——

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STATEMENT
28^TH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
ON THE DETERIORATING HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY,
INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM

18 MAY 2018

President,
South Africa joins the Africa Group in its statement and fully supports this Special Session.
If Nelson Mandela were alive today, he would say that it takes a moral depravity of the most evil kind, a base and reckless kind of leadership to precipitate in a premeditated manner the atrocities the UN Charter sought to prevent, and to ensure that humanity never again witnesses the atrocities seen during the Second World War. Yet this is happening again.
It would have been inexplicable for the Human Rights Council, the moral conscience of the world, not to convene today. Not to have done so would have said that the Human Rights Council is deaf to the cries of the women and children of Palestine, who cry out for justice and the right to live in peace under highly constrained political circumstances, a people shorn of hope, but marching with their dignity, as the Special Rapporteur has told us.
We all knew what the consequences of the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem would be. Sadly, our fears have been realised.
It needs to be understood that when a state is being held accountable for its actions, it cannot blackmail the global community in a perverse manner. It is correct to criticise the State of Israel for its actions. As said by Rabbi Latz: you can challenge the Israeli Government’s policies without being anti-Semitic. Therefore it is correct to hold Israel accountable today.
President
South Africans under apartheid have experienced what we have witnessed in Gaza this past week. South Africa has lived this. Under apartheid we had a government at war with its children and bent on dehumanising African people in the same manner the State of Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
In conclusion, it is appropriate for the Human Rights Council to stand up to bullies, for in essence they are cowards.
I thank you.

The post South Africa opposed Syria debate, but excoriates Israel in Gaza debate appeared first on UN Watch.

General Assembly Resolutions

• Syria resolutions (2014, 2015, 2016 GA resolutions) – South Africa abstained along with countries like Ethiopia/Philippines. EU and US always voted in favor and Botswana, Gabon, Tunisia also voted in favor. In the 72nd session, South Africa again abstained along with Ethiopia, Pakistan, and other non-democracies. However, Botswana, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gambia, and EU states voted in favor.
• Iran resolution (2016 and 2017 GA Resolutions) – South Africa voted No along with China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Venezuela). However, EU states, Botswana, and Liberia voted yes.
• DPRK Resolution (2015 GA Resolutions) – South Africa abstained along with DRC, Eritrea, Pakistan, and other non-democracies. However, Ghana, Haiti, Morocco, Philippines voted in favor along with the EU and the Obama Administration.

Human Rights Council Resolutions

• At the June 2017 session, South Africa abstained on resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Syria. EU states, Ghana, Panama, Rwanda and Togo voted in favor. 
• At the June 2017 session, South Africa abstained on a resolution condemning human rights abuses in  Belarus.
• At the June 2016 session, South Africa abstained on the resolution appointing a special rapporteur on violence against gays. Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Panama voted in favor of this resolution.
• At the March 2017, South Africa abstained on the Iran resolution extending the mandate of the special rapporteur. Panama and Rwanda voted in favor.
• At the March 2016 session, South Africa voted No on the Iran resolution. Botswana and Panama voted in favor.

Chart of South Africa’s voting record at the United Nations from 2015 to 2018

The post U.N. Voting Record of South Africa 2015-2018 appeared first on UN Watch.

• South Africa did not oppose the vote on LGBTI rights, it just abstained.
• The approach of the countries who supported the UN resolution was “arrogant.”
• Many developed countries oppose South Africa’s resolutions.
• No South African NGOs approved the resolution.
• South Africa “carr[ies] Africa with us,” and has to prioritize African solidarity.

That the rainbow nation felt the need to abandon its principles at the UN in order to align itself with the 38 African nations which criminalize homosexuality is deeply regrettable. Although South Africa domestically has a good record in promoting and protecting gay rights, its recent actions in this domain have been far from exemplary. South Africa should serve as an example of tolerance and lead the way for a more inclusive continent. Instead, it chooses to engage in a race to the bottom as it systematically backs down from speaking out in favor of LGBTI rights on the international stage.
South Africa’s decision not to support gay rights at this vote is symptomatic of a broader problem at the Human Rights Council — countries typically subordinate the promotion and protection of human rights to geopolitical or other interests. “Solidarity” with Sub-Saharan Africa is deemed more important than acting in line with the nation’s constitutional commitments or for the promotion of genuine human rights. This is neither the first nor the last time that we states prioritize political maneuvering over human rights at the UN.

The post South Africa's troubling stance on gay rights appeared first on UN Watch.

___________

June 1, 2011

Dear Senator Gillibrand:

I am writing to respond to your letter to Ambassador Rice about the proposed 10-year commemoration of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (the Durban Commemoration) to be held in New York in September 2011.

The United States will not participate in the Durban Commemoration. In December, we voted against the resolution establishing this event because the Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we did not want to see that commemorated. The United States delegation in New York has not been involved in the formal negotiations on the modalities resolution or the outcome document and has had a notetaker only in these proceedings. We share your concern about the Durban commemoration’s timing and venue as just days earlier, we will have held solemn ten-year memorials for those murdered in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The United States is fully committed to upholding the human rights of all people and to combating racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, and bigotry. In 2009, after working to try to achieve a positive, constructive outcome in the Durban Review Conference, we withdrew from participating because the conference reaffirmed the original 2001 Durban Declaration, which unfairly singled out Israel and included language inconsistent with U.S. traditions of robust free speech.

We remain deeply committed to fighting racism at home and abroad, including through enhanced implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As a matter of both principle and policy, we will always stand ready to work with all partners to uphold human rights and combat bigotry and discrimination around the world.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Macmanus
Acting Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs
(U.S. State Department)

The post Issue 293: U.S. pulls out of U.N.’s controversial Durban III summit appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, October 12, 2010 – UN Watch congratulated Colombia, Germany, India and South Africa on their election as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for 2011-2012.

In regard to South Africa, UN watch executive director Hillel Neuer said it was “important that a major African democracy be represented on the council.”At the same time, Neuer recalled that during South Africa’s previous term at the Security Council, in 2007-2008, “there were serious concerns expressed by civil society groups regarding that country’s voting record on critical human rights issues. At the time, UN Watch and other human rights groups had objected to a series of decisions where South Africa used its seat on the Security Council to stand with the perpetrators instead of the victims.”

For example, said Neuer, in 2007, “South Africa joined China and Russia as the sole members to oppose a resolution urging Burma to free political detainees and end sexual violence by the military. Pretoria helped hardliners Moscow and Beijing to kill the text, shielding the generals of Rangoon.”

“In that same year, South Africa outdid even Saudi Arabia in opposing or refusing to support resolutions for victims of human rights violations in Belarus, Burma, Iran, and North Korea. When questions arose over this policy-which South Africa’s own Archbishop Desmond Tutu called ‘a betrayal of our noble past’, the government’s reaction was to lash out,” said Neuer.

“We urge South Africa – as a leading democracy with a vital role to play in world affairs – to ensure that this time, whenever vital human rights issues are at stake at the UN, it will vote like a democracy.”

The post Rights activists urge South Africa to ‘vote like a democracy’ on Security Council, recall poor voting record of prior term appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, October 12, 2010 – UN Watch congratulated Colombia, Germany, India and South Africa on their election as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for 2011-2012.

In regard to South Africa, UN watch executive director Hillel Neuer said it was “important that a major African democracy be represented on the council.”At the same time, Neuer recalled that during South Africa’s previous term at the Security Council, in 2007-2008, “there were serious concerns expressed by civil society groups regarding that country’s voting record on critical human rights issues. At the time, UN Watch and other human rights groups had objected to a series of decisions where South Africa used its seat on the Security Council to stand with the perpetrators instead of the victims.”

For example, said Neuer, in 2007, “South Africa joined China and Russia as the sole members to oppose a resolution urging Burma to free political detainees and end sexual violence by the military. Pretoria helped hardliners Moscow and Beijing to kill the text, shielding the generals of Rangoon.”

“In that same year, South Africa outdid even Saudi Arabia in opposing or refusing to support resolutions for victims of human rights violations in Belarus, Burma, Iran, and North Korea. When questions arose over this policy-which South Africa’s own Archbishop Desmond Tutu called ‘a betrayal of our noble past’, the government’s reaction was to lash out,” said Neuer.

“We urge South Africa – as a leading democracy with a vital role to play in world affairs – to ensure that this time, whenever vital human rights issues are at stake at the UN, it will vote like a democracy.”

The post Rights activists urge South Africa to ‘vote like a democracy’ on Security Council, recall poor voting record of prior term appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, October 12, 2010 – UN Watch congratulated Colombia, Germany, India and South Africa on their election as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for 2011-2012.

In regard to South Africa, UN watch executive director Hillel Neuer said it was “important that a major African democracy be represented on the council.”

At the same time, Neuer recalled that during South Africa’s previous term at the Security Council, in 2007-2008, “there were serious concerns expressed by civil society groups regarding that country’s voting record on critical human rights issues. UN Watch and other human rights groups had objected to a series of decisions where South Africa used its seat on the Security Council to stand with the perpetrators instead of the victims.”

For example, said Neuer, in 2007, “South Africa joined China and Russia as the sole members to oppose a resolution urging Burma to free political detainees and end sexual violence by the military. Pretoria helped hardliners Moscow and Beijing to kill the text, shielding the generals of Rangoon.”

“In that same year, South Africa outdid even Saudi Arabia in opposing or refusing to support resolutions for victims of human rights violations in Belarus, Burma, Iran, and North Korea. When questions arose over this policy—which South Africa’s own Archbishop Desmond Tutu called ‘a betrayal of our noble past’, the government’s reaction was to lash out,” said Neuer.

“We urge South Africa — as a leading democracy with a vital role to play in world affairs — to ensure that this time, whenever vital human rights issues are at stake at the UN, it will vote like a democracy.”

The post Rights activists urge South Africa to ‘vote like a democracy’ on Security Council, recall poor voting record of prior term appeared first on UN Watch.

Swiss weigh in on Human Rights Council debate

Mar 5, 2010

Amid attacks and praise for the Human Rights Council, Switzerland has called for a special meeting to step up debate on the United Nations body.

A review of the council’s working methods is due to take place in 2011, and with the 13th regular session underway in Geneva, delegations have been giving their verdicts this week on what needs to be addressed next year.

Switzerland, the initiator of the council back in 2006, took to the podium to offer its own critique, while also announcing it would be holding a special meeting on the issue in Montreux on April 20, open to all foreign missions in Geneva, UN representatives and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“The seminar aims to discuss in an open and informal manner the different aspects of the 2011 review of the council, before the formal process begins this autumn,” Nadine Olivieri Lozano, a spokeswoman for the Swiss foreign ministry, told swissinfo.ch.

On the issue, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey told a ministerial meeting of the council: “Let’s not spend all of our energy renewing the council.”

She agreed the problematic council had “not yet been able to deploy its full potential,” adding that Switzerland wanted a “council that responds to the needs of victims and vulnerable groups”.

More specifically the council needed to encourage universal respect for independent rapporteurs, who were coming increasingly under attack for unfavourable reports and were often refused visits by states.

Culture of confrontation

Among the countries to opine about the council, Bahrain described it as a “qualitative leap” in the field of human rights and Yemen said it was “always at the forefront” of the struggle for protecting human rights. Both countries’ human rights track records are criticised by Amnesty.

Botswana however was “deeply concerned” at its lack of progress in countering racism, while Brazil noted that one of its basic challenges would be overcoming a culture of confrontation and selectivity.

Most had praise for the council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a process by which all 192 members of the UN are scrutinised by other countries on their own track records.

Non-governmental organisations are among the fiercest critics of the council, many believing the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states who protect each other from criticism. Meanwhile, the European Union, Canada, the US and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have all said there is a disproportionate focus on Israel.

“Anyone who would claim to be optimistic [about improving the council] is not being realistic. But we haven’t given up, we’re here, we want to make this work.”

US Leadership

UN Watch believes that the US will need to play a key leadership role, as de facto leader of the opposition at the council, a group of 12 democracies that routinely oppose regressive measures and defend human rights positions.

“There are some very good things in the council and there are some things that are going very badly,” commented Peter Splinter, Amnesty International’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva.

“Our major criticism is that this council isn’t looking at situations of serious human rights violations whether they’re acute or in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe where they are chronic and have been going on for a long time.”

There is also a trend in the council to try to intimidate independent and NGO voices, with some losing their accreditation, and talk of the need for rules to regulate NGO conduct, he said.

On the plus side, assessments by the UPR were creating domestic dialogue and countries that would not have been considered under the former commission are reviewed now as a matter of course.

But as part of the review people should first be asking if the council has achieved the mandate set out by the UN General Assembly, Splinter says.

“Before we start talking about any reform and changing the rules, let’s agree to apply the rules that have already been established.”

The post Truth-Telling in International Media appeared first on UN Watch.

Human rights activists and other UN observers were surprised by South Africa’s opposition to recognizing gay rights during recent negotiations on the outcome document for the Durban Review Conference, whose stated aim is to combat racism, discrimination, and intolerance of any kind. The South African representative said that issues of sexual orientation go “beyond the framework of the Durban Declaration.”

The European Union had proposed a while back that the Durban II declaration include protection for gays. However, after strong opposition from Muslim governments, who invoked the omission of gay rights in the 2001 Durban text, the United Kingdom on February 18th suggested an amendment to list sexual orientation only as an aggravating factor, when it intersects with racism. This U.K. proposal prompted South Africa’s response.

The irony of South Africa’s opposition to recognizing gay rights is that it betrays the principles of its own constitution, which states:

“The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth” (South African Constitution, Chapter 2, Article 9, Paragraph 3, emphasis added).

South African’s statutes and courts also recognize gay rights. The 2000 Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in South Africa. A 1999 judgment by South Africa’s Constitutional Court recognized equal rights for the partners of gay and lesbian South Africans who apply for permanent residence.

So what explains South Africa’s contradictory position at the U.N.?

One possibility is South Africa’s close alliance with Islamic countries at the world body. Interestingly, the South African government seems to acknowledge that its U.N. votes don’t always reflect its true positions. In a January 8 statement, South Africa explained its decision not to join 66 other states in signing a General Assembly proclamation that condemned discrimination against homosexuals. In fact, said Pretoria, it supported the U.N. statement even though it refused to sign it, saying that “over the years, there have been several declarations that have been presented to the General Assembly and that South Africa has supported without being a signatory.”

As a free democracy with a progressive constitution and a history of overcoming intolerance, South Africa has much potential to be a true leader in the human rights cause. Let’s hope it starts living up to its own standards.

The post South Africa betrays principles on gay rights appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, Feb. 5 —Geneva-based human rights organization UN Watch today called on UN rights chief Navi Pillay to protest the “outrageous and discriminatory” boycott by a Durban dockworkers union of an Israeli commercial ship scheduled to arrive this Sunday in the South African port city.

According to Randall Howard of the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, if the ship is determined to be Israeli, union workers will refuse to unload the cargo, reported the Associated Press. “If it’s an Israeli product, we’re going to boycott it, plain and simple,” he said.

“The Durban boycotters aren’t claiming here that the goods are military or toxic — just that they’re Israeli. But discriminating against Israelis on the basis of nationality constitutes a violation of the equality principle enshrined in the UN Charter and guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

“The Durban boycott of Israel is also an express violation of the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, whose definition of racism prohibits any ‘exclusion or restriction’ based on national origin which has the purpose or effect of impairing the equal enjoyment of economic rights and freedoms,” said Neuer.

“That means the Durban boycott of Israeli merchants is racist, and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay is morally obliged to speak out, particularly given her policy of strongly opposing boycotts in favor of dialogue. Pillay’s voice would carry special weight with Durban workers and campaigners being herself born and raised in Durban.”

The boycott call by Durban dockworkers and pro-Palestinian campaigners was echoed by Durban activist Patrick Bond who, in an op-ed today in South Africa’s The Mercury, expressed hope the boycott would “prod more Durban citizens — including academics — to also raise concerns about institutional linkages that give the Israeli state legitimacy.”

The Durban boycott of Israel follows controversial remarks made on January 14th by South African deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig, who said “Jewish money” controlled America and “most Western countries.”  Following an international outcry, this week she offered an “unequivocal apology for the pain [my statement] may have caused to the people of our country and the Jewish community in particular.”

The post Durban-born UN rights chief urged to protest Durban ‘discriminatory’ boycott of Israel appeared first on UN Watch.