UK Archives - UN Watch

British Parliament Debates U.N. Walkout on Iranian Foreign Minister

unwatch — Fri, 24 Feb 2023 02:41:32 +0000

Today in the British House of Lords the UK government was called upon to walk out on Iran’s foreign minister when he addresses the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday, February 27th. The human rights group UN Watch was recognized for spearheading the #WalkoutIRI campaign, and the successful expulsion of the Islamic regime from the U.N. Women’s Rights Commission.

Lord Stuart Polak: “My Lords, the people of Iran are entitled to have good relations with the people of the United Kingdom. However, I would argue the current government of Iran is absolutely not entitled to have good relations with His Majesty’s Government.

May I commend my friend Hillel Neuer, the indefatigable director of UN Watch, the human rights NGO based in Geneva. He has been holding the Iranian regime to account, and headed the campaign to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women in 2022. And I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking such a strong lead on that issue.

And my noble friend, I hope will forgive me because I do not have enough time to list all the reasons why the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed as a terror group. Perhaps, I will just ask the Minister in his response to furnish the House with the reason why the government has not prescribed the IRGC as a terror group.

My Lords, Hillel, who I referred to, is rightly campaigning now that when the Iranian foreign minister addresses the U.N. Human Rights Council next Monday, on the 27th of February, that U.N. delegations should walk out in protest.

Global figures have joined that campaign like Masih Alinejad, the exiled Iranian women’s rights activist who the regime attempted to assassinate in New York last summer.

So I urge my noble friend the Minister to lead once again and take a strong stance against a regime that tortures, that kills, and hangs its own people.

My Lords, if, as we do, we stand for the protection of human rights, then my noble friend should stand and leave the room when the Iranian foreign minister begins to speak.”

“May I commend my friend Hillel Neuer, the indefatigable director of UN Watch, the human rights NGO based in Geneva. He has been holding the Iranian regime to account, and headed the campaign to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women in 2022.” /2

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) February 24, 2023

Instagram version

The post British Parliament Debates U.N. Walkout on Iranian Foreign Minister appeared first on UN Watch.

Britain's Stiffening Spine Against UNHRC's Anti-Israel Bigotry

unwatch — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 15:14:26 +0000

Britain switched another of its votes during the annual UN Human Rights Council assault on Israel, switching from Abstain to No on one of the five resolutions.
In last year’s March 2017 session, Britain exercised its first No vote in recent years — on an absurd resolution condemning Israel for violating the human rights of Syrians on the Golan Heights — and it delivered an exceptional statement calling out the anti-Israel bias of the UNHRC, warning they would switch all votes to No if the imbalance were not removed.
This year, Theresa May’s government was true to its word by switching yet another vote to No, on an absurd resolution condemning Israel for not following up on the malign Goldstone Report, whose core charges Judge Goldstone himself famously retracted.
The UK’s initial switch in 2016 from Yes to Abstain on two resolutions relates primarily to its opposition to the introduction that year of a “database” that would blacklist companies doing business with Jews living east of the 1949 armistice line. Britain stated in March 2016 that it would not cooperate with the blacklist, and it reiterated its opposition on Friday as well.

RESOLUTION	2015	2016	2017	2018
Settlements	Yes	Abstain	Abstain	Abstain
Accountability	Yes	Abstain	Abstain	No
Golan	Abstain	Abstain	No	No
Human Rights in OPT	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Self- Determination	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

It’s good to see Britain is getting its spine back.
https://www.facebook.com/hillelneuer/videos/10156953067666729/

The post Britain's Stiffening Spine Against UNHRC's Anti-Israel Bigotry appeared first on UN Watch.

Baroness Deech blasts the UNHRC in the British House of Lords

unwatch — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:47:53 +0000

Transcript:

I fear that these excellent intentions may not achieve much, because at the apex of all international effort lies the UN Human Rights Council, a body now so perverted that it no longer makes sense to support it. What is the use of the UK lobbying other countries and supporting UN resolutions on religious persecution when the UNHRC is peopled with representatives of the most egregious offenders?
My Lords, Iraq is a member of the UNHRC, along with Saudi Arabia, China and Venezuela, to mention just a few of them. When Iraq campaigned for membership of the UNHRC they cited in support the happy condition of the Christian minority. In China, 1.3 billion people are denied freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Tibetans are occupied and tortured. In Russia, dissidents are harassed, arrested and assassinated. Crimea is annexed and Ukraine bombarded. In Saudi Arabia beheadings are at an all-time high. They bomb Yemeni civilians.
The response of the UNHRC is largely silence and the welcoming as members of those atrocious states. Only one country is permanently on the agenda of the UNHRC and that is Israel, targeted by the Arab members in an effort to deflect attention from themselves.
Earlier this year our Government, thankfully, became a torch-bearer for the truth. The British mission blasted the UN body as biased and overly focused on Israel. The UNHRC has breath-taking double standards and is outrageously biased against the only country in the Middle East whose Christian population has grown, namely Israel.
It is time to call out the hypocrisy of the UNHRC, as a preliminary to safeguarding the religious minorities of Iraq and the wider Middle East. Will the Minister ensure that the UK’s place on the UNHRC is, has been, as it was in the past and I hope will be in the future, to tell the truth and defend the persecuted?

The post Baroness Deech blasts the UNHRC in the British House of Lords appeared first on UN Watch.

First time: UK breaks with EU, opposed Syrian-backed condemnation of Israel over Golan

unwatch — Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:58:50 +0000

November 30, 2017 – UN Watch commended the United Kingdom for “breaking with the EU common position for the first time and opposing the UN General Assembly’s annual Syrian-backed resolution that condemned Israel for not giving the Assad regime control over the Golan and its 20,000 Druze residents,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group.

The resolution is part of the annual 20 Arab-sponsored resolutions criticizing Israel directly or by implication. By contrast, the UNGA this year passed only one resolution each on Iran, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar, Crimea and the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
The British delegate voted No, he told the assembly, because “resolutions which undermine the credibility of UN bodies risk hardening positions on both sides, and do little to advance peace or mutual understanding.”

“This is why we have voted against the resolution proposed by the Syrian regime regarding the occupation of Syria’s Golan.”

In addition to one Palestinian-backed resolution on the Golan, “this second resolution on the Golan Heights, proposed by the Syrian regime, repeats much of the same language , and adds nothing new. It is unnecessary, and disproportionate.”

“The Syrian regime’s intent is to use this additional resolution to deflect attention from its own criminal actions and indiscriminate slaughter of its own citizens. “

“The duty of the General Assembly is to draw attention to international humanitarian law violations, wherever they occur. This resolution risks discrediting that vital responsibility.”

1st time: UK breaks with EU, opposes Syrian-backed resolution that condemns Israel for not giving Assad regime control over Golan's 20,000 Druze. 'Resolutions which undermine the credibility of UN bodies do little to advance peace or mutual understanding.' https://t.co/nBE16U0dcx pic.twitter.com/IgIV4V6dNK

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) December 1, 2017

The post First time: UK breaks with EU, opposed Syrian-backed condemnation of Israel over Golan appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Asks World Court to Decide UK-Mauritius Dispute

unwatch — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 17:39:39 +0000

The UK lost 94 to 5, with 65 abstentions, when the UN General Assembly voted to ask the world court to pronounce itself on continued British rule over islands claimed by Mauritius.
Among those voting No with the UK were the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania and Israel. Canada and most EU countries abstained; Cyprus voted Yes.
For explanation of votes, see UN press release below.
Seeking International Court’s Advisory Opinion on Pre-independence Separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius
Minister Cites Need to Complete Decolonization Process as United Kingdom Says It Will Cede Territory When No Longer Needed for Defence
The General Assembly requested today that the International Court of Justice render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before that Indian Ocean island nation’s independence in the 1960s.
By a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 15 against, with 65 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the text contained in document A/71/L.73, recalling its 1965 resolution in which it asked the United Kingdom not to dismember the territory of Mauritius ahead of its independence in 1968. It asked the Court whether the decolonization of Mauritius had been carried out in a lawful manner, given the Archipelago’s subsequent separation.
Also by the text, the Assembly asked the Court to advise on the consequences arising from the United Kingdom’s continuing administration of the Chagos Archipelago under international law, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It pointed, in particular, to Mauritius’ inability to resettle its nationals, including those of Chagossian origin, on the islands.
Speaking before the action, Anerood Jugnauth, Mauritius’ Minister Mentor and Minister for Defence and Rodrigues – also a former Prime Minister and President – said “a vote for the draft resolution […] is a vote in support of completing the process of decolonization, respect for international law and the rule of law”. Recalling that that he had been accompanied by Chagossians forcibly evicted from their islands following the separation, he emphasized that his country had never accepted the situation, and had not been in a position to consent before gaining statehood, even if the United Kingdom claimed that compensation had been given for its consent.
Describing the Chagos Archipelago as part of his country since at least the eighteenth century, when France had governed it, he said the entire territory had been ceded to the United Kingdom in 1810, and kept intact until the unlawful excision of the Chagos Archipelago on 8 November 1965. He added that information had come to light about British efforts to manipulate the international community at the time, and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli regarding the separation. Those facts alone should warrant a fresh look at the situation, he emphasized.
The United Kingdom’s representative called for withdrawal of the draft resolution in order to keep a more constructive path open. Emphasizing that his country would not consent to having a bilateral dispute submitted for judicial settlement, he recalled that, in recent talks, the United Kingdom’s offers had clearly signalled acknowledgement of Mauritius’ long-term interest in the Archipelago, offering a framework for joint management of all its islands except Diego Garcia, the site of a military base.
He went on to state that United Kingdom had decided against resettling the Chagossians on the grounds of feasibility, cost, defence and security interests. However, it was implementing a $50 million support package designed to improve their livelihoods. The focus of Mauritius throughout recent talks had not been on the Chagossians, but rather on transferring sovereignty, he said. However, since the territory had been created for defence purposes in a joint agreement with the United States, sovereignty would revert to Mauritius when the territory was no longer required for that purpose.
Other speakers voiced respect for the principles of self-determination of peoples, the sovereignty of States and international law. Those opposing the resolution underlined the need for a consensual bilateral approach to resolving disputes between States, pointing out that the Court did not have mandatory jurisdiction in such issues. The representative of the United States said the Assembly’s action represented the circumvention of normal procedure, describing it as a “back-door” way to get the issue on the Court’s docket.
Many of those supporting the text prioritized the need to complete the decolonization process. India’s representative, while conceding his country’s security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean, said that, on balance, it was a matter of principle for India to uphold the decolonization process, as well as respect for the sovereignty of nations.
El Salvador’s representative called for broadening the Court’s jurisdiction, pointing out that his small country lacked large armies and nuclear weapons. “It is international law that protects us,” he pointed out.
On the budgetary implications of the resolution, a Secretariat official reported that it was not possible to determine an exact figure, but based on recent precedents, the cost of an advisory opinion concerning the Chagos Archipelago could range from $450,000 to $600,000.
Also speaking today were representatives of Congo, Venezuela (for the Non‑Aligned Movement), Angola (for the Southern African Development Community), Egypt, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Croatia, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Australia, Uruguay, Germany, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Portugal, Israel, Brazil, Myanmar and Indonesia.
Before the action on the resolution, the Assembly paid tribute to the late President Baldwin Lonsdale of Vanuatu. Following a minute of silence and a statement by the Assembly President, the following delegates delivered statements: Congo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Mongolia (on behalf of the Group of Asia-Pacific States), Romania (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States), Honduras (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Australia (on behalf of the Western European and other States), United States (the host country) and Vanuatu.
The General Assembly will meet again at a date and time to be determined.
Action on Draft Resolution
RAYMOND SERGE BALÉ (Congo), introduced the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of African States, saying the text supported their efforts to complete the decolonization process on their continent. The continuing separation of the Chagos Archipelago was a violation of international law, defying, in particular, actions by the General Assembly prohibiting the dismemberment of territories by administering Powers, including resolution 2066 (XX) of 1965, relating to Mauritius specifically. The current action was the result of a request by Mauritius, supported by the African Group, after a delay had been requested to allow talks with the United Kingdom. Emphasizing that the right to self-determination was central to the concerns of the United Nations, he said an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice would clarify the issues involved, thereby strengthening that particular agenda, as well as international law, he said. “A ‘yes’ vote would be a vote for the principles of the UN Charter,” he stressed.
ANEROOD JUGNAUTH, Minister Mentor, Minister for Defence and Rodrigues of Mauritius, associated himself with the African Group. Explaining his personal knowledge of the situation as the only surviving participant in the 1965 Mauritius Constitutional Conference of 1965, he recalled that he had been accompanied by Mauritians of Chagossian origin, forcibly evicted from the Archipelago and pinning their hopes of return on the United Nations. The Archipelago had been part of Mauritius’ territory since at least the eighteenth century, when France governed it, he said, adding that the entire territory had been ceded to the United Kingdom in 1810 and kept intact until what the Archipelago’s unlawful excision on 8 November 1965.
As noted in the resolution, the General Assembly had recognized the unlawfulness of that excision in its actions of the time, he said, noting that information had since come to light showing British efforts to manipulate the international community at the time, and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli regarding the separation. Those facts alone should warrant a fresh look at the situation, he emphasized, pointing out that Mauritius had continued to voice its opposition in international forums over the years with the support of many countries around the world. The dismemberment of Mauritius’ territory without its freely given consent was a violation of the principle of self‑determination and a breach of fundamental principles of human rights, he stressed.
Countering the United Kingdom’s position — that some form of monetary compensation had been provided in return — he underlined that Mauritius had not enjoyed the legal competence as a State to give consent. “Breaches of principles of international law and General Assembly resolutions remain breaches that can never validly be acquiesced in or consented or traded off with money,” he stressed. The mere request for an advisory opinion had no bearing on, nor adversely affect, the security interests of any other State. “The vote on the draft resolution […] is a vote in support of completing the process of decolonization, respect for international law and the rule of law,” he said.
RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, explained that the Movement’s founding principles were rooted in the rejection of colonialism. During its seventeenth summit, held on Venezuela’s Margarita Island in September 2016, member States had reaffirmed that the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, had been illegally removed from Mauritius and constituted an integral part of that country’s territory, he recalled. The Movement had observed with concern the United Kingdom’s intention to establish a marine protected area around the Archipelago, he said, welcoming the Arbitration Tribunal convened under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. By the provisions of that instrument, that marine protected area had been established illegally, he said, noting that, following proceedings initiated by Mauritius to challenge its legality, the Tribunal had ruled unanimously that the marine protected area had been established in violation of international law. The Movement had decided to support fully any General Assembly action in that direction, and during its recent summit, had appealed to all member States to support today’s action, initiated by African Group.
ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) spoke on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and associated himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement. Recalling that SADC had been formed to help member States win both political and economic independence, pointed out that its members had experienced different forms colonialism, including periods when minority governments had catered to external interests rather than those of the local people. The Community’s moral duty was to support the African Group’s endeavour to realize the completion of Mauritius’ decolonization, he said, pointing out that the Chagos Archipelago had been illegally excised from Mauritius prior to its independence in blatant violation of international law. Noting that General Assembly resolution 2066 (1965) called upon the United Kingdom to take no action that would dismember Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity, he said the former colonial Power’s actions remained incompatible with the Charter. The SADC had consistently supported Mauritius’ full and effective control over its whole territory, including the Chagos Archipelago, he said, adding that its member States would vote in favour of the draft resolution under consideration.
MATTHEW RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said bilateral talks were needed to settle bilateral differences, emphasizing that questions on the British Indian Ocean Territory had long been and should remain bilateral. Calling for the draft resolution’s withdrawal so as to keep a more constructive path open, he emphasized that his country did not and would not consent to the bilateral dispute being submitted for judicial settlement. Urging all States to vote against the draft resolution, he said the United Kingdom had held three substantive rounds of talks with Mauritius since September 2016, but had not been able to bridge their differences. During those talks, the United Kingdom’s offers had clearly signalled acknowledgement of Mauritius’ long-term interest in the Archipelago, offering a framework for the joint management of all the Territory’s islands except Diego Garcia, he said, adding that strategic and tactical forms of bilateral security cooperation had also been offered. It was regrettable that Mauritius had not engaged with those offers, which would have given it a more tangible and direct stake in the Archipelago.
He went on to emphasize that the welfare of Chagossians was of real concern to the United Kingdom. After considering all available information, it had decided against resettling them on grounds of feasibility, cost, defence and security interests. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom was determined to address the desire of the Chagossians for a better life, as well as connections with the Territory. As such, it was implementing a $50 million support package designed to improve their livelihoods. The focus of Mauritius throughout the talks had not been the Chagossians, he stressed, adding that it sought instead a claim for sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Recalling that Mauritius had repeatedly pressed the United Kingdom to specify a date for the transfer of sovereignty, he said that would occur when the Territory was no longer required for defence.
MICHELE SISON (United States) said she would vote against the draft resolution because it was an attempt to circumvent the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over a bilateral issue in which one of the parties had not consented to the submission. The military base on Diego Garcia, jointly operated by the United States and the United Kingdom, was critical to regional and global security, she emphasized. She maintained that the issue was not decolonization, but a bilateral territorial dispute that would undermine the Court’s advisory function.
SYED AKBARUDDIN (India) said he would vote in favour of the draft as part of his country’s “ceaseless efforts to put an end to colonialism”. Recalling that his country had co-sponsored the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, he said that, regrettably, the decolonization process that had begun with his country’s independence remained unfinished seven decades later. While India shared the security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean, on balance, it was a matter of principle to uphold the decolonization process and to respect the sovereignty of nations, he emphasized.
AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said that his delegation’s vote would be based on its commitment to the common African stance on the issue, as well as its commitment to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, as contained in the final communiqué from its last summit. The question was a pending one standing in the way of decolonization, he noted.
MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said his delegation would vote in favour for the draft resolution. Describing the vote as an historical imperative in solidarity with a sister African nation, he said that the human rights abuses that had accompanied the Archipelago’s occupation demanded that all States support the draft. All it sought was an advisory opinion from an international court respected by all, he said, asking: “What can be so unpalatable about that?”
MODEST JONATHON MERO (United Republic Tanzania), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and SADC, said the time had come for the two countries to finalize the matter, adding that his delegation would join other African countries in supporting Mauritius.
Mr. RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said that for reasons already stated, he would vote against the draft resolution and urged others to do the same. Emphasizing the bilateral nature of the dispute, he described the General Assembly’s proposed referral to the International Court of Justice as a back-door way to get the Court’s opinion, cautioning that the proposal could undermine that institution’s legitimacy.
Ms. SISON (United States) also cautioned against the possibility of undermining the Court, and reiterated that she would vote against the draft.
CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile) said he could not associate himself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, emphasizing that his delegation would base its position on the rule of law, by which the matter should be handled on a bilateral basis. Chile would abstain from the vote, he added.
VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia), while emphasizing the importance of the decolonization process, said proper judicial procedures must nevertheless be followed, and for that reason, he would oppose the draft.
The representative of France said the situation under consideration was a bilateral dispute and should be resolved accordingly. Recalling his country’s calls, over several months, for Mauritius and the United Kingdom to reach bilateral agreement, he said the possibilities offered by negotiation had not yet been exhausted. France was not convinced that an advisory opinion would facilitate such a solution, he said, emphasizing that the issue of sovereignty should be regulated between States and that the International Court of Justice considered respect for that principle to be fundamental. The delegation of France could therefore not vote for the draft.
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago reiterated her country’s commitment to non-alignment and the peaceful settlement of disputes. She also noted that decisions of the International Court of Justice were non-binding, adding that her delegation would vote in favour of the draft.
Taking up the text titled “request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965” (document A/71/L.73), the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 15 against, with 65 abstentions.
The representative of Australia then said that her country respected Mauritius’ decision to bring forward the resolution, while stressing her country’s strong support of the United Nations decolonization agenda. Today’s vote, however, had been about a more specific question, and Australia’s long-standing position was that it was not appropriate to use the Court’s advisory opinion jurisdiction to determine the rights and interests of States arising from a specific context. The Diego Garcia military base played a pivotal part in the global fight against terrorism, she noted, emphasizing that it was in the interest of all to ensure there was no uncertainty about its status that could jeopardize its contribution to international peace and security. For those reasons, Australia had voted against the resolution, she added.
The representative of Uruguay said his country supported the resolution and the decolonization process, adding that his delegation valued the initiative while continuing to encourage dialogue in the quest for a just and lasting solution.
The representative of Germany emphasized that her delegation’s abstention should not to be understood as a legal view. The dispute under consideration was bilateral in character and Germany welcomed a peaceful resolution by both parties, she said, while noting that one of the parties had not involved the International Court of Justice.
The representative of China said his delegation had abstained. Reiterating his country’s firm support for decolonization and its understanding of Mauritius’ position, he said that although negotiations had not yielded progress, the parties should continue bilateral consultations to find an appropriate solution.
The representative of Mexico said that, while his delegation accepted the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court and the importance of advisory opinions, he had abstained because the solution to the problem must be found at the bilateral level. He called upon the parties to negotiate a solution quickly.
The representative of New Zealand said he had voted against the draft because the issue should be resolved at the bilateral level.
The representative of Sweden said his delegation had abstained due to the importance of separating the procedures of Court’s various functions. He urged the parties to deal constructively with the matter at the bilateral level.
The representative of El Salvador said that, while bilateral discussions were suitable for certain matters, the issue under consideration was one of sovereignty and decolonization. It was up to the United Nations, he said, emphasizing that his delegation had decided to vote in favour of the resolution because it was about a colonial Power appropriating territory. As such, the matter was a political and legal one, and as with any legal issue, the General Assembly had the right to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Emphasizing that the Assembly was not taking the matter to the Court, he said it seeking an advisory opinion, pointing out that that was the right of all Member States. It had been exercised in the past, as in 1971 when the Court had resolved a case involving Namibia, he recalled. “As a small country, we do not have international armies or nuclear weapons,” he noted, stressing: “It is international law that protects us.”
The representative of Canada said his country did not take sides in such disputes and encouraged both parties to resolve the issue amicably. Canada supported the International Court of Justice and its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, but for the Court to settle contentious cases between States required the consent of both parties, he noted. However, seeking a referral to the International Court of Justice through the General Assembly’s ability to seek an advisory opinion was a circumvention of that principle.
The representative of Portugal, while also avowing respect for the decolonization process and the role of the International Court of Justice, said she had abstained and called for both parties to resolve the matter bilaterally.
The representative of Israel said his delegation had voted against the text because it ignored important distinctions relating to the Court’s procedures.
The representative of Brazil said he had voted in favour of the resolution due to the importance of concluding the decolonization process. However, Brazil encouraged the parties to continue their dialogue.
The representative of Myanmar said he had abstained because the ongoing negotiations were the best way to resolve the issue.
The representative of Indonesia, underlining the importance of the decolonization process and the principle of territorial integrity, appealed to the parties to explore all avenues of dialogue in order to resolve the dispute within a clear time frame. Indonesia had abstained, he added.

The post UN Asks World Court to Decide UK-Mauritius Dispute appeared first on UN Watch.

U.S. & UK were only countries U.N. investigated on freedom of assembly

unwatch — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:51:14 +0000

Following is the statement delivered today by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, in the UN Human Rights Council interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly. The UN’s report on the UK criticized Britain’s existing counter-terrorism policies for “dividing, stigmatizing and alienating segments of the population,” and for “crude racial, ideological, cultural and religious profiling.” The UK submitted a rebuttal on errors of fact. The report on the United States discusses Ferguson.

Statement by UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer
UN Human Rights Council, June 7, 2017

Mr. President, If I understand correctly, of all the countries in the world, the only two that were visited and investigated over the past year, by this council’s former expert on freedom of assembly, are (a) the United Kingdom, and (b) the United States.
The former expert’s visit to the UK was his second in three years, and he recommends more visits to the UK by the experts on education and religions.
Now, UN Watch believes that every country must be held into account, democracies and non-democracies alike. Personally, when I spent three years in the U.S. as an attorney, I represented plaintiffs who sued the U.S. Air Force and the New York State Prison system, on claims of racial and religious discrimination. Every country has blots on its system; none is immune.
Having said that, I would like to ask the Special Rapporteur a question: What is your methodology for deciding which, of the UN’s 193 member states, to investigate?
The U.S. and the UK, with all their flaws, still have some of the world’s most robust institutions of internal criticism, including an independent judiciary, a free press, elected representatives, and a free civil society, who have already voiced and acted upon the critiques contained in these reports.
Therefore, would the Special Rapporteur consider that the UN might help more human beings by focusing its limited time and resources on governments that possess none of these vital institutions of democracy?
Going forward, would the Special Rapporteur consider writing special reports on the gross and systematic denial of freedom of assembly and association in North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Cuba?
Thank you, Mr. President.

The post U.S. & UK were only countries U.N. investigated on freedom of assembly appeared first on UN Watch.

British Baroness Ruth Deech in "Debate on Israel-Palestine" at House of Lords

unwatch — Wed, 10 May 2017 04:31:55 +0000

https://www.facebook.com/unwatch/videos/10154376418276561/

The post British Baroness Ruth Deech in "Debate on Israel-Palestine" at House of Lords appeared first on UN Watch.

UK coverage: U.N. elects Saudi Arabia to Women’s Rights Commission

unwatch — Thu, 04 May 2017 14:09:00 +0000

Independent: Saudi Arabia elected to UN women’s rights commission

Quoting UN Watch:

“Every Saudi woman must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death,” said Hillel Neuer, director of UN Watch. “Saudi Arabia also bans women from driving cars.
“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” Mr Neuer said. “It’s absurd.”
At least five EU states voted in a secret ballot for the Saudis to serve a four-year term on the commission, according to Mr Neuer.”

The Spectator: What does the UN think Saudi Arabia can teach us about gender equality?
By Douglas Murray

Quoting UN Watch:

A few days ago, the Council voted to appoint members for the 2018-2022 term of its ‘Commission on the Status of Women’, a UN agency ‘exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.’ Among those appointed to the Commission was that notable supporter of gender equality – Saudi Arabia. Best of all is that – as the excellent UN Watch points out here – at least five EU member states must have voted to put Saudi Arabia on the Commission.

Elle UK: The UN Just Elected Saudi Arabia To The Women’s Right Commission And No, It’s Not A Joke
Quoting UN Watch:

Director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, has been particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea.

According to the Independent, he says: ‘Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief…It’s absurd.’

And it turns out Neuer isn’t the only one who thinks this way. As ever, the people of Twitter have had their say on the matter…

Notable Information:

Former Prime Minister of New Zealand and administrator of the UN Development Programme, Helen Clark, has shared her two cents on why she thinks the country might have been elected.

‘It’s important to support those in the country who are working for change for women. Things are changing, but slowly,’ she reportedly said.

The post UK coverage: U.N. elects Saudi Arabia to 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.

Issue 630: UK breaks with EU, votes No on UNHRC's "perverse" anti-Israel resolution on Golan Heights

unwatch — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:54:58 +0000

UK breaks with EU, votes No on UNHRC’s ‘perverse’ anti-Israel resolution on Golan Heights

London adopts UN Watch statistics, announces it will oppose all resolutions on Israel if bias does not stop

In an unprecedented move, Prime Minister Theresa May’s government changed the UK’s vote on Friday at the U.N. Human Rights Council on what it rightly called a “perverse” resolution condemning Israel for allegedly maltreating the Druze residents of the Golan Heights — and London warned that it would oppose all UNHRC resolutions on Israel if the UNHRC’s bias does not stop.
In past votes on the same text — introduced annually by Syria’s Assad regime, and more recently by the Islamic group acting as a surrogate — the UK had abstained, together with EU states.
This time, however, the UK joined the U.S. in voting No, in what experts say is a move by London to closely align itself with Washington. Brexit is about to begin and the UK increasingly needs to rely on close ties with America.
More significantly, the UK also declared on Friday that if the UNHRC doesn’t change its anti-Israel bias, they will begin to vote No on all five of the annual resolutions concerning Israel.
“Today we are putting the Human Rights Council on notice. If things do not change, in the future we will adopt a policy of voting against all resolutions concerning Israel’s conduct…”
To explain their new principled approach, the UK adopted UN Watch’s statistics showing the council’s bias, instead of numbers put out by the council’s champions which, in order to downplay the UNHRC’s bigotry, dilute the figures by wrongly conflating consequential resolutions that condemn countries with toothless texts that praise countries.
Read more on UK vote change, watch video

Video goes viral: 2.2 million worldwide view UN Watch director’s
challenge to Arab regimes: “Where are your Jews?”

The speech by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer asking Arab regimes “Where are your Jews?” has gone viral worldwide, with more than 2.2 million views since it was posted on Facebook last week, and an additional 300,000 on YouTube, making it the most-viewed non-governmental speech in the history of the United Nations. Click here for video.
The speech has also been translated into French, Spanish, German, Hebrew, and other languages.
French philosopher Raphaël Enthoven shared the video on Facebook and Twitter; Australian political columnist Andrew Bolt of Sky News dedicated a radio segment to praising it. Numerous blogs featured the speech.

The video drew 1,600 comments on Facebook, hailing the speech as a diplomatic moment to remember.
Several humorous memes were also generated and shared on the internet, inspired by the speech, as shown below.

The post Issue 630: UK breaks with EU, votes No on UNHRC's "perverse" anti-Israel resolution on Golan Heights appeared first on UN Watch.