May 6, 2009
Oppressors running for UN rights council: Groups
By Steven Edwards
Speakers at May 5 briefing organized by UN Watch and Freedom House: Ali Al-Ahmed, former political prisoner in Saudi Arabia; Guillermo Estevez, former political prisoner in Cuba; Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director; Liannis Merino, Cuban journalist victimized by Castro regime; Paula Schriefer, Freedom House advocacy director.
UNITED NATIONS — Leading human-rights groups warned Tuesday that three countries they have dubbed the “worst of the worst” for human-rights violations are running unopposed for re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
While Canada is exiting the council after a three-year term, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia seek to hold their seats in the Geneva-based body, which the UN bills as its leading arbiter of human rights standards.
“These three are countries whose populations suffer every day,” said Paula Schriefer, advocacy director with Washington-based Freedom House. “They should be targets of Human Rights Council resolutions and special (investigatory) sessions, not running for election.”
The group includes the three in its Worst of the Worst 2009 report released Tuesday with Geneva-based UN Watch.
They are among 17 countries the report says are the most oppressive in terms of denying political rights and civil liberties.
In contrast to the finding, the three’s respective regional blocs have put them on slates containing the same amount of candidates as available seats in the 47-member council. This virtually assures their election to the body, which the UN launched in 2006 because the former Human Rights Commission had itself become dominated by abuser states.
“The vision had been that the council would be a voice for victims,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, a Montreal native. “But it is now in a state of crisis.”
Candidates need the approval of a simple majority of the 192-member states in the UN General Assembly during the elections next Tuesday.
The ballot will also see the United States stand for the first time after the administration of former President George W. Bush shunned the new body on grounds the rules weren’t tough enough to prevent abuser states from succeeding in eventually controlling it.
Neuer said Washington, which is also unopposed in its regional group, should use its diplomatic clout to highlight abuses in such places as Zimbabwe that have so far escaped special council focus.
But he conceded that, even under President Barack Obama, who pledged his administration would push for improved respect for human rights around the world, Washington may be reluctant to speak out forcefully against countries that are also allies in such causes as the war in Afghanistan.
The council’s record for its first three years is poor, according to the monitoring groups. This year alone, Islamic states with Cuban support rewrote rules for a freedom of expression monitor in a manner that limits expression, they say.
An “alliance of regressive regimes,” meanwhile, succeeded in having the council cancel human rights investigators for trouble spots such as Belarus, Cuba, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan’s Darfur region.
In contrast, the alliance led council appointment of an investigator who had helped launch the controversial “Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize,” and another who believes that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an inside job, the groups say.
In addition to the three “worst-of-the-worst” council candidates, the joint report says other “not qualified” candidates among the 20 standing to fill 18 vacancies include Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Djibouti and Russia.
Considered “questionable” are Bangladesh, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria and Senegal, the report adds.