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.

• Persecution of LGBT
• Corporal punishment allowed by the judicial system
• Harsh condition of prisoners
• Child marriage
• Politically motivated trials
• Electoral fraud
• Corruption
• Restriction on opposition parties
• Restriction on freedom of expression
• Restriction on freedom of assembly
• Discrimination against minorities
• Restriction on religious freedom
• Arbitrary arrest without trials
• Torture
• Death penalty for drug trafficking
• Restriction on the activities of NGOs
• No respect for refugee/asylum seeker status

Discussion
Elections in Malaysia are subject to political interference.[1] Among other things, the government strongly suppresses opposition. In February 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia condemned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges, after a well-known political trial. He remains in prison, serving a five-year sentence.[2] In August 2016, another opposition leader—Mohd Fakhulrazi Mohd Mokhtar—was sentenced to eight months in prison on sedition charges for calling for Ibrahim’s release. In November, opposition leader Rafizi Ramli was convicted and sentenced to 18 month’s jail time for violating the Official Secrets Act. The conviction disqualifies him from serving in parliament for five years after he completes his sentence.[3]
Discrimination against religious minorities in Malaysia is common.[4] In October 2016, 50 suspected Shiites were arrested for attending a religious celebration. Restrictions remain on the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims when referring to God, even though this is the term widely used in scriptures of Malay-speaking Christians, as well as present in Christian Bibles and in everyday discussions.[5]
The government routinely forces “deviant” Muslims to undergo “re-education.”[6] Malaysia employs a cadre of religious officers to investigate violations of Sharia law, such as indecent dress, alcohol consumption, sale of restricted books and close proximity to the opposite sex. These officers have authority to conduct raids on private premises.[7] In one recent case, a man died jumping out of a window in an attempt to escape the morality police.[8]
Malaysia restricts the rights to freedom of assembly and association. Street protests are prohibited and violators can be subjected to heavy fines. In November 2016, the government intensified its crackdown on Bersih 5.0 activists with raids and arrests in advance of a major Bersih rally.[9]
Free press is also severely restricted in Malaysia, particularly through enforcement of the 1948 Sedition Act and harsh criminal defamation laws. The government has used these laws to prosecute journalists for critical reporting. Additionally, the government has exercised its authority to deny or revoke licenses for media outlets, and to block websites, that criticized the government.[10]
LGBT rights are systematically violated in Malaysia. Same sex relations can be punishable by up to 20 years of prison. The Ministry of Health considers homosexuality nearly a disease and, along with the Ministry of Education, launched a campaign to “prevent, overcome and correct” symptoms of homosexuality in children. Wearing opposite-sex clothes is prohibited by Sharia law in Malaysia.[11] The Malaysian health ministry recently launched a video contest offering cash rewards for the best videos on preventing homosexuality.[12]
Police violence against prisoners is common and unpunished by the government. Early in 2016, a local NGO reported at least 13 cases of torture or other ill-treatment in custody, including being beaten and stepped on, and being forced to strip and perform sexual acts in the presence of the authorities.[13]
Malaysia has no respect for asylum seekers and refugees. Malaysia does not follow the Refugee Convention, does not recognize the status of asylum seekers and refugees, and refuses to provide education or work permits for refugees. Refugees suffer from overcrowded and unsanitary conditions at detention centers.[14]
U.N. Voting Record
Negative: At the General Assembly, Malaysia backed human rights abusers through a resolution denying the right to sanction such regimes, and by voting to delay the work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against LGBT. Malaysia also voted against a positive resolution promoting entrepreneurship in developing countries. Malaysia abstained on resolutions that spoke out for human rights victims in Iran and North Korea.
[1] Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2017, Malaysia country report, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/malaysia.
[2] Amnesty International Report 2016/17, Malaysia chapter, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/malaysia/report-malaysia/.
[3] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016, Malaysia chapter, available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/malaysia.
[4] Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2017, Malaysia country report, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/malaysia.
[5] U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, Malaysia, available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=268744.
[6] Amanda Hodge, “Moderation under threat as Malaysia faces Islamic tide,” The Australian, August 17, 2017, available at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/moderation-under-threat-as-malaysia-faces-islamic-tide/news-story/341d55d040ce90e55baf62d590ab13c1.
[7] U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, Malaysia, https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=265350.
[8] Ana Salva, “Here come the Malaysian Morality Police,” The Diplomat, Feb. 22, 2017, available at https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/here-come-the-malaysian-morality-police/.
[9] Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2017, Malaysia country report, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/malaysia.
[10] Freedom House, Freedom of the Press 2016, Malaysia, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/malaysia; Jahabar Sadiq, “The press has become too free for the government of Malaysia,” The Guardian, March 16, 2016, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/16/the-press-has-become-too-free-for-the-government-of-malaysia.
[11] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016, Malaysia chapter, available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/malaysia, and Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2017, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/malaysia.
[12] Tom Porter, “’Gay Prevention’ Video Competition Defended by Malaysian Government,” Newsweek, June 13, 2017, available at https://www.newsweek.com/malaysia-lgbt-rights-gay-cure-gender-620228.
[13] Amnesty International Report 2016/17, Malaysia chapter, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/malaysia/report-malaysia/.
[14] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016, Malaysia chapter, available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/malaysia.

The post Absurd: Malaysia a candidate for top UN rights body, despite suppression of dissent and lack of religious freedom appeared first on UN Watch.

10  January 2014

Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Rupert Colville

Malaysia

We are concerned about the recent decision of Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs to declare COMANGO — a coalition compris[ed] of 54 Malaysian civil society organizations – illegal.
On 8 January 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs declared in a press statement that COMANGO, which consists mainly of non-Islamic organizations, promotes rights which are not in line with Islam and is therefore illegal. The statement also notes that only 15 of the 54 organisations are registered under the Societies Act 1966.
The COMANGO coalition submitted joint reports to both the 2009 and 2013 Universal Periodic Reviews of Malaysia. Since its submission to the second cycle of the UPR, which took place on 24 October 2013, the coalition has reportedly been subjected to a series of harassment and threats, allegedly by both state and non-state actors. The coalition has been accused of attacking Islam and of spreading beliefs that do not conform to Islamic teachings.
We are concerned at what appears to be an act of reprisal against COMANGO for its engagement with international human rights mechanism, notably the UPR. The Secretary-General, the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner Navi Pillay have persistently called for the protection of individuals and members of groups that cooperate with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights from acts of intimidation or reprisal.
We call upon Government of Malaysia to amend the Societies Act 1966, maximise the space for human rights activists and organisations to operate freely, and ensure that they can conduct their legitimate activities without intimidation or harassment.

The post UN calls out Malaysia for reprisal against "un-Islamic" NGOs appeared first on UN Watch.

10  January 2014

Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Rupert Colville

Malaysia

We are concerned about the recent decision of Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs to declare COMANGO — a coalition compris[ed] of 54 Malaysian civil society organizations – illegal.
On 8 January 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs declared in a press statement that COMANGO, which consists mainly of non-Islamic organizations, promotes rights which are not in line with Islam and is therefore illegal. The statement also notes that only 15 of the 54 organisations are registered under the Societies Act 1966.
The COMANGO coalition submitted joint reports to both the 2009 and 2013 Universal Periodic Reviews of Malaysia. Since its submission to the second cycle of the UPR, which took place on 24 October 2013, the coalition has reportedly been subjected to a series of harassment and threats, allegedly by both state and non-state actors. The coalition has been accused of attacking Islam and of spreading beliefs that do not conform to Islamic teachings.
We are concerned at what appears to be an act of reprisal against COMANGO for its engagement with international human rights mechanism, notably the UPR. The Secretary-General, the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner Navi Pillay have persistently called for the protection of individuals and members of groups that cooperate with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights from acts of intimidation or reprisal.
We call upon Government of Malaysia to amend the Societies Act 1966, maximise the space for human rights activists and organisations to operate freely, and ensure that they can conduct their legitimate activities without intimidation or harassment.

The post UN calls out Malaysia for reprisal against "un-Islamic" NGOs 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.