| Behind the Blitzkrieg
What explains the blitzkrieg of op-eds by Nobel laureates, and so many other card-carrying members of the international foreign policy establishment, trumpeting the UN’s patently defective blueprint for a new Human Rights Council? The answer lies in appreciating the strange predicament in which this set found itself this past year, after UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan so powerfully exposed the failures and hypocrisies of the Human Rights Commission, whose members routinely include notorious abusers like Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Since the cause of human rights is considered the soul or raison d’etre of the UN, Mr. Annan’s denunciation of the Commission — reminiscent of Kruschev’s “secret speech” 50 years ago on the evils of Stalinism — led to a terrible thought: Could it be that the UN itself had failed to meet the noble ideals set by its founders? That it was flawed?
Regrettably, too many diplomats and activists at the UN have invested their very identity, and seek intellectual and emotional shelter, in a worldview that, when it comes to the UN, sees no evil. Mistakenly, in most cases unwittingly, they have eschewed the liberal internationalism of Eleanor Roosevelt for a jingoistic internationalism that is indifferent to the world body’s founding principles of liberty and equality. The UN, right or wrong. And so the simple truisms of Kofi Annan’s March 2005 pronouncements fell like daggers into their hearts.
Equally, for many it was also egg on their face. If, as Annan said, the Commission was but a rogue’s gallery of abuser regimes — selective, unprofessional and without credibility — imagine the embarassment of the diplomats, high UN officials and other delegates who for years blissfully delivered high-minded Geneva speeches on the profound importance of the Commission. They suddenly felt ridiculous, and the embarassment on their faces during last year’s session was apparent. And so the unwritten imperative became clear: wipe away, as soon as possible, however possible, the Annan-imposed Mark of Cain from the Commission — and, by extension, from the UN itself.
In other words, the actual content of the current proposal to reform the Human Rights Commission matters little to its loudest proponents. Regrettably, all that really matters to them is reinstating, speedily as could be, the bona fides of the UN — and of its courtiers. Ironically, most of those now assuring us that the proposed text is the best answer for reform are individuals who never before uttered a word on the UN’s desperate need for reform — at least not until it suddenly became all the rage to parrot Annan’s critiques, at which point those who yesterday celebrated the Commission’s great virtues were the next day mumbling its many vices, however unpersuasively.
True believers in the founding principles of the UN, and true friends of the institution, ought to continue working toward a credible and meaningful reform. If that means speaking unpleasant truths, so be it. Everyone needs a friend to tell us the truth when we’re doing wrong, and how best to get things right. So does the UN.
True Friends of the UN: NGO Coalition Lists Draft’s 3 Major Defects
Fortunately, a coalition of more than 40 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is willing to be that true friend, and is calling on UN member states to make three key changes to the latest text. (See full text of Joint NGO Statement below.)
A joint statement released in Geneva by UN Watch, the Italy-based Transnational Radical Party and more than 40 other NGOs representing regions across the globe urges the reinstatement of Annan’s original requirement that candidates for Council seats be elected by no less than two-thirds of member states in the General Assembly.
UN Failed to Condemn Sudan
The two-thirds threshold was at the core of the Annan plan of March 2005, which proposed replacing the discredited Commission with a new body that would exclude the most notorious human rights offenders, like Sudan.
The text now proposed by General Assembly President Jan Eliasson would elect members by an absolute majority of the Assembly’s 191 members. Yet when the Assembly was asked just four months ago to condemn Sudan for its massive human rights violations, no more than 79 countries were willing to do so. The resolution failed. How can we expect a majority to then support that country’s exclusion?
The U.N.’s latest text fails to remedy the commission’s fatal flaw — its membership. When the council likely to be created by this draft meets for the first time in Geneva, the faces around the table will look awfully familiar. Mr. Annan last year rightly called for radical surgery to revive the discredited human rights commission; this draft offers to give two aspirins and wheel the patient back onto the street.
Anti-NGO Clause
Second, the NGO statement calls for removing nine pernicious words from the draft that would place NGOs under the constant threat of restrictions on their ability to speak out freely at the Council for human rights victims. Dangerously, the proposed UN text would grant member states the power to decide what constitutes “the most effective contribution” of NGOs and other observers at the new council. No wonder that even strong UN supporters such as the New York Times are calling the proposal “an ugly sham.”
The clause is a shocking incursion against the freedom of NGOs to speak out at the UN for victims of human rights violations committed by any country. The proposed restriction is part and parcel of the relentless attempts by certain UN members to curb NGO participation, and is intended as a sword against NGOs’ historic right to participate fully at U.N. human rights proceedings. In recent years, several NGOs, including Reporters Sans Frontières, the Transnational Radical Party and Freedom House, were threatened with suspension by member states seeking to avenge criticism of their human rights records.
Appeasement of Anti-Denmark Riots
Finally, the NGOs object to a provision in the preamble that imposes special demands on the media to respect religion. Contrary to previous UN statements on the matter, the text omits any balancing language for freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Numerous other UN mechanisms are dealing with this issue and there is no reason for its inclusion in this text. The clause is nothing but an attempt to appease the violent agitators who burned buildings and killed innocent people with a grant of international legitimacy.
Democracies and human rights groups should not feel pressured by artificial deadlines such as the upcoming Commission session next week. It took years for the reforms urged by UN Watch to be finally adopted by the UN Secretary-General. We’re willing to wait another few days — or weeks — to get the remedies and reforms that human rights victims need and deserve. The alternative is phony reform, with the momentum for true change buried for yet another sixty years.
Joint NGO Statement
1. Restore Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Two-Thirds Threshold
2. Remove the Anti-NGO Clause in Operational Paragraph 11. If adopted, this clause would place non-governmental organizations under the constant threat of restrictions on their ability to speak out freely at the Council for human rights victims. In veiled language, the clause insists on “ensuring the most effective contribution” of NGOs and other observer entities. In the context of the relentless attempts by certain Member States to curb NGO participation, this provision is intended as a sword to be wielded against the historic right of NGOs to attend, observe and actively participate in all proceedings and debates of the new Human Rights Council, including by submission of oral and written statements. In recent years, several NGOs, including Reporters Sans Frontières and the Transnational Radical Party, were threatened with suspension by member states seeking to censor NGO criticism of their human rights records.
3. Remove the Blasphemy Clause from the Preamble’s Paragraph 7. The clause that answers the demand of 56 Islamic States to prohibit blasphemous defamation of prophets and religions, following the cartoon controversy and the anti-Denmark riots, is anomalous, contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has no place in the charter for a new human rights body. Although watered down, the provision introduced in the current text would impose special demands on the media to respect religion. Contrary to previous UN statements on the matter, the text omits any balancing language in favor of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Several other UN mechanisms are dealing with this issue and there is no reason for its inclusion in this text. The clause is an attempt to appease the violent agitators who burned buildings and killed innocent people with a grant of international legitimacy.
Finally, we call on the Community of Democracies, an alliance founded in 2000 with over 100 nations, and its Democracy Caucus at the UN, to take its rightful place in leading the push for the needed reforms. Democracies must stand up and unite — putting aside regional and other alliances — to make a lasting contribution to human rights and the UN. Failing to do so would result in a failure not only for the UN, but for the world’s democracies as well.
Hillel Neuer
Matteo Mecacci
Martin Lessenthin
Richard C. Rowson President
Tom Johannesen Secretary General International Federation of Socialist Workers
Djingarey Maiga Diarra Executive Secretary Femmes et Droits Humains
Virginia S. Muelle
Patrick Gaubert
Alison Brown
Corann Okorodudu
Lex Grandia
Francisco Simon
Ivan Vesely Chairman Dzeno Association
François Garaï Representative in Geneva World Union for Progressive Judaism
Yasutomo Sawahata Representative in Geneva Rissho Kosei-kai
Zudije Sej Shehu Executive Director Civil Rights Program Kosovo
Sascha Gabizon
Rama Enav Representative to the UN in Geneva Women’s International Zionist Organization
Feci Damaso Liaison Officer, Geneva INTERSOS
Vo Van Ai President Quê Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam
Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi
Daniela Colombo
Giap Tran Kok Ksor Marieke van Doorn
Vanida Thepsouvanh
Paul Usi Elomien Secretary-General Community Social Welfare Foundation
Maria Grazia Caputo General Director International Volunteerism Organization for Women Education and Development
Yolanda L. Jackson
Robert Triozzi Fire Rescue Development Program
Panayote Dimitras
Nafsika Papanikolatos
Arnel G. Alcober General Secretary Pilar Checa Relvas-Tavares Susan Dayton Milan Nic
Jose Mathew Don Bosco Ahaylam
Edward Carraway
Linda Misek-Falkoff
Frank Weston President International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization
Iñaki Isasi Executive President Union of Foresters of Southern Europe
Gloria Landy
Quan Nguyen Chairman International Committee for Freedom to Support The Non Violent Movement For Human Rights in Vietnam
Madame Bernice Dubois Secretary General
Jan van Wagtendonk President Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts |
