health indicators and widespread poverty. [2] It remains to be seen whether dos Santos’ chosen successor, João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço, of the ruling MPLA party, will stick to his promise to fight the corruption.

Angola is Africa’s second largest oil producing country. Yet, despite the one-time opportunity for rebuilding which Angola received when its nearly 30-year civil war ended in 2002, outgoing President dos Santos exploited the country’s resources to enrich himself and his inner circle, leaving ordinary Angolans to languish in poverty. [3] While dos Santo’s oldest daughter, Isabel, is Africa’s richest woman with estimated wealth of $2.3 billion, and other family members amassed fortunes, one third of the population lives on less than $2 a day. [4] One government insider was recently quoted as saying that government spending on reconstruction was “like opening a window and throwing out money,” because billions of dollars disappeared into individuals’ pockets. [5]

Angola’s 14-year post-war economic boom was followed by a sharp downturn in 2016 as the price of oil declined. Now, there is 30% inflation and government services have deteriorated. [6]

According to Human Rights Watch, Angola has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world with one in five children dying before age five. In 2016, Angola failed to adequately deal with outbreaks of Yellow Fever and Malaria because of lack of medication and supplies due to budget cuts. Almost 3,000 people died from Malaria in the first quarter of the year. [7]

Angolan security forces committed serious human rights violations with impunity. For example, in April 2016, at least three demonstrators were wounded by police gunfire; in August 2016, security forces killed a 14-year-old boy during a peaceful protest against forced evictions; in August 2016, an officer of a private security firm with government ties reportedly shot and killed a 17-year-old boy. [8]

Security forces were also responsible for beatings and torture. In one case from August 2016, a suspected gang member was tortured and killed in police custody. There were also several cases of police arbitrarily detaining protesters in advance of demonstrations and beating protesters. [9]

While the law officially provides for freedom of expression, the government owned or controlled most media and journalists practiced self-censorship. In 2016, the legislature approved several new restrictive laws giving the government greater control of both traditional and online media. [10]

Furthermore, government authorities arrested, harassed and intimidated journalists and denied them access to information. In January and June 2016, the government charged two journalists with defamation after they reported on government corruption. In August 2016, a team of Novo Jornal journalists were stopped, searched and threatened by security forces while visiting a demolition site and one of the journalists was beaten. In May 2016, another journalist was detained and beaten while reporting on a street altercation he had witnessed. [11]

U.N. Voting Record

Negative: At the General Assembly, Angola backed human rights abusers through a resolution denying the right to sanction such regimes, by voting to delay the work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against LGBT, and by voting against a resolution to protect human rights defenders. Angola abstained on resolutions that spoke out for human rights victims in Iran, Syria and North Korea.

 
[1] Kevin Sieff, “He outlasted Reagan, Castro and Gorbachev. Now Angola’s 74-year-old leader is stepping down,” Washington Post, August 23, 2017, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/he-outlasted-reagan-castro-and-gorbachev-now-angolas-78-year-old-leader-is-stepping-down/2017/08/22/90753f6f-6f66-4979-b7d7-2e1c95d855ab_story.html?utm_term=.38662caf776a.

[2] Anita Powell, “Angola’s Economic Woes Top of Citizens’, New President’s Priority List,” Voice of America, August 29, 2017, available at https://www.voanews.com/a/angola-economic-woes-top-of-citizen-new-president-priority-list/4003691.html; “Angola 2016 Human Rights Report,” U.S. Department of State, 2017, available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=265222.

[3] Norimtsu Onishi, “Angola’s Corrupt Building Boom: ‘Like Opening a Window and Throwing Out Money,’” The New York Times, June 24, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/africa/angola-luanda-jose-eduardo-dos-santos.html?mcubz=0.

[4] Henrique Almeida and Candido Mendes, “Angola Enters a New Political Era With Its Economy Struggling,” Bloomberg, August 22, 2017, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/skyscrapers-stand-unfinished-as-angolan-election-marks-new-era.

[5] Norimtsu Onishi, “Angola’s Corrupt Building Boom: ‘Like Opening a Window and Throwing Out Money,’” The New York Times, June 24, 2017, available at available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/africa/angola-luanda-jose-eduardo-dos-santos.html?mcubz=0.

[6] Henrique Almeida and Candido Mendes, “Angola Enters a New Political Era With Its Economy Struggling,” Bloomberg, August 22, 2017, available at available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/skyscrapers-stand-unfinished-as-angolan-election-marks-new-era; Kevin Sieff, “He outlasted Reagan, Castro and Gorbachev. Now Angola’s 74-year-old leader is stepping down,” Washington Post, August 23, 2017, available at available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/he-outlasted-reagan-castro-and-gorbachev-now-angolas-78-year-old-leader-is-stepping-down/2017/08/22/90753f6f-6f66-4979-b7d7-2e1c95d855ab_story.html?utm_term=.38662caf776a.

[7] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017, Angola country chapter, available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/angola.

[8] “Angola 2016 Human Rights Report,” U.S. Department of State, 2017, p. 2, available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=265222.

[9] Amnesty International 2016/2017 Report, Angola, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/angola/report-angola/.

[10] “Angola 2016 Human Rights Report,” U.S. Department of State, 2017, pp. 12-13, available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=265222; Freedom in the World 2017: Angola Profile, Freedom House, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/angola.

[11] Id.

The post Angola elected to top U.N. rights body, despite gross violations and massive corruption appeared first on UN Watch.

‘Elections without competition were phony’

Geneva, May 13, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today’s election of Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar and Malaysia to the UN Human Rights Council, countries rated as having poor records on human rights. (See full voting results at bottom.)

“We had phony elections today because there was no competition,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, whose group heads a coalition of 37 human rights organizations that campaigned against Libya’s candidacy. (Click here for joint NGO appeal sent this morning to all 192 UN member states.)

“By electing serial human rights violators, the UN violated its own criteria, basic logic and morality,” said Neuer.

“Watching Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi judge others on human rights will turn the U.N. Human Rights Council into a joke. Libya received the least votes after our campaign, but that’s little consolation.”

Neuer said that the council now drops from a membership that is 49% democratic, according to the annual survey by Freedom House, to a new low of only 40% (20 of 47 countries). Those figures ought to raise alarm bells,” said Neuer.

Based on past voting, the new membership would likely adopt the council’s annual, Islamic-sponsored resolution on “defamation of religion” by a vote of 22 to 18. In March, the current membership passed it by a vote of 20 to 17.

“The Libyan government gave a pledge stating that it respects human rights, but in truth it’s the same regime that brutally scapegoated five Bulgarian nurses for a crime they did not commit, that tortures dissidents like the late Fathi Eljahmi, and that continues to hold hostage an innocent Swiss businessman.” (See Libyan pledge under country link here.)

“In the past year, Qaddafi declared from the UN podium that he rejects the principles of the UN Charter and called for a Jihad against Switzerland. How can he now be elected a member of the UN Human Rights Council?”

The council was created in 2006 to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, one year after then UN chief Kofi Annan said it had become rife with “politicization” and “selectivity,” with a “credibility deficit” that cast “a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”

One aim of the reform was to prevent the most serious human rights offenders from becoming members. But it has been widely criticized over the past four years for failing to change many of the commission’s practices, such as turning a blind eye to most of the world’s worst abuses while criticizing Israel more than any other country.

To date, the council has adopted 40 censure resolutions, of which 33 have targeted Israel. Out of nine emergency sessions that criticized countries, six were against Israel.

Despite widely reported killings during the past year in Iran, China and Nigeria, the council failed to respond with any resolution, special session or inquiry.

In May 2009, after Sri Lanka killed an estimated 20,000 civilians, the council praised the government for its “promotion and protection of all human rights.”

Since 2007, the council gradually eliminated its expert monitors on the human rights situations in Belarus, Congo, Cuba and Liberia.

Countries lobby hard to avoid being “named and shamed” by resolutions that have the power to shine an international spotlight. Influential countries, including members of the Security Council, are rarely scrutinized. Nor are members of large voting blocs such as the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The Geneva-based council gives dominance to Africa and Asia, whose 26 seats grant them an automatic majority. Western Europe and North America together are represented by seven countries.

A joint report last week by the human rights groups Freedom House and UN Watch called on all 192 member states to vote against Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar, Malaysia, based on an examination of their record in protecting human rights at home, as well as on their UN human rights voting record. Click here for report with analysis of all 14 candidates.

The candidacies of Uganda, Thailand, Ecuador and Moldova were rated as “questionable.”

Only Spain, Switzerland, Poland, Maldives and Guatemala were deemed to meet the council’s stated criteria of promotion and protection of human rights.

Full results of today’s election of 14 countries as members of the UN Human Rights Council, as officially released by the UN:

Africa: Angola – 170;   Mauritania – 167;  Uganda-164;  Libya- 155
Asia: Maldives- 185;  Thailand – 182;  Malaysia – 179; Qatar – 177
Eastern European: Moldova – 175; Poland – 171
Latin American and Caribean: Ecuador – 180; Guatemala – 180; Peru – 1
Western European and other: Spain – 177;  Switzerland – 175

Background material:

• Joint Appeal by 37 NGOs Opposed to Libya’s Canadidacy, headed by UN Watch, with many African NGOs, and Libyan victim groups, urging the U.S. and E.U. representatives at the UN to block Libya from winning a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. “We trust that the influential countries whom you represent can and will lead a successful campaign to persuade a minimum of 96 UN member states to oppose this murderous, repressive and racist regime from winning a seat on the Human Rights Council.”

• Testimony last week by Mohamed Eljahmi:  “My brother Fathi Eljahmi was murdered by the Qaddafi regime because he… called for free speech, free enterprise, free press, a constitution, a government for the people and by the people… Electing Libya to membership in the UN Human Rights Council is wrong. It provides legitimacy to Qadhafi, bruises the Council’s credibility and insults the Libyan people.”

• 2010 Analysis of UN Human Rights Council perfomance over the past year, rating countries on how they vote.

• Report released last week by UN Watch and Freedom House, rating all 14 candidates in the UNHRC elections, and calling on member states to reject Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Mauritania, and Qatar, deemed as non-qualified based on their record on human rights and UN voting.  Highlights below.

Human Rights and Voting Records of “Not Qualified” Countries

Angola

Human Rights Record
Angola is ranked Not Free by Freedom House with a score of a 6 out of a worst possible 7 for political rights and a 5 out of a worst possible 7 for civil liberties. Long-delayed legislative elections held in September 2008 but were not free and fair. Media restrictions became less stringent after 2002, but despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, journalists remain subject to intimidation, dismissal, detention, and legal sanction by authorities, resulting in self-censorship. Defamation of the president or his representatives and libel are criminal offenses, punishable by imprisonment or fines. The only daily newspaper, national radio station, and dominant television stations are state owned. Lengthy pretrial detention is common, and prisoners are subject to torture, severe overcrowding, sexual abuse, extortion, and a lack of basic services. Despite increased resources and human rights training, security forces continue to commit abuses with impunity.

UN Voting Record
In the past year at the GA, Angola abstained on the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Iran and North Korea, was absent during the vote condemning the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma), and voted in favor of “Combating defamation of religions.” At the HRC, Angola voted to shield Sri Lanka from condemnation on the killings of thousands of civilians during the winter of 2009. It also failed to support the resolutions that extended the mandates of the human rights experts on the situations in DRC and Sudan. Though it joined consensus on the resolution condemning the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma), it abstained during the Council’s vote on the DPRK.

Libya

Human Rights Record
Libya is ranked Not Free by Freedom House and was one of only nine countries to receive a worst possible score of a 7 for both political rights and civil liberties in 2009, qualifying it as one of the “world’s most repressive societies.” Power theoretically lies with a system of people’s committees and the indirectly elected General People’s Congress, but in practice those structures are manipulated to ensure the continued dominance of Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi, who holds no official title. Political parties have been illegal for more than 35 years and organizing or joining anything akin to a political party is punishable by long prison terms and even the death sentence. There is no independent press. The regime hardened its monopoly on media outlets in mid-2009 with the nationalization of Al-Ghad media group, which was established in 2007 by al-Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and encompassed the country’s only quasi-independent newspapers and radio stations. The government controls the country’s only internet service provider. Demonstrations that are allowed to take place typically support the aims of the regime. The law allows for the establishment of nongovernmental organizations, but those that have been granted authorization to operate are directly or indirectly linked to the government.

UN Voting Record
In the past year at the GA, Libya voted against the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Iran, Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea, and voted in favor of “Combating defamation of religions.” It was not a member of the HRC.

Mauritania

Human Rights Record
Mauritania is ranked Not Free by Freedom House with a score of a 6 out of a worst possible 7 for political rights and a 5 out of a worst possible 7 for civil liberties. General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who removed President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdellahi from office in an August 2008 military coup, won presidential elections held in July 2009. The military imposed new media restrictions after the 2008 coup, beginning with the takeover of state broadcast media. In May 2009, the police assaulted a group of journalists and prevented them from covering a sit-in by the National Association of Lawyers. Amnesty International reports that the police violently broke up two peaceful protests in April 2009. The judicial system is heavily influenced by the government. Prison conditions are harsh, and security forces suspected of human rights abuses operate with impunity.

UN Voting Record
In the past year at the GA, Mauritania voted against the resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran, abstained on the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea, and voted in favor of “Combating defamation of religions.” It was not a member of the HRC.

Qatar

Human Rights Record
Qatar is ranked Not Free by Freedom House with a score of a 6 out of a worst possible 7 for political rights and a 5 out of a worst possible 7 for civil liberties. The head of state is the emir, currently Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, whose family enjoys a monopoly on political power. The emir appoints a prime minister and the cabinet. Only a small percentage of the country’s population—about 200,000 people out of 1,409,000 residents—are allowed to vote or hold office. The government does not permit political parties. While the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, content in the print and broadcast media is influenced by leading families, and journalists practice a high degree of self-censorship. Qataris have access to the internet, but the government censors content and blocks access to sites it deems unacceptable. While the constitution grants freedom of assembly, protests are rare, and the government restricts the public’s ability to organize demonstrations. All NGOs need state permission to operate, and the government closely monitors their activities. Despite constitutional guarantees, the judiciary is not independent in practice. The majority of Qatar’s judges are foreign nationals, who are appointed and removed by the emir.

UN Voting Record
In the past year at the GA, Qatar voted against the resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran, abstained on the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea and voted in favor of “Combating defamation of religions.” It was not a member of the HRC. However, during the preceding 2008-2009 year, Qatar voted at the HRC for the May 2009 resolution praising Sri Lanka after it had killed an estimated 20,000 civilians, and though it joined consensus on the resolution condemning the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma), it refused to support the resolutions that extended the mandates of the independent monitors on Congo and Sudan.

Malaysia

Human Rights Record
Malaysia is ranked Partly Free by Freedom House with a score of 4 on the scale of 1 (high) to 7 (low) for both political rights and civil liberties. In recent years, the government and law enforcement bodies have suffered a series of corruption scandals, despite the government’s anticorruption campaign pledges. Judicial independence is compromised by extensive executive influence. Arbitrary or politically motivated verdicts are not uncommon, with the most prominent case being the convictions of Anwar Ibrahim in 1999 and 2000. Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed but restricted in practice. The 1984 Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) gives the government the authority to revoke licenses without judicial review. It also requires that publications and printers obtain annual operating permits, encouraging self-censorship and limiting investigative journalism. With traditional media so heavily restricted, the internet has emerged as a primary outlet for free discussion and for exposing cases of political corruption. The government responded in 2007 with an escalating crackdown, including the first defamation charges against bloggers. Religious freedom is restricted in Malaysia, as practicing a version of Islam other than Sunni Islam is prohibited. Freedoms of assembly and association are also limited on the grounds of maintaining security and public order. There is no constitutional provision specifically banning torture, and police have been known to torture prisoners and use excessive force or inhumane tactics in conducting searches. Despite government initiatives and continued gains, women are still underrepresented in politics, the professions, and the civil service. Violence against women remains a serious problem.

UN Voting Record
In the past year at the GA, Malaysia voted against the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Iran, Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea, and voted in favor of “Combating defamation of religions.” It was not a member of the HRC. However, during the preceding 2008-2009 year ago, Malaysia voted at the HRC for the May 2009 resolution praising Sri Lanka after it had killed an estimated 20,000 civilians, and though it joined consensus on the resolution condemning the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma), it refused to support the resolutions that extended the mandates of the independent monitors on Congo and Sudan.

The post U.N. Human Rights Council drops to only 40% free after election of Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar, Malaysia appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, May 12, 20010 – Human rights groups are calling on the General Assembly to reject seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council for Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar and Malaysia because of their poor rights records.

The world body’s 192 states are scheduled to elect 14 new members to the 47-nation council on Thursday. But with regional groups tailoring their amount of candidates to match the amount of available seats, human groups are crying foul.

“Elections without competition don’t make sense,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, whose group heads a coalition of 37 human rights organizations that campaigned for the U.S. and the E.U. to defeat Libya’s candidacy.  Click here for joint NGO appeal.

“By electing serial human rights violators, the UN violates its own criteria as well as common sense,” said Neuer. “Choosing Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi to judge others on human rights is a joke. He’ll use the position not to promote human rights but to shield his record of abuse, and those of his allies. This turns the entire U.N. Human Rights Council into a joke.”

“The Libyan government gave a pledge stating that it respects human rights, but in truth it’s the same regime that brutally scapegoated five Bulgarian nurses for a crime they did not commit, that tortures dissidents like the late Fathi Eljahmi, and that continues to hold hostage an innocent Swiss businessman.” (See Libyan pledge under country link here.)

“In September, Qaddafi declared from the UN podium that he denies the authority of the UN Charter. Last week he called for the dismemberment of Switzerland. How can he now be elected a member of the UN Human Rights Council?”

The council was created in 2006 to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, one year after then UN chief Kofi Annan said it had become rife with “politicization” and “selectivity,” with a “credibility deficit” that cast “a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”

One aim of the reform was to prevent the most serious human rights offenders from becoming members. But it has been widely criticized over the past four years for failing to change many of the commission’s practices, such as turning a blind eye to most of the world’s worst abuses while criticizing Israel more than any other country.

To date, the council has adopted 40 censure resolutions, of which 33 have targeted Israel. The only other governments to be criticized were Burma, Guinea, Honduras, North Korea and Sudan. Out of nine emergency sessions that criticized countries, six were against Israel.

Despite widely reported killings during the past year in Iran, China and Nigeria, the council failed to respond with any resolution, special session or inquiry.

In May 2009, after Sri Lanka killed an estimated 20,000 civilians, the council praised the government for its “promotion and protection of all human rights.”

Since 2007, the council gradually eliminated its expert monitors on the human rights situations in Belarus, Congo, Cuba and Liberia.

Countries lobby hard to avoid being “named and shamed” by resolutions that have the power to shine an international spotlight. Influential countries, including members of the Security Council, are rarely scrutinized. Nor are members of large voting blocs such as the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The Geneva-based council gives dominance to Africa and Asia, whose 26 seats grant them an automatic majority. Western Europe and North America together are represented by seven countries.

While none of the 14 candidates currently faces any competition, any country can enter the race right up until Thursday’s voting begins, or even during the process in the unlikely event that one of the candidates fails to win the required 97 votes after three rounds.

A joint report last week by the human rights groups Freedom House and UN Watch called on all 192 member states to vote against Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar, Malaysia, based on an examination of their record in protecting human rights at home, as well as on their UN human rights voting record. Click here for report with analysis of all 14 candidates.

The candidacies of Uganda, Thailand, Ecuador and Moldova were rated as “questionable.”

Only Spain, Switzerland, Poland, Maldives and Guatemala were deemed to meet the council’s stated criteria of promotion and protection of human rights.

Assuming the 14 candidates are all elected, Neuer said that the council will drop from a membership that is 49% democratic, according to the annual survey by Freedom House, to a new low of only 40%. “Those figures ought to raise alarm bells,” said Neuer.

Based on past voting, the new membership would likely adopt the council’s annual, Islamic-sponsored resolution on “defamation of religion” by a vote of 22 to 18. In March, the current membership passed it by a vote of 20 to 17.

Background material:

• Joint Appeal by 37 NGOs Opposed to Libya’s Canadidacy, including UN Watch, many African NGOs, and Libyan victim groups, urging the U.S. and E.U. representatives at the UN to block Libya from winning a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. “We trust that the influential countries whom you represent can and will lead a successful campaign to persuade a minimum of 96 UN member states to oppose this murderous, repressive and racist regime from winning a seat on the Human Rights Council.”

• Testimony last week by Mohamed Eljahmi:  “My brother Fathi Eljahmi was murdered by the Qaddafi regime because he… called for free speech, free enterprise, free press, a constitution, a government for the people and by the people… Electing Libya to membership in the UN Human Rights Council is wrong. It provides legitimacy to Qadhafi, bruises the Council’s credibility and insults the Libyan people.”

• Report released last week by UN Watch and Freedom House, rating all 14 candidates in the UNHRC elections, and calling on member states to reject Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Mauritania, and Qatar, deemed as non-qualified based on their record on human rights and UN voting.

2010 Analysis of UN Human Rights Council performance over the past year, rating countries on how they vote.

The post Human rights groups oppose U.N. Human Rights Council seats for Qaddafi’s Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar, Malaysia appeared first on UN Watch.