Prof. Anne Bayefsky, UN Watch Board member, has published a series of articles about the Commission on Human Rights in the Chicago Sun-Times. Following is her April 2 article, reprinted with the permission of the Chicago Sun-Times:
Two weeks after it began, the UN Commission on Human Rights has started to consider human rights violations in states other than Israel. The hue and cry from the violators is deafening.
The South African ambassador, on behalf of the African regional group, objected to the “politicization of the commission.” The ambassador and the members of the African group are supporting the passage of at least five resolutions condemning Israel at the current session. But this didn’t prevent him from proclaiming with great indignation: “It has become clear over the years that the country-specific resolutions do not serve their intended purpose. . . . This exercise of ‘naming and shaming’ is an embarrassment to the credibility and dignity of this commission and should be discontinued forthwith. Dialogue should prevail over condemnation.”
A similar story came from the Syrians, who wailed against the targeting of “the Third World” and the lack of “objectivity.” The Pakistani ambassador lectured the commission “not to engage in finger-pointing” and “selectivity.” The Organization of Islamic Conference decided to complain about the “exploitation” of Sept. 11. In fact, now there are only eight special rapporteurs or investigators sponsored by the commission concerning all 193 UN members. They examine human rights violations in Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel, Iraq, Myanmar, the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.
For the first time in 17 years the commission has no report on human rights violations in Iran. This is because last year’s commission deleted the post of UN special representative on Iran. In April 2002 the commission had before it a report expressing concern with such problems in Iran as: the failure to comply with standards in the administration of justice, the absence of due process of law and respect for religious minorities, systematic discrimination against women and the killing of intellectuals and political activists. Iran also had refused to cooperate with the representative and denied him entry into the country for the previous six years. The commission responded not by condemning Iran, but by removing the representative.
One state that is still on the docket is Iraq. The special rapporteur on Iraq reported to the commission this week that he had been unable to visit Iraq since February 2002, despite having raised the issue with Iraqi officials repeatedly for months. He told the commission that over the last year he had sought responses on concerns, such as the number of inmates released in the October amnesty, details about those who did not benefit and the policy of “Arabization” (the forceful displacement of non-Arabs out of certain areas in the country, and the deliberate movement of Arab populations into these areas). The kind of answers he received? “Much time was needed to establish the full lists of those who had been released and of those who remained imprisoned.” On Tuesday, the Iraqi representative issued the long-awaited invitation to visit immediately.
There is also a special representative of the UN high commissioner for human rights on Cuba. That position was created by a commission resolution adopted in April 2002. Then-commissioner Mary Robinson, whose term ended in September, did not manage to appoint anyone to the job. The new high commissioner appointed a representative at the end of January. The result was a five-minute oral presentation by Christine Chanet, in which she reported “it is premature for me to make any assessment of human rights in Cuba.”
Next year she will have to think of another excuse, since Cuba released a statement this week refusing to cooperate with her in any way and denying her access to the country. In Cuba’s words: “While ruling out any possibility of cooperating in the implementation of Commission Resolution 2002/18 [on Cuba], Cuba reaffirms its readiness to maintain full cooperation with all non-selective, non-discriminatory measures adopted by the commission.” Love those double standards. If only the commission could recognize a human rights violation if it saw one, getting beyond the speeches would be a start.
