In papers filed today with UN legal counsel Patricia O’Brien, the activists requested the disqualification of Sudan’s UN Human Rights Council candidacy, on grounds that its government stands accused of genocide by the International Criminal Court, which has already issued two arrest warrants for regime leader Omar Al Bashir.

Help us block Al-Bashir’s genocidal Sudan from the UN Human Rights Council – please sign our appeal: change.org/petitions/amb-…

— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) August 30, 2012

Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch, which is coordinating the “Stop Sudan” campaign, said that “electing Sudan to the UN’s top human rights body is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women’s shelter.”

The international coalition is comprised of 30 high profile human rights figures and activists in the Darfur movement, including Yang Jianli, the Chinese dissident and former political prisoner; Irwin Cotler, Canadian parliamentarian and former justice minister who heads Canada’s All-Party Save Darfur Parliamentary Coalition; Dr. Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, and Bernard Schalscha of France’s Collectif Urgence Darfour.

The group also wrote today to all 193 U.N. member states, urging them to oppose Sudan’s bid given its failure to meet the council’s own membership criteria, which require countries to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.”

The campaign also launched a Facebook page and online petition calling on U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, President Obama’s representative to the UN, to lead the diplomatic effort to block Sudan.

“I’m somewhat concerned, because while Hillary Clinton and many other Western diplomats spoke out early and forcefully against Syria’s bid last year, the reaction to Sudan’s bid has so far been muted,” said Neuer.

The appeal is expected to resonate among some of Sudan’s neighbors, who could pressure Khartoum to pull out, after it won the endorsement of numerous African human rights groups, including those from Cameroon, Kenya, Somalia and Zambia. Other non-governmental members hail from Bahrain, Germany, India, Switzerland and the U.S.

Ms. Farrow, who has repeatedly visited Africa to call attention to the plight of millions of Darfuris victimized by genocide, mass rape and displacement, sounded an alarm this week over fresh air strikes by Sudan forces.

* * * * *

The International Campaign Against Sudan’s Election to the U.N. Human Rights Council

Hillel Neuer, United Nations Watch, Switzerland
Irwin Cotler, Member of Canadian Parliament, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Chair of the All-Party Save Darfur Parliamentary Coalition
Dr. Gregory Stanton, President, Genocide Watch
Adeeb Yousif, Darfur Reconciliation and Development Organization (DRDO), USA
Bernard Schalscha, Collectif Urgence Darfour, France
Thor Halvorssen, Human Rights Foundation, USA
Enrique Sierra, Pax Christi International, Switzerland
Robert R. LaGamma, Council for a Community of Democracies, USA
Atamao T. Kane, Southpanafrican International (SPI), Norway
Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti (GBS), India
Dr Charles Mwape, Christian Coalition, Zambia
Dr. Francois Ullmann, Ingenieurs du Monde, Switzerland
Faisal Fulad, Bahrain Human Rights Watch Society (BHRWS), Bahrain
Theodor Rathgeber, Forum Human Rights, Germany
Dr. Yang Jianli, Chinese dissident, former political prisoner, Founder and President of Initiatives for China
Hu Ping, Chinese dissident, editor of Beijing Spring, former head of the Chinese Alliance for Democracy
Zhang Xiaogang, Yibao
Christina Fu, New Hope Foundation
Michael Craig, China Rights Network
Priscilla M Achakpa, Women Environmental Programme, Nigeria
G. Jasper Cummeh III, Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives (AGENDA), Liberia
Faisal Hassan, Gulf European Centre for Human Rights (GECHR)
Maria Toledo, Inter-African Cttee on Traditional Practices Affecting Health of Women and Children
Dickson Ntwiga, Solidarity House International, Kenya
Dr Dieudonné Zognong, Fondation Humanus, Cameroon
John Suarez, Directorio Democrático Cubano, USA
Michael Kau, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Guilhem Papelard, Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme, France
Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Stop Child Executions, Canada
Ali Egal, Fanole Human Rights & Development Organization (FAHRO) Somalia/Kenya
Carlos E. Ponce, Latin American and Caribbean Network for Democracy
Jean Stoner, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Congregational Representative at the United Nations
Lyda Verstegen, International Alliance Of Women, President

The post Mia Farrow Heads Campaign to Block Sudan from UN Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

Watch the compelling videos below and sign the petition: https://www.stopbechir.com/

The post Stop Bashir appeared first on UN Watch.

The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur

Dr. Mukesh Kapila

I was wondering what I should speak about in such a gathering where you must know so much. It is pointless to rehearse the continuing agony of Sudan, and of Darfur in particular, and catalogue yet again the endless human rights tragedies that are taking place all over Sudan and in Darfur. So I will discuss a couple of themes.

One that worries me a great deal is the progressive revisionism in Darfuri history. We are beginning to see now, several years into the latest phase of conflict in Darfur, we notice from many commentators that are gaining prominence a sense of trying to “balance the history,” as they call it. And this revisionist view of what has happened in Darfur, and what continues to happen in Darfur, is something that organizations like yours need to be vigilant of.

The Seven Excuses

And I don’t know why this is the case. But what I do know from my own experience as the former UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in 2003 to 2004, when the whole Darfur thing exploded in the consciousness for the first time, in recent times at least, I would say that from the constraints and difficulties that I had, I identified what I call seven excuses why people don’t listen to the writing on the wall.

1. Cynicism

The first one is cynicism-a general feeling that, sure, Sudan has got many troubles, it’s a country in conflict, a country that has always been in conflict, a conflict of many decades, and what do you expect in a place like that? Terrible things are done by people in the heat of conflict, so don’t be surprised if rapes take place, if violence against women takes place, and many other forms of horrible abuses take place. So the first excuse people give is to be cynical, or the first reaction is cynical.

2. Denial

The second reaction is denial. “Surely the situation is not as bad as you make it out to be,” they argue. “You’re exaggerating to gain attention.” And so they try and say, “Prove it.” Numbers and statistics and all that. And ultimately the whole ethos of the apologists is to try and reduce the impact of the message, and even to deny-just as we had the Holocaust deniers of the Second World War and still do, many of them-that what is happening in Darfur is a form of crimes against humanity or genocide, whatever you want to call it. There is that denial school.

3. Prevarication

The third reaction, or excuse people have to do nothing, is prevarication. An argument goes, and I had this given to me many times when I was the head of the UN in Sudan, “You have to be patient, it takes time, these are complicated matters, and in any case it’s best if the people of Sudan, the people of Darfur find their own solution to their own problems.” That’s an awful reaction, a sort of prevarication. “Takes time, be patient, these are complicated matters.”

4. Caution

The fourth excuse that people give is caution. “You know that these are very complicated and difficult issues,” they say. “Sudan is not a small country, it’s got a very complex past, a very complicated political and social dynamic. If we intervene it will only make matters worse; let us think carefully and long before we actually do anything.” So, caution.

5. Distraction

The fifth excuse is distraction: You know, we have many other things to do. There is the Middle East, there is Iraq, there in North Korea, there is Iran, there is Myanmar, there is climate change, there is HIV and AIDS, there are Millenium Development Goals, there are cyclones, there is a financial crisis, all sorts of things. We have many other things to do. Let’s solve the other bigger problems in the world first, solve the other problems which are equally important, and then we’ll get around to you on this particular problem.

6. Buck Passing

The sixth excuse is buck-passing. “Why does it always have to be us?” they say. So you go to London, you go to Washington, you go to the Security Council, you go to Brussels, you go wherever you like, and they say, “But you know, why is it that we always have to deal with these sort of issues? All these other countries, groups-the African Union, the Arab League, this, that, and the other-they should all be doing their part in this. So let them take on the leadership on this and then we will join in.” And that’s the sort of buck-passing that is used.

7. Evasion of Responsibility

And finally there is an evasion of responsibility excuse. “Oh, we have brought this to the attention of the Security Council, the President, the Prime Minister, the Pope, the Commission, the Council, the Committee, the whatever-you-like. And everyone is now kind of exercised by this issue. It’s being discussed at a very high level. So let’s see what they decide.”

So, ladies and gentlemen, my message to you, to UN Watch, to Human Rights Watch, to any other Watches that there are, is that watching is not enough. That actually unless you have some practical ways  to address these seven reasons-cynicism, denial, prevarication, caution, distraction, buck-passing and evasion of responsibility-then I’m afraid we will continue to be a side event, we will continue to be tolerated in the margins.

If we don’t find practical means to address these kinds of obstacles, then I’m afraid that one group will remain at the margins, and one will remain as kind of a pressure group, and it isn’t going to be enough. That’s my first set of observations. So the challenge to you is: What more can we do?

My second set of remarks is about two current events which are not new ones, and are well familiar to you. The first is the debate between human rights and humanitarianism, and the second is the trade-off between peace and justice. They are different debates, but they are also related debates.

False Dichotomy 1: Human Rights vs. Humanitarianism

Let’s go to the human rights and humanitarianism debate. You heard in the last few weeks, months, after the International Criminal Court indictments, a whole army of humanitarians suddenly rose up and started protesting that the process of the International Criminal Court [indicting Sudanese President Al Bashir for genocide] was going to interfere with the provision of humanitarian aid, suffering is going to get worse, and that this whole judicial process is highly controversial and so on-political as some would argue-that it’s all very well, but it’s really anti-humanity, because it’s actually going to stop the humanitarian organizations. That people are suffering, and now the President of Sudan is going to go sulk in the corner and get very nasty, and throw the NGOs out, and people are suffering more, and what have you achieved?

The humanitarians-including some of the leading humanitarian organizations and leaders of the world-are basically castigating those who were going down the route of due judicial process.

Allow me to just reflect on the true nature of humanitarianism, and the linkages between human rights and humanitarianism, and whether or not there must always be a trade-off, and where the line is.

My own take on this is from my own experiences in Darfur and Sudan, and also dealing with these excuses that you heard me mention. Maybe before we in the international community pass judgment on which has higher precedence-humanitarian access or bringing about actions that will indeed protect and promote human rights-why don’t we actually ask the people of Sudan, and especially the people of Darfur, what they would like?

Now, from my vantage, and I don’t know whether we’ve done any surveys or not, but if we haven’t, then organizations, including Darfuri organizations, should do this, and this is to find out exactly what the people of Darfur are willing to sacrifice-and make more sacrifices if it means a solution to the ultimate problems that they face. I’m willing to bet that many of the people in Darfur will say, and they say this to me in the context I have, they’ll say, “You know, we’ve already suffered a great deal. The desert is colored in blood. Millions of our people have suffered and they’re still suffering. Displaced and refugees and so on, traumatized, and the trauma transmits from generation to generation. Are you saying to us that we can simply forget all this simply in the cause of bringing more food aid, a little bit of water, a little bit of that, we can put aside the sacrifices that have been made?”

And I would say to you that probably the people of Darfur are more resilient than those of us who lead soft humanitarian-conscious lives here. And I would suggest that people are prepared to fight for their liberty. Mandela was prepared to be incarcerated for decades in a labor camp in a prison-for what? For the dignity of freedom, for human dignity. Then I suspect that those humanitarians who kind of dilute the global commitment to bringing about a resolution of the underlying causes of the conflict in Darfur, I think they really should ask themselves whether they’re doing a favor or a disfavor to the world.

I ask those humanitarians: What is a true humanitarian? Is a humanitarian simply one who, when someone is suffering, hands out a piece of bread, as an act of charity, or is a true humanitarian one who asks the question, why are the people suffering?

If you go back to the original roots of humanitarianism, the issue of dignity far overrides the issue of charity. And if that’s the case, then it is true that people who want to achieve their rights have to fight for them. I’m not here to make any political statement about fighting in the armed conflict sense of the term, but I do mean fighting for the rights of people all over the world, for their economic and social and cultural rights.

So you see where I stand. I would say that if there’s a debate between the humanitarians or the human-rightists, then it must be the human-rightists that must prevail. Otherwise, the suffering of Darfur will simply go on, and in any case none of the humanitarian organizations-even if you double the access, quadruple the resources, and had a government of Sudan which suddenly turned itself into a humanitarian-minded government-would be able to solve the humanitarian issues of Sudan.

False Dichotomy 2: Justice vs. Peace

My third and final point is on the debate between peace and justice. It’s extraordinary that there are still people in the world-I can’t understand how ignorant-who don’t appear to have learned any lessons from three to four decades of conflict- management around the world. Wherever we go in the world-go back to the wars of Latin America during the seventies, go back to the struggles in Africa or in other parts of the world-we know that peace agreements, if they’re not founded on a foundation of justice, always unravel.

I myself, at the time when I was head of the Humanitarian Conflict Department in the British Government, in the Department for International Development, had a direct involvement in the negotiations and proceedings that went on in Liberia and particularly in Sierra Leone. I don’t know how many peace agreements there were in Sierra Leone-some 16 or 17-and all of them failed, until one could address the issues of accountability and justice.

This does not mean that people have to be locked up in prison, or to be hung or whatever, but rather a process of saying: “I’m sorry, I did wrong, it was my fault, and let us learn lessons, let us make up, let us offer some compensation.” Compensation in the sense that anyone can offer-it’s not money that is the matter here, it is simply the acknowledgement of ill-doing, and the desire to correct that ill-doing and to move on. If we don’t do that, then there is no peace in Sudan, in Darfur, or any other region like that in the world.

This we know from history, from all the examples of every single peace agreement that we can be conscious of over the last years. Not a single peace agreement has ever succeeded unless there has been a foundation addressing the issue of accountability. So I would say to watchers generally that one has to bring these issues together: the human rights issue, the humanitarian issue, the justice issue, and systematically address the obstacles and excuses people give. And to do that in a forensic and decisive manner. Only by doing that in a very targeted manner will we actually make progress against the vast forces and the resources that are aligned together against the cause of peace, justice and human rights in Darfur.

(Transcribed by Abigail Chernick and edited for publication by Hillel Neuer.)

The post The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur appeared first on UN Watch.

The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur

Dr. Mukesh Kapila

I was wondering what I should speak about in such a gathering where you must know so much. It is pointless to rehearse the continuing agony of Sudan, and of Darfur in particular, and catalogue yet again the endless human rights tragedies that are taking place all over Sudan and in Darfur. So I will discuss a couple of themes.

One that worries me a great deal is the progressive revisionism in Darfuri history. We are beginning to see now, several years into the latest phase of conflict in Darfur, we notice from many commentators that are gaining prominence a sense of trying to “balance the history,” as they call it. And this revisionist view of what has happened in Darfur, and what continues to happen in Darfur, is something that organizations like yours need to be vigilant of.

The Seven Excuses

And I don’t know why this is the case. But what I do know from my own experience as the former UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in 2003 to 2004, when the whole Darfur thing exploded in the consciousness for the first time, in recent times at least, I would say that from the constraints and difficulties that I had, I identified what I call seven excuses why people don’t listen to the writing on the wall.

1. Cynicism

The first one is cynicism—a general feeling that, sure, Sudan has got many troubles, it’s a country in conflict, a country that has always been in conflict, a conflict of many decades, and what do you expect in a place like that? Terrible things are done by people in the heat of conflict, so don’t be surprised if rapes take place, if violence against women takes place, and many other forms of horrible abuses take place. So the first excuse people give is to be cynical, or the first reaction is cynical.

2. Denial

The second reaction is denial. “Surely the situation is not as bad as you make it out to be,” they argue. “You’re exaggerating to gain attention.” And so they try and say, “Prove it.” Numbers and statistics and all that. And ultimately the whole ethos of the apologists is to try and reduce the impact of the message, and even to deny—just as we had the Holocaust deniers of the Second World War and still do, many of them—that what is happening in Darfur is a form of crimes against humanity or genocide, whatever you want to call it. There is that denial school.

3. Prevarication

The third reaction, or excuse people have to do nothing, is prevarication. An argument goes, and I had this given to me many times when I was the head of the UN in Sudan, “You have to be patient, it takes time, these are complicated matters, and in any case it’s best if the people of Sudan, the people of Darfur find their own solution to their own problems.” That’s an awful reaction, a sort of prevarication. “Takes time, be patient, these are complicated matters.”

4. Caution

The fourth excuse that people give is caution. “You know that these are very complicated and difficult issues,” they say. “Sudan is not a small country, it’s got a very complex past, a very complicated political and social dynamic. If we intervene it will only make matters worse; let us think carefully and long before we actually do anything.” So, caution.

5. Distraction

The fifth excuse is distraction: You know, we have many other things to do. There is the Middle East, there is Iraq, there in North Korea, there is Iran, there is Myanmar, there is climate change, there is HIV and AIDS, there are Millenium Development Goals, there are cyclones, there is a financial crisis, all sorts of things. We have many other things to do. Let’s solve the other bigger problems in the world first, solve the other problems which are equally important, and then we’ll get around to you on this particular problem.

6. Buck Passing

The sixth excuse is buck-passing. “Why does it always have to be us?” they say. So you go to London, you go to Washington, you go to the Security Council, you go to Brussels, you go wherever you like, and they say, “But you know, why is it that we always have to deal with these sort of issues? All these other countries, groups—the African Union, the Arab League, this, that, and the other—they should all be doing their part in this. So let themtake on the leadership on this and then we will join in.” And that’s the sort of buck-passing that is used.

7. Evasion of Responsibility

And finally there is an evasion of responsibility excuse. “Oh, we have brought this to the attention of the Security Council, the President, the Prime Minister, the Pope, the Commission, the Council, the Committee, the whatever-you-like. And everyone is now kind of exercised by this issue. It’s being discussed at a very high level. So let’s see what they decide.”

So, ladies and gentlemen, my message to you, to UN Watch, to Human Rights Watch, to any other Watches that there are, is that watching is not enough. That actually unless you have some practical ways  to address these seven reasons—cynicism, denial, prevarication, caution, distraction, buck-passing and evasion of responsibility—then I’m afraid we will continue to be a side event, we will continue to be tolerated in the margins.

If we don’t find practical means to address these kinds of obstacles, then I’m afraid that one group will remain at the margins, and one will remain as kind of a pressure group, and it isn’t going to be enough. That’s my first set of observations. So the challenge to you is: What more can we do?

My second set of remarks is about two current events which are not new ones, and are well familiar to you. The first is the debate between human rights and humanitarianism, and the second is the trade-off between peace and justice. They are different debates, but they are also related debates.

False Dichotomy 1: Human Rights vs. Humanitarianism

Let’s go to the human rights and humanitarianism debate. You heard in the last few weeks, months, after the International Criminal Court indictments, a whole army of humanitarians suddenly rose up and started protesting that the process of the International Criminal Court [indicting Sudanese President Al Bashir for genocide] was going to interfere with the provision of humanitarian aid, suffering is going to get worse, and that this whole judicial process is highly controversial and so on—political as some would argue—that it’s all very well, but it’s really anti-humanity, because it’s actually going to stop the humanitarian organizations. That people are suffering, and now the President of Sudan is going to go sulk in the corner and get very nasty, and throw the NGOs out, and people are suffering more, and what have you achieved?

The humanitarians—including some of the leading humanitarian organizations and leaders of the world—are basically castigating those who were going down the route of due judicial process.

Allow me to just reflect on the true nature of humanitarianism, and the linkages between human rights and humanitarianism, and whether or not there must always be a trade-off, and where the line is.

My own take on this is from my own experiences in Darfur and Sudan, and also dealing with these excuses that you heard me mention. Maybe before we in the international community pass judgment on which has higher precedence—humanitarian access or bringing about actions that will indeed protect and promote human rights—why don’t we actually ask the people of Sudan, and especially the people of Darfur, what they would like?

Now, from my vantage, and I don’t know whether we’ve done any surveys or not, but if we haven’t, then organizations, including Darfuri organizations, should do this, and this is to find out exactly what the people of Darfur are willing to sacrifice—and make more sacrifices if it means a solution to the ultimate problems that they face. I’m willing to bet that many of the people in Darfur will say, and they say this to me in the context I have, they’ll say, “You know, we’ve already suffered a great deal. The desert is colored in blood. Millions of our people have suffered and they’re still suffering. Displaced and refugees and so on, traumatized, and the trauma transmits from generation to generation. Are you saying to us that we can simply forget all this simply in the cause of bringing more food aid, a little bit of water, a little bit of that, we can put aside the sacrifices that have been made?”

And I would say to you that probably the people of Darfur are more resilient than those of us who lead soft humanitarian-conscious lives here. And I would suggest that people are prepared to fight for their liberty. Mandela was prepared to be incarcerated for decades in a labor camp in a prison—for what? For the dignity of freedom, for human dignity. Then I suspect that those humanitarians who kind of dilute the global commitment to bringing about a resolution of the underlying causes of the conflict in Darfur, I think they really should ask themselves whether they’re doing a favor or a disfavor to the world.

I ask those humanitarians: What is a true humanitarian? Is a humanitarian simply one who, when someone is suffering, hands out a piece of bread, as an act of charity, or is a true humanitarian one who asks the question, why are the people suffering?

If you go back to the original roots of humanitarianism, the issue of dignity far overrides the issue of charity. And if that’s the case, then it is true that people who want to achieve their rights have to fight for them. I’m not here to make any political statement about fighting in the armed conflict sense of the term, but I do mean fighting for the rights of people all over the world, for their economic and social and cultural rights.

So you see where I stand. I would say that if there’s a debate between the humanitarians or the human-rightists, then it must be the human-rightists that must prevail. Otherwise, the suffering of Darfur will simply go on, and in any case none of the humanitarian organizations—even if you double the access, quadruple the resources, and had a government of Sudan which suddenly turned itself into a humanitarian-minded government—would be able to solve the humanitarian issues of Sudan.

False Dichotomy 2: Justice vs. Peace

My third and final point is on the debate between peace and justice. It’s extraordinary that there are still people in the world—I can’t understand how ignorant—who don’t appear to have learned any lessons from three to four decades of conflict- management around the world. Wherever we go in the world—go back to the wars of Latin America during the seventies, go back to the struggles in Africa or in other parts of the world—we know that peace agreements, if they’re not founded on a foundation of justice, always unravel.

I myself, at the time when I was head of the Humanitarian Conflict Department in the British Government, in the Department for International Development, had a direct involvement in the negotiations and proceedings that went on in Liberia and particularly in Sierra Leone. I don’t know how many peace agreements there were in Sierra Leone—some 16 or 17—and all of them failed, until one could address the issues of accountability and justice.

This does not mean that people have to be locked up in prison, or to be hung or whatever, but rather a process of saying: “I’m sorry, I did wrong, it was my fault, and let us learn lessons, let us make up, let us offer some compensation.” Compensation in the sense that anyone can offer—it’s not money that is the matter here, it is simply the acknowledgement of ill-doing, and the desire to correct that ill-doing and to move on. If we don’t do that, then there is no peace in Sudan, in Darfur, or any other region like that in the world.

This we know from history, from all the examples of every single peace agreement that we can be conscious of over the last years. Not a single peace agreement has ever succeeded unless there has been a foundation addressing the issue of accountability. So I would say to watchers generally that one has to bring these issues together: the human rights issue, the humanitarian issue, the justice issue, and systematically address the obstacles and excuses people give. And to do that in a forensic and decisive manner. Only by doing that in a very targeted manner will we actually make progress against the vast forces and the resources that are aligned together against the cause of peace, justice and human rights in Darfur.

(Transcribed by Abigail Chernick and edited for publication by Hillel Neuer.)

The post Issue 194: The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur appeared first on UN Watch.

The Council had voted in September to extend the mandate of the UN expert on Sudan for a period of only six months rather than the full, customary one-year term. Human rights advocates feared this would be a stepping stone to the full elimination of independent scrutiny over Sudan’s rights record in this month’s session.

Indeed, the un-amended draft resolution, sponsored by Egypt for the African Group, praised Sudan’s “progress” and various “achievements,” while eliminating the mandate of a UN independent expert on the country, calling only for the government’s cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

In its presentation of the resolution, Egypt said the draft was supported by all the African countries except Uganda. It explained that its purpose was to provide technical assistance to the government of Sudan in the protection of human rights. It also proposed an oral amendment to further water down the paragraph inviting the OHCHR to monitor the situation in Darfur, by adding “so as to inform the Human Rights Council about the human rights situation in Sudan as appropriate.”

Next to take the floor, Germany speaking for the EU, explained its amendments to the text, which call on Sudan to implement past Council resolutions and intensify efforts to achieve peace, and, most importantly, establish an independent expert for a period of one year to report on the country’s human rights situation, while also engaging with Sudanese national human rights institutions in this endeavor.

Notably, the EU made the decision to use the words “independent expert,” rather than the more prestigious title of Special Rapporteur, a UN term implying a grave situation requiring investigation. According to Geneva diplomats, the demotion was a compromise needed to win votes from countries that normally hesitate to criticize their peers. In practice, the independent expert will have very similar, if not the same, tasks as a Special Rapporteur. In fact, the amendments make reference to past Council resolutions laying out the mandate of the former Rapporteur on Sudan.

In its remarks, Germany said the “EU believes it is unacceptable to agree to discontinue the mandate as such a critical time.” It criticized the Egyptian text, saying, “The draft mentions mechanisms in which the human rights situation is being addressed, but maintains none of them that would be an adequate substitute to the mandate of the independent expert.”

Russia and Egypt issued comments on the amendments with both saying that the EU proposal failed to adequately consider the link between the Council and the situation in Sudan i.e. that there should be no independent scrutiny of the human rights situation there, outside the Council framework.

Sudan, as a concerned country said it was “excited” because there are a “large number of people interested in things in Sudan,” adding that it believes “we are human beings and my appeal of the last two weeks has been to find a way to get consensus on these matters.” It said, “As all States of the Council in this room agree, Sudan has demonstrated in this Council and at home on the ground and also in the former Commission, an exemplary spirit of cooperation.” It urged that the Council “not revert to practices of politically and selectively targeting a certain country” and said the “ending of the Special Rapporteur‘s mandate is now more relevant than anything.” Sudan concluded with the following statement: “I would like to tell you this: We don’t want to be a horse being pushed to drink water it doesn’t want to drink. The situation will improve under our own efforts with our genuine friends.”

A vote was called on the amendments. The result: 20 in favor to 19 against with 8 abstentions.

The breakdown was as follows:

Yes: EU 7 (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom), Argentina, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uruguay, Zambia

Abstain: Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal

No: Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa

When the success of the amendments became clear, the Council was filled with clapping from EU supporters. The Council President felt in necessary to intervene to “request this process should not elicit clapping,” saying he would expect the same for the other group. “Votes are reflections of sober decisions and we have no winners and losers in the Council,” he said.

Egypt then called a vote on the amended resolution, asking member States to vote against it. Germany raised a point of order that Egypt, as a sponsor of the resolution, does not have the right to call for a vote. The President asked for clarification from Egypt who responded by declaring its withdrawal from the list of the resolution’s cosponsors. Once again there was clapping-this time from supporters of the African Group. The President intervened, pleading, “None of that, please!”

The vote on the final resolution was 20 in favor to 18 against with 9 abstentions. Most countries voted along the same lines as they had for the vote on the amendments. There were a few exceptions with countries switching between No and abstentions:

Switched from No to Abstain: Angola, Gabon, Madagascar

Switched from Abstain to No: Azerbaijan, Nigeria

In explaining why it sided with the EU, Zambia took the floor to say, “This is not time for the Council to abandon the people of Sudan… Zambia supports the appointment of an independent expert whose mandate should ensure the nexus with existing mechanisms.”

Later on, during the adoption of the final report on this session of the Council, Amnesty International was given the podium to say it “welcomes the discussion of the human rights situation in Sudan, but considers the mandate has been terminated with insufficient regard to the human rights situation,” adding that Amnesty pays “tribute to those countries that rose above politics to speak up for victims.”

Shockingly, Uganda asked to speak next to make a rare, courageous stand against Egypt. It said the “African Group positions were not represented accurately” in the discussion on Sudan. “From the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda, we are always reminded that never again should we allow these events to happen through inaction or political expediency,” it said. The Ugandan envoy praised the Council’s resolution on Sudan, saying it “reasserted the credibility of the Council.” He thanked Council members who “have acted with courage on their convictions.”

Egypt responded with fury, saying that if the Ugandan first secretary “bothered to attend African meetings on issues besides Sudan” he would have better information.

Sudan demanded the last word to chastise Uganda, stating “It is very disgusting to hear something like this from a member of the African Group.”

The post EU Wins Rare Victory: Council Votes to Maintain Independent Scrutiny Over Sudan appeared first on UN Watch.

The Council divided largely between Western and non-Western States with the former arguing for increased human rights monitoring in Sudan and the latter calling for the elimination of the mandate of the independent expert.

Just ten minutes were allotted for NGOs to speak. In this case, only eight were given the floor. Unfortunately, the first three on the speaker’s list were Sudanese front groups who had secured their spots through a “pre-inscription” process for NGOs from abroad.  

The Hawa Society for Women, the Al Zubair Charity Foundation, and the Society Studies Center all argued against the need for a UN special rapporteur on the situation in Sudan. The Hawa Society said there needs to be “better analysis of the political situation.” The Al-Zubair Foundation complained about the “bias” of the report by Ms. Samar, saying she took a “selective approach.” The Society Studies Center said “there is no need for a rapporteur who is not professional in her work” and complained that she did not adequately consult with national NGOs. In a written statement, the organization also cited “the improvement in the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur” and called for the “Sudanization of the humanitarian work.”

Due to the time constraints, UN Watch, tenth on the speaker’s list, was unable to deliver its statement. This is particularly unfortunate given the intended speaker was a victim of Sudan’s racist genocide against the people of Darfur. The following is the speech he intended to give:

UN Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 4
Debate on Sudan
15 June 2009

Thank you, Mr. President.

My name is Gibreil Hamid and I am from Darfur. I am delivering this statement on behalf of UN Watch.

The government of Sudan has told this Council that it is not committing any human rights violations.  This is a lie.

I want to tell you the truth.

Over fifty people from my family were murdered.  More than five hundred thousand others in Darfur have been murdered.  Women and girls are being raped.  Millions are in camps.  They need food and water. 

What is happening in Darfur is a genocide, as the international criminal court has concluded.

My people are being killed because of their race.

I want to know:  Why is this council not doing anything about Sudan’s racist crimes?

In April, this Council organized the world conference on racism, known as the Durban Review Conference.  I was there.  Why were Sudan’s racist crimes in Darfur ignored?  I will never understand that.

Mr. President, we, the victims of Darfur, come before this council today, with a simple message.

Time is running out. We need action. Our situation is critical. We are being murdered and raped. We need protection. We need action, and we need it now.

Please stop adopting resolutions that praise Sudan for its so-called “cooperation.” Please do not eliminate the mandate on Sudan. Please take action to end these racist crimes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The post Sudanese Front Groups Crowd Out Victim Voices appeared first on UN Watch.

The post Arab Group Defends Sudan, Denies Darfur Atrocities appeared first on UN Watch.

“The accusation of the President does not relate to doing of justice or bringing of peace and stability,” he said. “We are of the opinion that the ICC is being employed as a racist instrument that goes after certain groups while overlooking others.”

Zumrawi then blamed this “absence of justice” for breeding “malice, terrorism and extremism.”

He went on to denounce “heinous crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupation” and said, “the protection offered Israel by some Western countries” is the reason it continues to “act against humanity.”

Zumrawi also decried the “ongoing smearing campaign against the religion of Islam and its Prophet.”

Moreover, his speech attempted to portray Sudan as a country committed to human rights, claiming, for example, that Sudan’s constitution calls for the full representation of marginalized areas.

The post Sudan calls ICC racist appeared first on UN Watch.

Rwandan genocide survivor and activist Esther Mujawayo said she felt uncomfortable speaking in a U.N. building, considering that the U.N. failed to halt the Rwandan genocide, choosing instead to abandon the country when the killing began. “This was a clear predictable and preventable genocide,” she said.

She complained that the Rwandan perpetrators continue to live in peace even in Europe, while survivors of the genocide struggle to obtain asylum.

Gibreil Hamid, President of the Darfur Peace and Development Center, said the ongoing genocide in Darfur is also preventable and stoppable. Discussing his experience, he said, “We were clearly discriminated against because we were black. The Arabs were not accepting us as Muslims.”

He described the killing and rape of women and children in Darfur in the perpetrators’ attempt to exterminate entire villages.

A “Yom Hashoah” ceremony to remember the Holocaust will be held this evening, beginning at 18:30, outside the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

The post Rwanda, Darfur survivors urge international action against genocide appeared first on UN Watch.

A press release was distributed to passers-by, signed by two so-called human rights groups: the “International Action for Peace and Development in the Great Lake region” ; and the “International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights” (Comité international pour le respect et l’application de la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples). Both groups apparently have official NGO status with the UN, but appear to be functioning here more like “GONGOs” (government-operated NGOs), i.e., state-sponsored front groups that are anything but “non-governmental.”

The Khartoum regime was a little sloppy here in covering up its tracks. The non-governmental press release included the following very non-nongovernmental footnote: “The text was translated by the Permanent Mission of the Sudan to the UN in Geneva…”

The post “Non-Governmental” Groups Stage U.N. Rally for Indicted President Al-Bashir appeared first on UN Watch.