Egypt, for the African Group, sponsored the resolution on the Congo, entitled. “Human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and strengthening of the technical cooperation and consultative services.” The resolution asks the international community to provide aid to the Congo, “welcomes the cooperation” of the Government with U.N. special procedures, and “notes with satisfaction the decision of the Government to establish a national agency to combat sexual violence against women and children as part of its policy to fight impunity.” The resolution also calls for a human rights liaison as a “local cooperation mechanism,” but does not explicitly call for the reinstatment of the U.N. independent expert on the Congo (whose mandate was eliminated last year).

The vote was 33 in favor of the resolution with 14 abstaining, including the European Union (EU) countries, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, and Nicaragua. The EU explained that it could not support such a toothless resolution. It chose to abstain rather than to vote no because of the importance of reinstating some form of scrutiny over the Congo, even if it is only a human rights liaison rather than an independent rapporteur.

The EU had actually proposed its own resolution on the Congo, which more forcefully condemned its violations of human rights and proposed a broader mandate for the U.N. expert on the Congo. Not only was the resolution shot down in favor of the watered-down version of the African Group, but the EU’s attempt to amend the African text was also defeated by a vote of 18 to 21 with 8 abstentions. The amendments involved a few paragraphs from the original EU resolution, including expressions of alarm at the recruitment of child soldiers in the Congo and the “widespread acts of sexual violence against women and children, which in the majority of cases are…used as a weapon of war.”

During the council’s proceedings, Germany deplored the hostility of the African Group in undermining the EU’s efforts to address the human rights violations in the Congo. Egypt retorted that it is inappropriate to use such condemnatory language in the council, saying that it could easily throw back the word “hostile” at the EU, especially considering the group’s tardiness in putting forth one of its draft resolutions in a manner that would provide certain delegations adequate time for review.

Egypt, for the African Group, also proposed the resolution, “Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights,” which “welcomes the latest developments in Somalia,” and urges the international community to provide Somalia with development and humanitarian assistance. The resolution also renews the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Somalia for six months. The EU complained that the mandate was not extended for the full, customary period of one year, but still chose to join consensus on the resolution.

The council passed a resolution “deploring the grave, widespread and systemic human rights abuses” of North Korea and extending the mandate of the country’s U.N. independent expert. The vote was 26 to 6, with 15 countries abstaining. Voting “yes” were the EU and other democracies, along with most of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, as well as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Shamefully, four democracies abstained: Brazil, India, Senegal, and South Africa.

A resolution condemning “the ongoing systemic violations of human rights” and extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in Myanmar passed with consensus. To achieve this consensus, however, the EU proposed oral amendments to water-down criticism of the military junta, including toning down of the condemnatory language and praising the cooperation of the Government. Without removing themselves from the consensus, Russia and China expressed reservations to the resolution. China said that “Any action of this council has to respect the sovereignty of national states,” and Russia protested that “the resolution on Myanmar is a further example of the politicized and one-sided approaches of this council.”

The five resolutions condemning Israel deal with the Gaza War, Israel’s “occupation” of the Syrian Golan, the right of Palestinians to self-determination, Israel’s settlement activities, and general criticism of Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

“Follow-up to Council resolution S-9/1…” was adopted by a vote of 33 to 1, with 13 abstentions. Canada was the only “no” vote and the EU abstained. The purpose of the resolution is to seek implementation of the biased resolution of the Special Session held to address Israel’s military incursions into Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. The resolution condemns only Israeli conduct, neglecting to name Hamas as the aggressor for launching rockets that deliberately target Israeli citizens, using civilians as human shields, and attacking from urban areas. It expressly downplays the nature of the rocket attacks, calling them “crude,” and falsely accuses Israel of “targeting” civilians despite the many attempts of the Israeli army to avoid civilian casualties. It also creates an inquiry commission to investigate only Israeli conduct.

“Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan” was accepted with an identical vote as the previous resolution (yes, abstain, no = 33, 13, 1). It wrongly addresses the territorial dispute in the Syrian Golan, which is unrelated to individual rights, while neglecting to mention Syrian support for enemies of the peace process and sponsorship of terrorism.

A resolution on the “Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” was adopted without vote, though Canada removed itself from consensus. The resolution breaches the U.N.’s non-selectivity principle by enacting a self-determination resolution concerning the claim against only one member state. There is no resolution, for example, condemning the fact that Hamas does not recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in Israel. Israel, in fact, recognizes Palestinian national aspirations, but beleives that the establishment of a Palestinian state can only happen through a process of negotiations that does not jeopardize Israeli security. The resolution fails to mention the role of Hamas terrorism and that of other extremist groups in severely impeding the right to self-determination of both Palestinians and Israelis.

By a vote of 46 to 1 (Canada), the Council adopted a resolution “expressing grave concern” at Israel’s “very serious violations” through settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The unbalanced text ignores Palestinian terrorism and other violations.

The fifth resolution on Israel entitled, “Human rights violations emanating from the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories…” addresses a variety of purported violations of Palestinian rights. It condemns Operation Cast Lead, while downplaying the nature of Hamas rocket attacks (“crude”). It demands the release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, without specifying the type of prisoners or grounds for release. It requests the lifting of check-points in the OPT, despite the risks such measures would pose for Israeli security. The resolution amounts to a selective and disproportionate attack on Israel. 35 countries voted yes, 4 voted no, and 8 abstained. Admirably, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands broke with EU consensus, voting no with Canada. Switzerland, unfortunately, joined the yes votes.

Aside from country-specific resolutions, the council passed a number of other resolutions of interest. “Combatting defamation of religions,” sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed this year with 23 votes, an increase in two from last year. 11 countries voted no, including the EU, Switzerland, Canada, and Chile. 13 countries abstained, including Bosnia, Brazil, and Mexico. The resolution is an attempt to gut the concept of human rights of its original meaning, which is to protect individuals from harm or state control, not to shield a set of beliefs from critical inquiry. It is an assault on freedoms of speech and religion. The resolution also unjustly prioritizes the protection of Muslims and Islam, specifying no other religious faith or community.

South Africa for the African Group presented another resolution supporting the OIC’s “defamation of religions” campaign. Entitled, “Elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” its purpose is to advance the work of an Algerian-chaired committee in which Islamic states and their African allies are attempting to add new legal prohibitions to existing international law that would define criticism of religion as a violation. 34 states voted in support, including Chile and Brazil. The EU, along with Switzerland, Japan, and South Korea voted against.

The council passed the EU-sponsored resolution on “Discrimination based on religion or belief” by a vote of 27 to 1 with 24 abstentions. The resolution stressed the need to provide all people with equal protection of “freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief,” especially religious minorities throughout the world. Shockingly, South Africa stooped to a new low as the only “no” vote. During consultations, South Africa had proposed an amendment that would stress “the role of the media in perpetuating negative stereotyping of religions.” South Africa’s no vote was in reaction to the EU’s rejection of this amendment. A number of states that abstained had also expressed their support for South Africa’s proposal. Some of them, including Pakistan and Egypt, had also objected to the resolution’s recalling of resolution 6/37 on Freedom of Religion, passed by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission. They said they still had reservations to that resolution, which had been adopted without their votes. During consultations, China had protested the inclusion of “freedom of conscience” in the resolution.

Denmark’s resolution on “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…” passed by a vote of 34 to 0 with 13 abstentions. Among those abstaining was Egypt, claiming it could not accept the resolution’s support for a U.N. report that strongly condemned the death penalty.

A South African-sponsored resolution on racism was adopted with consensus, although the EU expressed its concern about the unhelpful manner the resolution was presented while there are ongoing negotiations on the subject in the context of preparations for the Durban Review Conference. The resolution emphasizes the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action and follow-up mechanisms.

The post U.N. Human Rights Council concludes main annual session; Summary of key resolutions appeared first on UN Watch.

India, Slovakia, Turkey, and Morocco explicitly endorsed the latest Durban II draft outcome document, saying it is a good basis for a fruitful conference.

Algeria stated its regret that the draft “has not been able to include all the provisions.” The latest version drops explicit mention of the “defamation of religions” concept and criticism of Israel—two aspects that were important to Islamic states, but rendered the former draft untenable for most Western states.

Yemen on behalf of the Arab Group, Kuwait, Iran, and Libya discussed what they felt are unacceptable incidents of “defamation of religions.” This may indicate that they will push for re-insertion of the topic during the final round of negotiations on the Durban II declaration.

Iran lashed out at the West, noting incidents of “Islamophobia” and the “intellectual legitimization of racism, which is encouraged by certain policies.”

Libya, which serves as chair of Durban II, said that the “people of the world are eagerly” awaiting the conference’s results. It went on to make an implicit dig at Israel, saying that, today “the life of one soldier is considered to be more valuable than that of a thousand civilians.”

The post Islamic states protest “Islamophobia,” “defamation of religions” in talks on racism appeared first on UN Watch.

The USA, Canada, the Czech Republic for the EU, Denmark, and Switzerland complained that the changes were minimal; the draft resolution retained virtually all the problematic aspects that were highlighted during Friday’s consultations. For example, it continued to suggest a need for an additional protocol to the ICERD that Islamic states are pushing as a means to criminalize criticism of religions.

Denmark protested, “It’s a waste of time for delegations to come here if the chair does not have any intention of taking comments on board.”

South Africa responded that the African Group deliberated the proposed changes, but did not agree to all of them.

Switzerland issued a warning to the African Group that it will be dangerous in the context of the Durban Review Conference for this resolution to go forward without consensus. (Paragraph 30 of the draft Durban text “takes note with appreciation” the ad hoc committee, tasked in the resolution as the driver for the problematic proposed additions to the ICERD).

The post Draft “Complementary Standards” resolution virtually unchanged despite protest appeared first on UN Watch.

The USA and Canada objected to the singling out of Islam for protection in the text, saying that various groups have been subjected to religious intolerance and discrimination. The USA also complained about a paragraph describing a “campaign” of defamations of religions since September 11, 2001, saying that this is “very inaccurate.”

The USA proposed inserting wording that “expresses deep concern that religion has been exploited to advance political agendas and regrets measures advanced by states to inappropriately monitor religious activities.” Pakistan as chair replied that this amendment would make the section say “totally the opposite” of what was originally intended.

The USA also objected to a paragraph that implicitly advocated restrictions on the media, saying that it is concerned that this paragraph could be used to legitimize the high volume of attacks on journalists worldwide. It also argued that a clause that suggests a ban on “intolerant” expression be struck, because there is a difference between mere “intolerant” language and language that actually “incites” hatred.

Canada suggested that all mentions of “defamation of religions” be changed to “incitement to religious hatred.” It opposed the phrase “stereotyping religions,” saying that there can only be stereotyping of “persons based on their religion.” Moreover, Canada objected to the deploring of “psychological violence,” explaining that this is an unclear term. Canada also said that every time a limitation on freedom of expression is advocated in the text, there should be a “reaffirmation of the right itself.”

There was some debate on why this resolution was being proposed under the racism agenda item when, in fact, it deals with religion. Pakistan explained that it is trying to highlight how racist and xenophobic attitudes can manifest themselves as religious intolerance. The USA still stated that it had concerns with the link of this issue to racism, and that, if any Special Rapporteur is mentioned in the text, it should be the one on freedom of religion or belief, not the one on racism.

Belarus, backed by Singapore, proposed a new paragraph that would reaffirm the “Global Counterterrorism Strategy” adopted by the General Assembly, in which states committed not to associate any religion or group with terrorism. The paragraph also stressed the need to prevent “defamation of religions.”

The post USA and Canada stand up for free-speech, oppose “defamation of religions” concept appeared first on UN Watch.

The USA and Czech Republic, speaking for the EU, complained that the draft text contained many problematic, substantive claims even though it was supposed to be a purely procedural document on how the ad hoc committee will proceed. Together with other democracies, they objected to virtually every paragraph.

The first objection was that, by advocating the need for complementary standards to the ICERD, the text went beyond the road-map agreed upon by member states during the committee’s December meeting. Denmark, backed by the Netherlands and others complained that it is inappropriate for a procedural text to assert such a need. The representative went on to say that the text of the resolution should make it very clear that the chair of the ad hoc committee is supposed to gather contributions from member states and decide on a consensual basis what “gaps” in international law should be addressed, if there are, in fact, any. The USA said that it “feels strongly” that there is no need for additional standards, just better implementation of existing ones.

The USA, Canada, and the EU also objected to the paragraph recalling that there will be no renegotiation of the Durban I declaration, saying that the clause seems overly defensive and misplaced. Egypt explained that the paragraph is needed because many states are calling into question paragraph 199 of the Durban I declaration, in which all agreed that there should be elaboration of international standards to update existing measures against racism. Denmark responded that no one was contesting that there may be a potential need to create new standards, but that such a specific need has to be identified and agreed upon first. Belgium argued that the Durban I declaration does not mention that the new standards should be in the form of an additional protocol to the ICERD, and that such an assertion is itself a “renegotiation” of the Durban I declaration.

Lichtenstein proposed adding a clause that would stress the importance of maintaining consensus in the implementation of the road-map. Pakistan, backed by Algeria, objected that consensus should not be a precondition for progress. South Africa said that, according to Human Rights Council rules, “decisions are no less authoritative when adopted by vote” rather than consensus.

A number of democratic states took issue with a clause in the draft that proposed the “international human rights regime” provide protection to victims of racism. Lichtenstein explained that even if the word “regime” were changed to “system,” the phrase is problematic because it implies that an international system can provide protection, when in fact, it is only the national authorities who should be called upon. Zimbabwe objected that “it is not only state obligations” that matter. Denmark proposed rewording the phrase to “recalling the need for states to provide adequate protection.”

Throughout the debate, Egypt made a number of hypocritical comments to attack the position of the Western states, including, “Some have taken it upon themselves to create an atmosphere that is not conducive to progress.” Egypt also complained that EU states were lying about what happened in the December ad hoc committee meeting, saying “We have to avoid worst practices: to eat apples and say you’ve eaten oranges—that is exactly what the EU said.”

The post States debate need for “complementary standards” to the racism convention appeared first on UN Watch.