Belgium Archives - UN Watch

Full Text: Belgian PM 'regrets' electing Saudis to U.N. Women's Rights Commission

unwatch — Mon, 01 May 2017 02:12:41 +0000

Belgian Parliament
27 April 2017
Translation

Prime Minister Charles Michel: Mr. President, colleagues, I will start by mentioning the facts as they were reported to me before answering as accurately as possible to the questions have rightly been addressed to me.
First, the facts: indeed, in multilateral contexts, appointments and votes take place quite regularly. Usually, like within the United Nations, this happens without a voting procedure in the strictest sense, through the clean-slate procedure that is applied whenever there is a function available and a candidate to run for it. This is a very common practice in international organizations.
With regard to the election in question here, unusually, in particular because a new administration has just been set up in the United States, a motion was brought up for a vote to take place. We were informed of this. Only a few hours passed between the time the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was informed of this and the time when the response was supposed to be communicated.
Thus, a vote was expressed by our diplomats on behalf of Belgium. I regret this vote. (Applause). If it could be done again and if it was possible to proceed with a political assessment at the government level, I of course would have pleaded against a favorable vote. There is no ambiguity in this matter.

With regard to women’s rights, of course, I assume this, at every bench of this assembly, we must be determined to double-down on our efforts, to promote women’s rights as well as the universal values of human rights. Even more certainly after a situation like this one. It was Belgium, a few weeks ago, when the United States lifted support for “She Decides,” that decided to mobilize even more means in favor of promoting women’s rights.
I understand that in a democratic setting, we are tempted to seek out controversy. My answers are clear. A vote was expressed. I am not saying that the position is secret. I regret this vote. We will draw the consequences of this in the future and I have given instructions for a political assessment to be made at the highest level in order for this not to occur again. In short, we are fully determined to promoting the universal values of human rights.

The post Full Text: Belgian PM 'regrets' electing Saudis to U.N. Women's Rights Commission appeared first on UN Watch.

Calls for Belgian FM to Resign as Saudi-gate also roils Sweden, Ireland, Norway – Exposed by UN Watch

unwatch — Mon, 01 May 2017 01:51:31 +0000

UN Watch Sparks Firestorm Worldwide by Revealing Saudi Arabia’s Absurd Election to UN Women’s Rights Body; Opposition Leaders Demand Answers

The Secretary-General with H.E. Mr. Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

UN Watch’s exposure of the UN’s absurd election of Saudi Arabia, the world’s worst abuser of women’s rights, to the Commission on the Status of Women, has caught the world’s attention and sparked contentious debates in parliaments worldwide.
The story has been reported by major news outlets, including:

New York Times: In ‘absurd’ move, Saudi Arabia elected to U.N. women’s commission
Newsweek: Widespread Criticism Follows Saudi Arabia Joining UN Women’s Rights Group
CNN: Saudi Arabia’s election to UN women’s commission draws ire
The Chicago Tribune: Listing quote from Hillel Neuer as one of two top quotes of the day

Many more news stories worldwide listed here.

Timeline

April 19, 2017 – the UN Economic and Social Council issues press release announcing Saudi Arabia’s election to the Commission on the Status of Women.
April 22, 2017 – UN Watch publishes statement on its website condemning election of Saudi Arabia to Commission on the Status of Women: No Joke: UN Elects Saudi Arabia to Women’s Rights Commission.
April 23, 2017 – UN Watch begin posting about the election on Facebook and Twitter. The story quickly goes viral. The initial Facebook post has almost 10,000 shares. The initial tweet is retweeted more than 1,000 times. Hillel Neuer’s April 23, 2017 Tweet “At least 5 EU states voted FOR the Saudis” is retweeted 880 times and quoted extensively by the news media.
April 24, 2017 – Major media outlets publish stories about the absurd election: New York Times, Newsweek, Fox News, National Review, Huffington Post Canada, Germany’s Bild, France’s i24 News, and many others. UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer is interviewed on Israel’s i24News English. The interview has 30,000 views on Facebook.
April 25, 2017 – UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer is interviewed on France24. Outraged parliamentarians around the world begin to speak out and question their governments.
IRELAND

Cabinet Ministers belonging to the Independent Alliance said they want the Department of Foreign Affairs to disclose how Ireland voted on Saudi Arabia’s membership of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Minister for Transport Shane Ross said there should be transparency, indicating that the issue is likely to be raised at Cabinet next week.
Minister of State John Halligan said the rights of women were being violated and that could not be tolerated.
However, Minister for Foreign Affairs Charlie Flanagan refused to disclose how Ireland voted, citing established diplomatic practice of member states not disclosing their voting intentions or voting decisions as the reason for his stance.
The issue of was raised in the Dáil (parliament) on repeated occasions. Fianna Fáil spokesman on foreign affairs Darragh O’Brien said he hoped Ireland played no part in facilitating that position. “Do our Government, through you, deem it appropriate that Saudi Arabia sit on a United Nations Commission on the status of women?” he asked. “Is it a question of trade ahead of human rights?” He said any person who knows anything about Saudi Arabia’s track record of treating women “would find it absolutely disgusting that the Irish Government would support” the move.
Independents4Change MP Mick Wallace, quoting UN Watch, said: “You would struggle to find any country in the world where women are treated so poorly than Saudi Arabia”. He said that the people of Ireland suspect that “diplomacy and trade interests have won out and human rights have lost out.”
Independents4Change MP Clare Daly said that the minister “cannot hide behind a spurious precedent” in not disclosing how Ireland voted.
Erin Kilbride of the human rights organisation Front Line Defenders said Ireland’s international reputation on human rights could now be questioned. “If Ireland stays silent on this, it says they no longer support the 50 per cent of the population of Saudi Arabia who cannot control their own lives.

For news articles and videos, click here
NORWAY
In Norway, the story was published extensively in the media between April 24 and 26, 2017 and the issue led to a heated debate between parliamentarians and the government:

Aftenposten, Norway’s largest printed newspaper, published a major story quoting UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer: “Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.”
NRK, Norway’s largest media organization also quoted Hillel Neuer extensively: “Saudi discrimination against women is gross and systematic in law and in practice.” In addition NRK radio broadcast a segment on the story, interviewing Hillel Neuer along with Norwegian parliamentarians and government officials.
Norway’s edition of The Local, a source for English language digital news in countries across Europe, quoted UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer extensively: “why did the U.N. choose the world’s leading oppressor of women to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women?”
NewsinEnglish.no, another online Norwegian English language publication noted: “The issue brought rare agreement between SV on the far left of Norwegian politics and the progress party on the far right.”
On April 26, 2017, members of Norway’s parliament on both sides, including Liberal leader Trine Skei Grande, Christian Democrat Knut Arild Hareide and Socialist Left party leader Audun Lysbakken, demanded to know how Norway voted. They raised the issue in parliament. Grande said: “I think it is important to be open about how Norway votes internationally. This is an alarming enough result for there to be good reason to make [the Norwegian vote] public.” Hareide said: “We probably can’t stop them from being voted in, but Norway should not have supported it and we ought to be clear about what we have done.”
On April 26, 2017, the government responded: “Norway won’t make public how we vote in secret UN elections,” said Foreign Minister Børge Brende; “Voting in connection with UN candidatures within the UN is not public,” said Frode O. Andersen, Foreign Ministry Head of Communications.

SWEDEN
Similarly, in Sweden, the media published the story between April 24 and 25, 2017, reporting that Swedish parliamentarians challenged their government on its vote:

Göteborgs-Posten, a major daily Swedish newspaper, quoted UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer: “Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.”
Expressen, a widely distributed evening tabloid also quoted Hillel Neuer: “At least 5 EU states voted FOR the Saudis.”
Borås Tidning, another Swedish daily quoted Hillel Neuer: “It is entirely up to the Swedish government to tell its citizens how it voted.”
The online magazine OmVärlden also quoted Hillel Neuer in its story.
Swedish parliamentarians demanded answers. On April 25, 2017, Swedish MP Sofia Arkelsten, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, submitted a written question to the government and Jan Björklund, Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party, also called for an explanation: “I hope it is not true that Sweden has voted Saudi Arabia to the UN Women Commission.”
On April 25, 2017, the government responds:
Prime Minister Stefan Löfven: “check with the Foreign Ministry”
Foreign Minister Margot Wallström wrote on Facebook: “The decision on how Sweden would act in the vote for the Women’s Commission last week was not something that was decided at the political level,” and stated that the government would reveal how it voted to the Foreign Policy Committee whose meetings are confidential.
Minister of Gender Equality Åsa Regnér said: “The UN is an organization of member states where everyone has an equal right to participate in the work of the organization.”
May 5, 2017: Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström defends the election of Saudi Arabia, saying: Swedish FM Margot Wallstrom was asked about the election of Saudi Arabia to the UN women’s rights commission. Her response (May 6, 2017): “In the Commission of the Status of Women are almost one fourth of all the countries in this world: there is also Russia, Belarus, Iran, Pakistan. And if we would have as a criteria that they have an ambitious policy when it comes to women’s rights, very few countries would actually take place there. If there is one place where they ought to be, to learn something about women, it is in the Commission on the Status of Women. If it was about the policies that they have at home, maybe only Finland and Sweden would be left in the Commission of the Status of Women. I don’t think it would be a good idea.”

Swedish FM: If there is one place where Saudi Arabia ought to be—"to learn something about women"—it is the U.N. Women's Rights Commission. pic.twitter.com/o3B8ZTeoyt

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) May 6, 2017

The more you subjugate, segregate, & oppress women, the more Swedish FM Margot Wallström wants you on the U.N.'s Women's Rights Commission. pic.twitter.com/aVRqVv7EAL

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) May 7, 2017

DENMARK
Denmark, though not a member of the UN Economic and Social Council that voted Saudi Arabia onto the Women’s Commission, covered the issue critically in its news outlets on April 25 and 26, 2017:

Jyllands-Posten International, one of Denmark’s largest selling newspapers, referenced UN Watch’s statistics on how many EU countries voted for Saudi Arabia.
Politiken, a leading Danish newspaper, quoted Hillel Neuer: “Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.”
Kristelight Dagblad, another Danish daily quoted Hillel Neuer: “Why did the UN choose the world’s leading oppressor of women to promote gender equality?”
Danish politician Jakob Engel Schmidt, spokesman for the governing Liberal party called the vote “deeply bizarre.”

BELGIUM
In Belgium, the story broke on April 24, 2017 and is still generating headlines. Politicians on all sides were highly critical of the government’s apparent ‘yes’ vote, forcing a public apology from the Prime Minister.

La Libre, a widely circulated Belgian French daily, published the story quoting UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer: “petro-dollars make it possible to buy everything, even a political profit.”
Le Soir, Belgium’s other main French daily, also quoted Hillel Neuer in its story.
De Standaard, Belgium’s main Flemish daily accused the Belgian government of having voted to elect Saudi Arabia and quoted UN Watch’s statement that five European countries had to have voted for Saudi Arabia in order for it to get elected.
The Belgian news agency Belga, headlined its story: “Belgium has probably supported the accession of Saudi Arabia to the UN committee on the Rights of Women.”
Belgian politicians castigated the government. On April 26, 2017, Belgian MP Wouter de Vriendt asked a parliamentary question about Belgium’s vote and said: “A positive vote from Belgium is simply shocking.” Els Van Hoof of the Christian Democrats said that defending a ‘yes’ vote is equivalent to admitting a vote for the misogynistic regime. Yasmine Kherbache of the Socialist Party accused the government of legitimizing “a regime that violates women’s rights every day.”
On April 26, 2017, the government responds: Foreign Minister Didier Reynders issued a contradictory statement about the vote. He refused to confirm how Belgium voted, but justified the election of Saudi Arabia on multiple grounds. He said: “I strongly support multilateral meetings… including with countries with which we do not share the same opinions” and “Not entering into a debate with countries with which we do not agree within multilateral organizations involves a tremendous risk.” He also defended the decision on pragmatic grounds, suggesting that the election should have proceeded, as usual, without a vote in this type of situation where Saudi Arabia was running unopposed because “Western countries are far from holding a majority at the UN, and this may end up making it so that we are no longer elected to organizations of this type.” At the same time, he expressed that “Belgium is in no way pleased with the election of Saudi Arabia onto this commission.” Deputy Prime Minister Alexander de Croo did not disclose Belgium’s vote, but appeared surprised and said that he would not have voted in favor of Saudi Arabia.
On April 27, 2017, the government took a different tone. Prime Minister Charles Michel said he regretted the vote and that: “If we could do it again and if it was possible to proceed with a political assessment at the government level, I of course would have pleaded against a favorable vote.” He also reportedly called for the resignation of Foreign Minister Reynders over his handling of the matter. For his part, Foreign Minister Reynders said that he wants to change Belgium’s procedure for voting for candidates at the UN.

See:

UK
As of April 29, 2017, after the Belgian Prime Minister apologized, the UK Foreign Office still refused to disclose how it voted, as reported by The Independent.
AUSTRALIA
In Australia, the government also dodged the question, as reported in the news on April 25 and 26, 2017.

The New Daily, a major source for online news in Australia, quoted extensively from UN Watch’s online statement about the absurdity of the vote. The article also quoted a separate statement from Hillel Neuer: “Australia is not responsible for the fact that the Asian group put up no other candidates, but it could and should have voted against Saudi Arabia, and should have convinced its allies to do the same.”
Australia Broadcasting Corporation, Australia’s national public broadcaster, also published the story noting that former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark responded to UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer on Twitter defending the vote: “It’s important to support those in the country who are working for change for women,” she said.
The government responds: A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to disclose Australia’s vote, saying: “Places on the Commission on the Status of Women are allocated according to regional groupings.”

SAUDI REGIME REACTS
On April 26, 2017, Saudi Arabia went on the defensive in responding to the media and political maelstrom:

In an Op-ed by the Saudi Ambassador to Norway published in NRK, Norway’s largest media outlet: “Saudi women are not oppressed. It’s not Norway’s problem that Saudi women cannot drive.”
The Saudi Arabian government’s Bureau of International Communication and Media took to its twitter account, which it had used only sporadically before, with several tweets attacking France 24’s news coverage, claiming France 24 got the facts about Saudi women’s rights wrong.

The post Calls for Belgian FM to Resign as Saudi-gate also roils Sweden, Ireland, Norway – Exposed by UN Watch appeared first on UN Watch.

Leaked e-mails: Belgium made sure Saudis knew it voted regime onto U.N. women's rights commission

unwatch — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 23:21:00 +0000

Scandal: internal emails reveal that Belgium instructed its diplomats to vote Saudi Arabia onto the U.N. women’s rights commission — and to make sure the fundamentalist regime knew of Belgium’s support.

New elements calling Belgian FM Reynders into question

Translation of article by 7sur7.be
Click here for French original

April 28, 2017 – At least nine hours passed between the time when the cabinet of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was informed of the request of a vote at the United Nations Commission for Women’s Rights and the time when it was answered, as confirmed Friday by the Ecologists’ party, based on internal emails.
According to the Green Party, the Belgian delegation to the United Nations in New York informed the cabinet of Didier Reynders on April 9 at 12:33 a.m. of the request for a vote from the United Stations about the entry of Saudi Arabia into the commission. The response was sent at 3:34 p.m. Uncertainty remains about the way the time delay should be considered, but at the very least, nine hours had passed.

“This gives a false image of the foreign office”

According to these documents, the cabinet’s reply, written in the first person, mentions the following elements. The “clean slate” procedures should be followed and Belgium should therefore provide its support to the candidates for the various positions during the secret vote. Furthermore, the delegation was requested to inform the various candidates, including Saudi Arabia, of this support if possible.
According to the minutes from a meeting that took place at the foreign office yesterday (see the tweet from Kristof Calvo below), the administration complained about the communication about this affair and implied that Reynders was indeed aware of it. “Some press information insinuates that our Permanent Mission in New York may have acted on its own initiative, and that the Ministry may have not been aware of it. This give a false image of the foreign office as a completely uncontrolled organization.”

Reynders maintains, “I was not aware”

Questioned Friday after the council of ministers, before this information came to light, Mr. Reynders indicates that three hours had passed and that it was not personally aware of this request for a vote.
“My cabinet and the delegation on site followed the usual procedure. I was not aware of it,” he said.
“What we fear since the revelation of this affair has turned out to be true. The cabinet of Didier Reynders gave the green light to a shameless vote, scorning women’s rights, with the aim of getting in the good books of a notoriously no-go country in order to facilitate the election of Belgium to the UN Security Council. Who is responsible for this decision? The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself,” accused Deputy Benoît Hellings.

Ecologists demand clarity

Questioned Wednesday at the Chamber Committee, the minister indicated that he was not aware of the American request for a vote, “but saw that it was possible for our department to vote” before indicating the next day that he was not “personally aware of the voting procedure underway” but that “the departments and partners of Foreign Affairs applied the procedure in a very professional manner.” At the plenary session, Prime Minister Charles Michel spoke of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not the minister’s cabinet.
“Our diplomats applied formal orders and must not be used as a fuse to cover their minister,” said Deputy Jean-Marc Nollet, who asked the Prime Minister to clarify his position. “Either Didier Reynders misled him, or Charles Michel was hiding something from the deputies.”

__________

De Standaard
April 28, 2017

The Cabinet of Deputy Prime Minister Didier Reynders (MR) actually gave its consent to electing Saudi Arabia to the UN Women’s Rights Commission

The evolution in the words of Didier Reynders is striking. Wednesday it sounded as though he was ‘unaware’ of the support that Belgium has given to the candidacy of Saudi Arabia to the UN Commission on Women’s Rights. Last night, after Prime Minister Charles Michel (MR) had said in Parliament that he regretted the vote, the Foreign Minister was said “personally” not to be aware.
According to various sources, the cabinet Reynders was indeed well informed and the procedure followed at all in this case. … The Belgian ambassador, Marc Pecsteen, had a late request from the US to proceed to a vote, indeed barely a few hours time to Brussels to ask for a voting recommendation to Brussels. But that definitely happened.

The post Leaked e-mails: Belgium made sure Saudis knew it voted regime onto U.N. women's rights commission appeared first on UN Watch.

Belgian FM defends election of Saudi Arabia to U.N. women's rights body, advocates 'dialogue'

unwatch — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:58:37 +0000

Before he would be contradicted by his prime minister the very next day, Belgian foreign minister Didier Reynders justified at length the U.N. election of Saudi Arabia to the Commission on the Status of Women, saying on April 26th:

“I strongly support multilateral meetings… including with countries with which we do not share the same opinions.”
“We must open this dialogue, not only bilaterally, but also in all organizations in multilateral meetings.”
“The UN in general, and the Commission for the Status of Women in particular, exist precisely for being places for debate, implying that we can occasionally find ourselves dealing with countries with which we profoundly disagree.”
“At least the commission provides a forum where we can speak plainly about this issues with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and involve it in such debates.”
“I remain convinced that only direct bilateral contact, which I have regularly with this country and others, or direct dialogue within multilateral organizations, can have any impact.”
“Not entering into a debate with countries with which we do not agree within multilateral organizations involves a tremendous risk: dismissing the institutions to which we are particularly close, such as the United Nations.”
“I want to reassert my position as I often have here: I believe that only a direct dialogue can have an impact on any country.”

Foreign minister Reynders also made the pragmatic, realpolitik case for Belgium to vote for Saudi Arabia on U.N. human rights bodies. Even when they produce immoral and absurd candidacies, “Belgium respects clean slate policies and the usual practice of not proceeding with voting in this type of situation,” he said, because “Western countries are far from holding a majority at the UN, and this may end up making it so that we are no longer elected to organizations of this type.” Reynders also worried that holding a recorded vote—instead of the usual rubber stamping by acclamation—has the effect of “delegitimizing” the UN.
And yet despite making a firm and extensive case for putting the Saudis on the women’s rights body, Reynders also manages to express the opposite position, saying “Belgium is in no way pleased with the election of Saudi Arabia into this commission,” and if there were competition, Belgium “would have made a choice that would certainly had not been in favor of Saudi Arabia.”
Below is the English translation, followed by the original, and PM Charles Michel’s contradictory statement apologizing for the Belgian vote for the Saudis.

__________

Belgian Parliament, April 26, 2017
Committee on Foreign Relations
Translation from original unabridged transcript

Foreign Minister Didier Reynders: […]
In order to keep the smooth functioning of multilateral organizations, Belgium, as a rule, abstains from commenting publicly on its voting behavior in secret votes.
However, I can tell you this: Belgium is in no way pleased with the election of Saudi Arabia into this commission, but it must note that it was the only candidate from its group in this position.
Like the vast majority of UN member states, Belgium respects clean slate policies and the usual practice of not proceeding with voting in this type of situation, and this is for two reasons: first, starting from the time when a certain country is the only candidate for a position at the UN, demanding a vote ends up by delegitimizing the UN, by developing the idea that the UN and its subsidiary organizations are only valid if they are run by countries with which everyone generally agrees.
I strongly support multilateral meetings, and therefore, including with countries with which we do not share the same opinions. We must open this dialogue, not only bilaterally, but also in all organizations in multilateral meetings.
Secondly, this kind of reasoning can easily fall back on those who hold it. Western countries are far from holding a majority at the UN, and this may end up making it so that we are no longer elected to organizations of this type.
Belgium has always defended multilateral diplomacy, and I have said so. The UN in general, and the Commission for the Status of Women in particular, exist precisely for being places for debate, implying that we can occasionally find ourselves dealing with countries with which we profoundly disagree, as I just said.
At least the commission has acquired a space where we can speak plainly about this issues with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and involve it in such debates. It is therefore up to us, as a member of the commission, to assert our points of view and oppose those member states with which we do not agree.
[…]
In other words, I can confirm to you that I was not aware that a vote was going to take place. I confirm what my departments indicated: we are taking the classic procedure in terms of clean-slate policy, i.e., respecting the fact that there were as many countries as seats available. If this had not been the case, we obviously would have made a choice that would certainly had not been in favor of Saudi Arabia.
As it is, I am hearing and reading, including in sources coming from NGOs, that there are partisans of both schools of thought. One group wants us not to enter directly into debate in UN organizations with countries with which we do not agree, and the others believe that only this dialogue, this discussion, has the slightest chance, even though it is very small, to develop the situation.
I understand the emotions caused by this type of information every time. We can speak about it and change attitudes in this respect, but I remain convinced that only direct bilateral contact, which I have regularly with this country and others, or direct dialogue within multilateral organizations, can have any impact.
Also, I would add that even though we will probably discuss this again in the context of other questions or debates, in the situation we are in today, where a certain number of policy-makers who are important on the international scene are calling into question multilateralism, not entering into a debate with countries with which we do not agree within multilateral organizations involves a tremendous risk: dismissing the institutions to which we are particularly close, such as the United Nations.
I reiterate that I was not aware, because the motion came in very late, but I certainly respect the choices made by the diplomats, that is, continuing to support the candidatures as long as there are as many candidates as seats available. The choice would have been different, and I suppose I would have been informed of it, in another context. This is the same assessment as we have always had.
As it is, I want to reassert my position as I often have here: I believe that only a direct dialogue can have an impact on any country.
_________
18.04 Minister Didier Reynders: Mevrouw de voorzitter, collega’s, op 19 april vonden inderdaad de verkiezingen plaats voor het lidmaatschap van achttien hulporganen van de Economische en Sociale Raad van de Verenigde Naties, waaronder de Commissie voor de status van de vrouw, waar dertien mandaten op 45 moesten worden hernieuwd.
De stemgerechtigde landen waren de 54 leden van de ECOSOC. België is lid van zowel de ECOSOC als van de Commissie voor de status van de vrouw, mandaat dat in 2019 afloopt.
Voor zeventien van die achttien hulporganen betrof het verkiezingen met een zogeheten clean slate-situatie. Dat wil zeggen dat er evenveel kandidaten als zetels waren binnen een regionale groep en dat de verkiezing van de kandidaten dan ook vrijwel verzekerd was. In een dergelijke situatie is het in de ECOSOC de gewoonte om over te gaan tot een verkiezing bij acclamatie van alle kandidaten, dit wil zeggen zonder stemming.
Kort voor de aanvang van de procedure hebben de Verenigde Staten toch onverwacht tegen deze gewoonlijke praktijk om een stemming gevraagd voor de verkiezingen voor drie hulporganen, waaronder de Commissie voor de status van de vrouw.
De geheime stemming heeft dan ook zonder verrassing geleid tot de verkiezing van alle kandidaat-landen op de beschikbare plaats binnen deze drie organen. In het bijzonder is Saudi-Arabië inderdaad verkozen als een van de dertien nieuwe leden van de Commissie voor de status van de vrouw. Ik was niet op de hoogte van de vraag om een stemming, maar ik heb gezien dat het voor onze dienst mogelijk was om te stemmen.
Pour préserver le bon fonctionnement des organes multilatéraux, la Belgique a pour règle de s’abstenir de faire des commentaires publics sur son comportement de vote dans les votes secrets. Je peux cependant vous dire ceci. La Belgique ne se réjouit aucunement de l’élection de l’Arabie saoudite au sein de cette commission mais doit bien constater qu’elle était la seule candidate de son groupe à cette place. La Belgique comme l’immense majorité des États membres de l’ONU respecte les clean slates et la pratique habituelle de ne pas procéder au vote dans ce genre de situation, et ceci pour deux raisons: la première, c’est qu’à partir du moment où un certain pays est unique candidat à une place à l’ONU, exiger le vote finit par délégitimer l’ONU en développant l’idée que l’ONU et ses organes subsidiaires ne sont valables que si n’y siègent que des pays avec lesquels on est globalement d’accord.
Je plaide fortement pour des rencontres multilatérales et donc en ce compris avec des pays dont nous ne partageons pas les opinions. Il faut ouvrir ce dialogue, pas seulement en bilatéral mais aussi dans tous les organes de rencontres multilatérales.
Deuxième élément: un tel raisonnement peut facilement se retourner contre ceux qui le tiennent. Les pays occidentaux sont loin d’avoir une majorité à l’ONU et cela pourrait aboutir à ce que nous ne soyons plus élus régulièrement à des organes de ce genre.
La Belgique a toujours défendu la diplomatie multilatérale, je l’ai dit. L’ONU en général et la commission pour le statut de la femme en particulier existent précisément pour être des lieux de débat, ce qui implique qu’on peut se retrouver de temps à autre face à des pays avec lesquels nous sommes profondément en désaccord, comme je viens de le dire. Au moins, la commission procure-t-elle une enceinte où on peut parler nettement de ces questions avec un pays comme l’Arabie saoudite, et l’impliquer dans de tels débats. Il nous appartient donc, en tant que membre de la commission, de faire valoir nos points de vue et de contrer ceux des pays membres avec lesquels nous ne sommes pas d’accord.
Wat de inschatting van de impact van Saudi-Arabië op de werkzaamheden van deze commissie betreft, wens ik u te wijzen op de specifieke werkmethode van deze commissie die elk jaar in maart gedurende twee weken vergadert in New York. Deze vergadering wordt besloten met de adoptie van zogeheten agreed conclusions over een prioritair thema. Dit jaar betrof het bijvoorbeeld het thema economisch empowerment van vrouwen in de veranderde wereld van werk.
Het fenomeen van de agreed conclusion is een specificiteit van de commissie: alle VN-leden, ongeacht of ze lid zijn van de commissie of waarnemer, kunnen deelnemen aan de onderhandelingen over deze agreed conclusions, waarover consensus moet worden bereikt. Er is geen stemming mogelijk over deze conclusies. Het betreft, met andere woorden, een alles-of-niets-onderhandeling. De impact van het lidmaatschap van een land als Saudi-Arabië moet dan ook niet worden overschat. De actieve deelname van een land aan de werkzaamheden van de commissie, stelt dit land wel bloot aan de uiteenlopende posities over vrouwenrechten van zowel andere landen als de talrijke ngo’s die deelnemen aan de commissie.
Tot slot wens ik er op te wijzen dat de commissie slechts één van de vele organen is, waar de bevordering en bescherming van de vrouwenrechten op de agenda staan, naast de Mensenrechtenraad en de derde commissie van de algemene vergadering.
Naast deze intergouvernementele organen hecht ons land ook zeer groot belang aan de werkzaamheden van het CEDAW-comité, dat is samengesteld uit onafhankelijke experts en toeziet op de naleving van het internationaal verdrag inzake de uitbanning van alle vormen van discriminatie tegenover vrouwen.
En d’autres termes, je peux vous confirmer que je n’étais pas au courant qu’un vote allait intervenir. Je confirme ce que mes services ont indiqué: nous suivons la procédure classique en matière de clean slate, c’est-à-dire le respect du fait qu’il y avait autant de pays que de sièges à pourvoir. Si cela n’avait pas été le cas, nous aurions évidemment fait un choix qui n’aurait certainement pas été en faveur de l’Arabie Saoudite.
Cela étant, j’entends et je lis, en ce compris dans des sources émanant d’ONG, qu’il y a des adeptes de deux écoles. Les premiers souhaitent que l’on n’entre pas directement en débat dans des organes de l’ONU avec des pays avec lesquels nous ne somme pas d’accord, et les autres estiment que seul ce dialogue, cette discussion, a une petite chance, même si celle-ci est très faible, de faire évoluer la situation.
Je comprends l’émotion que provoque chaque fois ce genre d’annonce. On peut en parler et changer d’attitude en la matière, mais je reste convaincu que seul le contact bilatéral direct, que je pratique régulièrement avec ce pays ou avec d’autres, ou le dialogue direct à l’intérieur des organes multilatéraux, peut avoir un impact. J’ajoute d’ailleurs, même si nous en reparlerons probablement dans le cadre d’autres questions ou d’autres débats, que dans la situation que nous vivons aujourd’hui, dans laquelle un certain nombre de responsables politiques importants sur la scène internationale remettent en cause le multilatéralisme, ne pas entrer en débat avec des pays avec lesquels nous ne sommes pas d’accord, à l’intérieur des organes multilatéraux, comporte un énorme risque: la mise de côté des institutions auxquelles nous sommes particulièrement attachés, comme les Nations unies.
Je vous répète que je n’étais pas au courant, car la demande est intervenue très tardivement, mais je respecte tout à fait les choix qui ont été faits par les diplomates, à savoir continuer à soutenir les candidatures lorsqu’il y a autant de candidats que de sièges à pourvoir. Le choix aurait été différent et je suppose qu’on m’en aurait informé, dans un autre cadre. C’est la même appréciation que celle que nous avons toujours eue.
Cela étant, je veux rappeler ma position comme je l’ai fait souvent ici: je crois que seul un dialogue direct peut avoir un impact sur un quelconque pays.
Het is te gemakkelijk om te zeggen dat wij naar vergaderingen moeten gaan met alleen maar mensen die dezelfde redenering volgen als ons. Dat heeft geen zin. Op die manier wordt het een kleine club die geen invloed meer zal hebben op landen die zich in een andere situatie bevinden.

…

___

Belgian Parliament
27 April 2017

First, the facts: indeed, in multilateral contexts, appointments and votes take place quite regularly. Usually, like within the United Nations, this happens without a voting procedure in the strictest sense, through the clean-slate procedure that is applied whenever there is a function available and a candidate to run for it. This is a very common practice in international organizations.
With regard to the election in question here, unusually, in particular because a new administration has just been set up in the United States, a motion was brought up for a vote to take place. We were informed of this. Only a few hours passed between the time the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was informed of this and the time when the response was supposed to be communicated.
Thus, a vote was expressed by our diplomates on behalf of Belgium. I regret this vote. (Applause). If it could be done again and if it was possible to proceed with a political assessment at the government level, I of course would have pleaded against a favorable vote. There is no ambiguity in this matter.
With regard to women’s rights, of course, I assume this, at every bench of this assembly, we must be determined to double-down on our efforts, to promote women’s rights as well as the universal values of human rights. Even more certainly after a situation like this one. It was Belgium, a few weeks ago, when the United States lifted support for “She Decides,” that decided to mobilize even more means in favor of promoting women’s rights.
I understand that in a democratic setting, we are tempted to seek out controversy. My answers are clear. A vote was expressed. I am not saying that the position is secret. I regret this vote. We will draw the consequences of this in the future and I have given instructions for a political assessment to be made at the highest level in order for this not to occur again. In short, we are fully determined to promoting the universal values of human rights.

The post Belgian FM defends election of Saudi Arabia to U.N. women's rights body, advocates 'dialogue' appeared first on UN Watch.

Belgium ‘sorry’ it voted Saudi Arabia on UN women’s rights panel; scandal exposed by UN Watch

unwatch — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:58:40 +0000

“I regret the vote,” said Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel.

GENEVA, April 27, 2017 – The Geneva-based UN Watch — the non-governmental human rights group which exposed the U.N.’s election of Saudi Arabia to its women’s rights commission — welcomed Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel’s statement of “regret” for helping elect the Wahhabist monarchy to the world body tasked with “empowering women” and “promoting gender equality.”

“Human rights activists everywhere ought to accept this rare apology,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, “provided that it is matched with a real commitment to ending the U.N.’s routine elevation of gross human rights abusers to influential human rights bodies, which only empowers the regimes, not the victims.”

“Saudi Arabia may have a large part of the world’s oil wealth,” said Neuer, “but their contempt for the basic rights of women should never be legitimized by U.N. bodies or by liberal democracies such as Belgium.”

Belgium’s disclosure of how it voted is likely to increase pressure on other countries to do the same, and it refutes diplomats’ claims that such information is obliged to be hidden from the public.

“Because we know there were at least four other EU nations who voted for Saudi Arabia, today we call on France, Sweden, Norway, and the UK, who are among the other members of the 54-nation U.N. Economic and Social Council. to likewise assume responsibility and express regret if indeed they backed Riyadh.”

STORY GOES VIRAL, REPORTED WORLDWIDE

Election of Saudi Arabia Was Black Day for Human Rights

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” said Neuer earlier this week. “It’s absurd — and morally reprehensible.”

“This is a black day for women’s rights, and for all human rights,” said Neuer.

“Saudi discrimination against women is gross and systematic in law and in practice. Every Saudi woman,” said Neuer, “must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving cars. Why did the U.N. choose the world’s leading oppressor of women to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women?”

Saudi women feel betrayed by the UN. “I wish I could find the words to express how I feel right know. I’m ‘saudi’ and this feels like betrayal,” tweeted a self-described Saudi woman pursuing a doctorate in international human rights law in Australia.

“Today the UN sent a message that women’s rights can be sold out for petro-dollars and politics,” said Neuer, “and it let down millions of female victims worldwide who look to the world body for protection.”

‘I regret the vote’

Michel told parliament today that last week’s vote came unexpectedly and that a diplomat was forced into a hasty decision without proper consultations with the government in Brussels.

“If we could redo it, the government would have advocated that there is no support (for Saudi Arabia), there is no ambiguity about that. I gave instructions so that in the future the political assessment of this type of file takes place at the highest level,” he said.
Saudi Arabia was backed by 47 of 54 nations.

“I regret the vote,” Michel said.

UN Watch called Saudi Arabia “the world’s most misogynistic regime.”

Firestorm in Belgium: Opposition Demands Answers from Foreign Minister

The environmentalist and socialist opposition, as well as the Workers Party (PTB), appealed to the President of the Parliamentary Chamber, Siegfried Bracke, on Thursday evening, over the responsibility of Foreign Minister Didier Reynders in the vote of support for Saudi Arabia for UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

The opposition demanded that Minister Reynders come to explain himself on Thursday evening in plenary session. It believes that the statements made by him on Wednesday in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the communication sent by his office late Thursday afternoon, and the explanation of Prime Minister Charles Michel at question time did not indicate that the foreign minister was properly aware of the Belgian position at the time of the UN vote.

How Pressure Built Yesterday

Widespread media coverage in Belgium’s La Libre and Le Soir, helped drive the story. De Standaard, Belgium’s main Flemish daily, accused the government of having voted to elect Saudi Arabia and quoted UN Watch’s statement that five European countries had to have voted for Saudi Arabia.
Belgian politicians castigated the government, sayng it was likely that Belgium voted for Saudi Arabia, according to Belgian MPs Els Van Hoof and Wouter De Vriendt, based on a statement made by foreign affairs minister Didier Reynders on Wednesday in front of the foreign affairs chamber committee.

MP Wouter de Vriendt asked a parliamentary question about Belgium’s vote and said: “An affirmative vote by Belgium is simply shocking.” Els Van Hoof of the Christian Democrats said that defending a ‘yes’ vote is equivalent to admitting a vote for the misogynistic regime. Yasmine Kherbache of the Socialist Party accused the government of legitimizing “a regime that violates women’s rights every day

While Reynders did not say it literally, he defended the seat of the Salafist country when he stated that “within the UN, everything must be debatable and dialogue must be possible with everyone.” He said that Belgium’s vote was “decided at the diplomatic level.”

Deputy Prime Minister Alexander de Croo initially did not disclose Belgium’s vote, but said that he would not have voted in favor of Saudi Arabia.

“A ‘yes’ vote from Belgium is simply shocking and hard to stomach for all of those who fight for women’s rights,” says De Vriendt. “In his attempt to not offend Saudi Arabia, Minister Reynders is legitimizing the violation of women’s rights. The country is an example of how it should not be done. Women there are victims of systematic discrimination: not allowed to drive a car, take part in politics, go anywhere by themselves or make their own decisions.”

The Groen party will ask prime minister Charles Michel to start an inquiry into the matter, De Vriendt had announced.

Belgian Council of Francophone Women “Outraged”

The Council of Francophone women is “outraged” by the election of Saudi Arabia onto the UN commission on the status of women. Its president Viviane Teitelbaum, also a city councillor alderman in Ixelles, in the same party as the foreign minister. She said, however, she was “relieved” by the regrets expressed by Prime Minister Charles Michel.

“Belgium is generally active in defending women’s rights and expresses its views on this issue, so I was surprised to learn that it had supported a country with no regard for women and which continually flouts their rights. At first I thought it was not possible,” Teitelbaum told Belga news agency.

“It was a mistake, but I am reassured to learn that the vote was not the result of a government request to diplomats and that procedures will be put in place,” she said.

Mrs Teitelbaum noted that there had been “setbacks, challenges to the rights of women everywhere, even in Europe”. “It is therefore important to defend these rights and to denounce countries such as Saudi Arabia. We must not be content to regret, we must be attentive, everywhere and all the time,” she concluded.

The post Belgium ‘sorry’ it voted Saudi Arabia on UN women’s rights panel; scandal exposed by UN Watch appeared first on UN Watch.