Genocide Archives - UN Watch

Issue 595: When Elie Wiesel Healed a Rwandan Genocide Victim

unwatch — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 22:52:58 +0000

Victims of the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda remember meeting Elie Wiesel, who sadly passed away yesterday, after he confronted the Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN’s Durban II racism conference.
Tribute by Jeanine Munyeshuli Barbé (en français)
A great man has left this world. Elie Wiesel touched my heart. It was in 2009, in broad daylight, at the UN, president Ahmadinejad quietly called to have Israel wiped out of the map.

We were all locked in the Assembly hall. Only diplomats were allowed to leave the room. I almost fainted. I was with my dear friend Kayitesi Berthe who had just opened the session with her testimony, telling how it was to survive the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Berthe was a teenager in 1994, and in her testimony she insisted on the fact that for her comrades at school and the rest of the world, it was life as usual while in Rwanda a million of Tutsi were killed, in broad daylight.
15 years after the genocide, we’re locked in that room and Berthe was hyperventilating. It was a nightmare.
Some people in the room applauded Ahmadinejad. We were suffocating. It took us ages to get out of the assembly hall. I don’t remember how we managed to get out there only to stumble upon Elie WieseI.
I do remember how comforting it felt. I was deeply touched by his warmth. That day at the UN, he took the time to take Berthe’s two frozen hands in his warm hands. He touched her cheeks. She was crying.
He was rushed by people around him but he took the time. He hugged her. He did the same with Esther Mujawayo [(who devotes her life to Rwandan victims of the genocide) and myself. Said a few words in French.
I remember his warmth, his eyes, his humanity. The shelter he offered us.. Just by his touch.
Thank you Elie Wiesel.
This is the speech he gave afterwards at Yom Hashoah.
My sweet Berthe left us a year ago. We would be calling/skyping each other right now … I miss her dearly.
I am joining all the people who loved Elie Wiesel in praying for his good soul to transition peacefully.

________

“He was the most remarkable human being I had ever known, the person I would regard as the

conscience of humanity,” said Professor Irwin Cotler, see above with Elie Wiesel on April 20, 2009.

Elie Wiesel was one of the most profound moral voices of the past century. UN Watch will never forget when he addressed the Yom Hashoah gathering, organized by UN Watch and the Jewish Communities of Geneva, in protest against the Holocaust denial expounded by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his speech to the UN’s Durban II racism conference. Mr. Wiesel’s remarks follow below.

Remarks by Elie Wiesel, Yom Hashoah rally

Place des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 20 April 2009

Version originale en francais

A story. Somewhere in Europe, during that time, one of the killers addressed his young victim, saying: “You want to live and perhaps you will live. But one day, you will regret it. You will speak, but your words will fall on deaf ears. Some will make fun of you. Others will try to redeem themselves through you. You will call it a scandal, cry for revolt, but people will refuse to believe or listen to you. You will curse me for having spared you. You will curse me because you will have knowledge of the truth. You already do. But it is the truth of a madman.”

This story illustrates the fear and anguish of a survivor. How does one bear witness? Where does one find the words to say what we nowadays call the “unspeakable”? Whom must one remember first? The children? The elderly? The sick? Mothers who watched their children die? Older people who moved toward the flames with prayers on their lips? Which of these? Is it necessary to delve deeper and even ask how it was possible?

After all, we are talking about an event of cosmic dimensions. Everything had been programmed since the beginning, the first laws, the decrees, the various measures taken. The psychologists had to invent the means to deceive the victims, the architects to construct the barracks and gas chambers, the intellectuals to justify what had been undertaken, meaning to annihilate a people, the only people from antiquity to have survived antiquity.

Just how was it possible for all this to happen in a civilized world, in the heart of Christian Europe, to take families, communities, to condemn them to death and then invent a kind of science: how to annihilate them most quickly?

How is it possible that in 1944 the Hungarian Jews, who could have been saved, were not saved?

It began in our town three days after Passover. First, a way to build the ghetto – but we did not know its consequences yet. Eichmann had already arrived in Budapest at the head of a small commando unit of 200 people, which included the cooks, drivers, and secretaries. With 200 people, and the help of the Hungarian army, he had succeeded in deporting 500,000 to 600,000 men, women and children. Thus by Shavuot, seven weeks later, six weeks later, we were already in Auschwitz.

In our town there was a woman who worked in our home, an elder illiterate Christian, but she brought honor to Christianity. She came to the ghetto to bring us fruit and other food. On the eve of the evacuations, she had come to our home, I remember, and she begged and cried while telling my father to accompany her to the mountains, where she had a small house, and she was saying: “All of you come with me – I will take care of you!”

And my father said, quoting in front of us all, “Al Tifrosh Min Hatzibur,” we must not be separated from the community, this is a Jewish principle. What happens to all will happen to us.

So it happened, there were the train wagons, the clubs beating us. And the journey toward the unknown. You know by now how it was carried out.

Upon arrival three days later, the train stops at a station. My father looks out a small opening and reads the station’s name: Auschwitz. And he did not know what it meant, nor did we.

But here in Geneva, it was already known. At the Vatican, it was already known. In Washington, it was already known. In London, it was already known. In Stockholm, it was already known. But we, the victims, we did not know.

I tell you that had we known, most of my community would have survived, because the good Christian woman was not alone. There were other Christians in our town who would have accepted to house and thus save families. But we did not know.

Explain to me how this was possible? How is it that no one in the world had sent emissaries? The radio broadcasts, Roosevelt, de Gaulle in France, from London: no warning to us. It was two weeks – not even – ten days before the Normandy landing. Ten days! The war was finished. But we did not know.

How is it that the Allies did not bomb the railroad tracks leading to Birkenau? I have known five United States presidents and I posed this question to each in the Oval Office: “Explain to me why the Allies did not bomb the railways – and I’m not talking about the camps, because some said that they did not want to kill the victims, the prisoners – but the railways? During that time, 10,000 people per day vanished in the ovens. Who can explain this to me? I just do not understand.”

In fact, speaking about that period, there are so many things which I do not understand. I do not understand, so I write, but I am an educator. How was it possible that the leaders or the commanders of certain death squads, the Einzatskommandos had graduated with university diplomas from the most prestigious German universities, that some officers were aristocrats, some held doctoral degrees in medicine, philosophy, theology, and these men gunned down children and their parents day after day. Thus culture did not help.

I who believe that education is a shield which protects humans against some acts that a cultivated human being is not able, would not be able to commit. But no, it was useless – how was it possible?

Now we know how it happened. Everything, we already know it. Thanks to historians, museums, archives, we know the how. But what we do not know is the why. Why it happened. What was the use of it all?

Of course the only answer to this could be given by God alone. In all humility and sincerity, I tell you that this answer, if it exists, is one that I challenge. There is no answer. One must live with the question. But this question extends beyond time. Will the world ever learn? Will it finally learn what it means to allow men to wipe out other men, without reason?

I actually think that people and the world have not learned. If the world had learned, there would have been no Cambodia, there would have been no Bosnia, there would have been no Rwanda, there would have been no Darfur, there would have been no racism, no anti-Semitism.

In 1945, on the ruins of Europe, on the ruins of theologies and philosophies, on the ruins of all societies and all ideals that existed before, there was nonetheless a kind of hope that surfaced in us. Yes, all of a sudden, we had become optimists because, paradoxically, we were convinced that the world had learned something. That never again will children die of hunger. That never again will there be wars, because we know how wars turn out. That never again will hate prevail. That never again will Jews, nor other minorities be persecuted.

If someone had told us then that in my lifetime, with the friends that I have here, we will spend our lives combating anti-Semitism, I never would have believed it. I was convinced that anti-Semitism died in Auschwitz.

Now we know: the victims are dead. Anti-Semitism is still alive.

And this is how we end up with a pessimistic conclusion. If Auschwitz did not succeed in curing the world of the ancient evil that is anti-Semitism, what can cure it? And what will cure it?

If someone had told me one day, say last year, not even two years ago, that I would be here in Geneva opposite a head of state, a president of an ancient people and great country, and that he would say things so insolent, so offensive, so vulgar, so ugly about our people in public and with pride, never would I have believed it.

Indeed he did come, I was there. He was welcomed with applause and what he said simply relayed essentially the idiotic, stupid accusations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The same thing.

So what must be done? In this case, what good is it to bear witness? What good is it to claim suffering that is not ours, except in memory?

The answer is of course very simple. In spite of it all, we must cling to this faith, to this memory, to this existence that preceded ours, to this quest that remains ours: a quest for truth, a quest for justice, a quest for brotherhood, a quest for love, a quest for friendship.

Because I actually would have all the reasons in the world to say, “Listen, ladies and gentlemen, I paid my dues and now leave me alone! Now I want to eat bread, drink wine, go to the movies, and fall in love with beautiful women. It’s over, and now I have every right to pure and simple happiness, and whatever you do, don’t speak to me about the suffering of others!”

Well to that, I say no. Despite the fact that our suffering was unprecedented. Because of that, we must be sensitized to all the suffering in the world. And of course, first and foremost, “Aniyei Ircha Kodmim,” this is normal. We cannot turn away from what is happening in the world immediately surrounding us. Otherwise, I could just as well say: what good is it to write when I have seen that those who have written, among those who have read, were indifferent to victims or in collusion with killers, so what good is it? What’s the use? What good is it to have children?

It happened long ago in our history. The Talmud tells us that in times of great persecution, there were Pharisees called “Perushim” who separated from their wives so as not to have children. We also had the right to say it.

And yet, do you know that even in the ghettos there were romance novels, there were people who became engaged, who married, who had children in the ghetto, and even on the eve of departure, they were getting married?

After the war, in the Displaced Persons Camps, the first thing people did was get married and have children. Didn’t they know what it meant? That the world was dangerous for Jews. To have Jewish children in this world that wanted nothing to do with them.

But no, it wasn’t that. We have learned from our history that even in darkness, there is song and there is prayer and even when suffering becomes intolerable, there is a rising of the soul above and beyond.

We have learned that when it is a question of justifying who we are, it is not out of despair that we do it. As Camus said, when there is no hope, it must be invented. And we will say: it is because there was no hope that we invented it.

But this hope endures. So I come back to this story from the beginning where the killer, the tormentor says, “So look, really, you will be taken for a madman. You are going to tell the truth, but people will say it is the truth of someone mad.”

And then you will reply, I will reply: why is it we remember? Let’s be honest with ourselves: for the dead it is too late. But it is not too late for our children. And we are here this afternoon for all our children and theirs.

Translated from the French by Jamie Moore

The post Issue 595: When Elie Wiesel Healed a Rwandan Genocide Victim appeared first on UN Watch.

Audio: Yazidi MP Vian Dakhil Gives UN Press Conference on Genocide Finding

unwatch — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:36:07 +0000

On June 21, 2016, Yazidi Iraqi MP Vian Dakhil gave a UN press conference in Geneva after addressing the UN Human Rights Council on a new report finding genocide by ISIS against Yazidis. Organized by UN Watch. Click above for audio.

The post Audio: Yazidi MP Vian Dakhil Gives UN Press Conference on Genocide Finding appeared first on UN Watch.

Issue 577: 25 NGOs Led by UN Watch to Grant Women's Rights Award to Iraqi MP & German Psychologist for Rescuing Yazidi Women Enslaved by ISIS

unwatch — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:04:20 +0000

Award Ceremony at UN Watch’s 8th Annual Geneva Summit, Opening Next Week at United Nations

Days before world leaders gather at UNHRC in Geneva, a global summit of dissidents
led by UN Watch on Feb. 23 will spotlight human rights situations in China, Cuba, Iraq,
North Korea, Eritrea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela & more

Vian Dakhil, a Yazidi member of the Iraqi parliament, famously made an emotional speech that stirred President Obama to rescue Yazidis in 2014.

Dr. Jan Ilhan Kizilhan is a German psychologist who has treated over 1,100 female Yazidi and other victims of ISIS sexual enslavement.

GENEVA, February 19, 2016 — One of the world’s most prestigious international women’s rights awards will go this year to Vian Dakhil, a Yazidi member of the Iraqi parliament, and to German psychologist Jan Ilhan Kizilhan, for their “extraordinary and inspiring” work to rescue Yazidi and other women enslaved, assaulted, and sexually abused by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, a global coalition of 25 human rights organizations led by UN Watch announced today.
Both laureates will personally receive the 2016 Geneva Summit’s International Women’s Rights Award at a major ceremony to take place this Tuesday, February 23, 2016, where they will address UN diplomats, several hundred human rights activists, and journalists from around the world attending the 8th annual Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy.
Vian Dakhil Broke Into Tears
Ms. Dakhil broke into tears during a parliament session in August 2014 while describing the plight of her fellow Yazidis during the onslaught by ISIS in northern Iraq.
Ms. Dakhil’s impassioned plea made the world sit up and take notice, and was instrumental in President Obama’s decision to order airdrops of urgent supplies and airstrikes against ISIS.
Due to her tireless work to provide solace for and rebuild the shattered lives of traumatized ISIS escapees, she is today at the top of ISIS’s hit list.
Comment by Vian Dakhil
“I am honored to have been selected for this prestigious award on behalf of all women victims of ISIS,” said Dakhil. “The Yazidi community has been victimized by ISIS, especially the women and girls. The world needs to do more to release the girls in ISIS captivity and protect the human rights of all the people under ISIS control.”

Dr. Kizilhan: ISIS Has “Nazi-like, Genocidal” Attitude

Dr. Jan Ilhan Kizilhan is a German psychologist who operates a unique clinic in Iraq’s Kurdish region where he has treated over 1,100 female Yazidi and other victims of ISIS abuse, with the most severe cases sent to Baden-Württemberg, in southwest Germany, for a period of intensive treatment.
The $100 million “preventative asylum” project is funded by the Baden-Württemberg state government. For Dr. Kizilhan, himself a Turkish-born Yazidi who immigrated to Germany at age 6, it’s personal. Islamic State doesn’t see Yazidis like him as human.
“As a scientist you learn that ideology can blind people,” he told the Wall Street Journal‘s Sohrab Ahmari, who will also be participating at Tuesday’s Geneva Summit. “In the morning they rape children, and at night when they go home they’re loving fathers and husbands.” To treat ISIS as just another al Qaeda-style terror group, Kizilhan warned in his WSJ interview, is to ignore the “Nazi-like,” genocidal evolution of its Islamist worldview.
“On each of his visits to Iraqi Kurdistan, Mr. Kizilhan interviews dozens of women to identify those most in need of evacuation. Most are Yazidis and Christians, with smaller numbers of Shiite Muslims. He is now close to the program’s head-count limit, forcing him to make wrenching decisions as the women take him on a tour of the depths of Islamic State depravity,” reported the WSJ.
Comment by Dr. Kizilhan
“I am honored to have been selected for this prestigious award on behalf of all women victims of ISIS,” said Professor Kizilhan. “The state government of Baden-Württemberg in Germany has brought 1,100 women and girls to Germany for treatment after they were released from ISIS captivity. Yet, hundreds more are still held captive and we need to keep on fighting for their release.”
25 NGOs to Present 2016 International Women’s Rights Award at Geneva Summit
Dakhil and Kizilhan were chosen “for their extraordinary work to protect the most basic human rights of Yazidi women” said Hillel Neuer, the executive director of UN Watch, a co-organizer of the conference together with Liberal International, Human Rights Foundation, and more than 20 other human rights groups.
Last year’s prize went to Masih Alinejad, Iranian women’s rights campaigner and creator of the My Stealthy Freedom project
Geneva Summit Seeks to Influence Foreign Ministers Days Before
They Gather for 10th Anniversary of UN Human Rights Council
The two-day Geneva Summit will feature presentations by top-name activists, former political prisoners and victims from North Korea, China, Russia, Iran and many other human rights hotspots, with the aim of placing key issues on the global agenda days before UN chief Ban Ki-moon and numerous foreign ministers gather across the street to open the 10th anniversary session of the UN Human Rights Council.

Assembly of World Champions of Human Rights
Next week’s Geneva Summit provides a one-stop opportunity to hear from frontline human rights advocates, many of whom have personally suffered imprisonment and torture.
The speakers’ compelling and vivid testimonies will press UNHRC delegates not to allow politics to override the cries of human rights victims.
Speakers will include:
· Svitlana Zalishchuk, Ukrainian MP and key figure in 2013 EuroMaidan movement
· Yang Jianli, Former Chinese political prisoner, survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre
· Vian Dakhil, Iraq’s only female Yazidi MP and champion of ISIS victims
· Jan Ilhan Kizilhan, German psychologist who treats female ISIS victims
· Ensaf Haidar, Wife of jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, recipient of 2015 Geneva Summit Courage Award
· Anastasia Lin, Miss World Canada 2015, advocate for human rights in China
· Jigme Golog, Tibetan monk and filmmaker recently released from jail
· Darya Safai, Campaigner for Iranian women’s rights
· Orhan Kemal Cengiz, Turkish human rights lawyer & columnist
· Daniel Mekonnen, Exiled Eritrean human rights lawyer and scholar
· Lee Young-guk, Bodyguard to former North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Il who fled to South Korea
· Rosa Maria Paya, Cuban human rights activist and daughter of late dissident Oswaldo Paya
· Polina Nemirovskaia, Russian human rights activist
· Joan Hoey, Editor of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index
· Lord David Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former First Minister of Northern Ireland
· Christopher Walker, VP, National Endowment for Democracy
· Irwin Cotler, Former Canadian Minister of Justice and lawyer for political prisoners
Now in its eighth year, the annual conferences of the Geneva Summit have enjoyed widespread coverage by CNN, Le Monde, and other major media.
Admission to this year’s February 23, 2016 summit is free to the public and media, but registration is mandatory. For registration, program and schedule information, visit www.genevasummit.org.
All sessions will be live webcast next Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016, starting at 9:15 am Geneva time, at www.genevasummit.org

The post Issue 577: 25 NGOs Led by UN Watch to Grant Women's Rights Award to Iraqi MP & German Psychologist for Rescuing Yazidi Women Enslaved by ISIS appeared first on UN Watch.

As UN chief visits Auschwitz, rights group urges action against antisemitism & gross rights abuses

unwatch — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:19:48 +0000

PRESS RELEASE
GENEVA, November 18, 2013 – The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch issued the following statement welcoming Ban Ki-moon’s visit today to Auschwitz, the first visit of a UN secretary-general to the Nazi death camp, and urging the world body to do more against mass atrocities as well as to address rising antisemitism in Europe.
“The secretary-general’s visit is a historic and welcome development for the leader of an organization founded in 1945 on the ashes of the Holocaust, with the aim to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person,” said executive director Hillel Neuer.
“The deafening silence and indifference that allowed Auschwitz to happen must serve as remembrance and reminder of the moral imperative for the United Nations — founded as the anti-Hitler alliance — to speak out and take action in the face of genocide, atrocity, hatred, intolerance, demonization, and gross abuses of human rights,” said Neuer.
“The UN must improve its record and do a great deal more to turn a spotlight on the world’s gravest human rights emergencies, and focus international attention on putting an end to mass crimes,” said Neuer. “The recent election of gross human rights abusers to the UN Human Rights Council — including a powerful dictatorship that is actively aiding Syria to murder its own people — underscores the reality whereby politics, regional alliances, and vote-trading are too often allowed to trump human rights. Responsible voices must not be silent.”
“But to draw only abstract and universal lessons from the Holocaust, as the UN often does, is to overlook what the Nazi crime was about. The UN chief’s visit to the death camp that symbolizes the Nazis’ deliberate murder of six million Jews — as part of Hitler’s publicly stated goal of ‘annihilation of the Jewish race’ — provides a historic opportunity for the world body to recommit itself to the fight against increasing manifestations of antisemitism in the Middle East, Europe, and around the world,” said Neuer.
“Regrettably, for example, the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day statements of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay regularly omit any mention of the word antisemitism,” noted Neuer.
In 2007, UN Watch published its authoritative report card on the UN and antisemitism.
Mr. Ban’s visit comes ten days after the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights released a major poll showing an alarming rise in antisemitism. A survey of nearly 6,000 self-identified Jews in eight European Union countries showed that two-thirds of respondents found antisemitism to be a major problem in their countries, while more than 75% said the situation had become more acute over the last five years.
“Sadly, however, Kofi Annan’s historic 2004 UN gathering on antisemitism, and his call on the Geneva-based human rights machinery of the United Nations to become ‘mobilized in the battle against antisemitism,’ have been largely ignored,” said Neuer.
“Few if any of the UN human rights mechanisms — including those experts concerned with racism — have addressed antisemitism in any meaningful way. Events organized by the UN’s constructive Holocaust educational program based in New York have not found an echo in the substantive reporting of the UN’s vast international human rights law machinery.”
“It is the hope of UN Watch that today’s momentous visit will cause the United Nations to reflect on its history and founding purposes, and to reaffirm its solemn commitment to fight against atrocity and racial hatred.”

The post As UN chief visits Auschwitz, rights group urges action against antisemitism & gross rights abuses appeared first on UN Watch.

UN’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Compares Gaza to World War II, Calls for World Boycott of Israel

unwatch — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:23:55 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

UN Watch Calls on UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon to Remove Richard Falk

Geneva, December 31, 2009 — UN Watch, the Geneva-based watchdog organization, today called on UN chief Ban Ki-Moon to remove Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli violations, for breaching his mandate when he called this week for a world boycott of Israel and compared Israelis to Nazis. The full letter follows below.

_________________________________

His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General
The United Nations
New York, NY 10017

December 31, 2009

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

UN Watch is alarmed by the odious statements made this week by Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, including his thinly-veiled comparison of the Jewish state to Nazi Germany, and his call for a world economic boycott of Israel. Mr. Falk is also a major proponent of the conspiracy theory that the United States government was behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We urge you to act immediately to see that Mr. Falk is removed from his post.

As reported by the UN News Center on December 29, 2009, Mr. Falk openly defended the Hamas tunnels into Gaza that smuggle rockets, explosives, and machine guns for use against Israeli civilians, which he said were for “food and material relief.”

Mr. Falk perversely justified these tunnels as “an expression of the desperation created in Gaza as a result of [Israel’s] blockade,” which, he said, is “something that no people since the end of World War II have experienced.”

Mr. Falk’s obscene use of the World War II comparison is only the latest in a pattern of statements that include his 2007 article accusing Israel of “a Palestinian holocaust in the making.” The demonizing comparison of Israelis to Nazis is expressly defined as a form of antisemitism by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia—and must be met with zero tolerance by the United Nations.

Mr. Falk also condemned Egypt for building a barrier to stop the tunnels, as well as the U.S. for its “complicity.” Mr. Falk, who was appointed to his post at the request of the Arab bloc, said that “Israel does not respond to language of diplomacy,” and called for “a threat of economic sanctions against Israel.”

We are unaware of such language being used, or such measures advocated, by any UN human rights official against any other UN member state—not even against serial abusers such as Iran, Libya, or North Korea. By applying a double standard against Israel, Mr. Falk’s statements only underscore the perversion of justice that is encouraged by the UN Human Rights Council, the body to whom he directly reports.

We note that Mr. Falk’s statement said nothing about Palestinian terrorist attacks recently perpetrated against Israeli civilians by Hamas and the Fatah-associated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. He was equally silent about recent expressions of genocidal antisemitism emitted by state-sanctioned Palestinian media and religious leaders.

Mr. Falk’s actions are ultra vires his mandate and amount to a a breach of his obligations under HRC Resolution 5/2 to uphold the highest standards of integrity, probity, impartiality, equity, and good faith. Indeed his actions cast a shadow upon the reputation of the UN as whole. Accordingly, we urge you to immediately denounce Mr. Falk’s remarks and see that he is removed from his post.

Please know that in all your efforts to assure the adherence of the United Nation to its noble principles, you will have the full support of UN Watch.

Sincerely,

Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch
Geneva, Switzerland

The post UN’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Compares Gaza to World War II, Calls for World Boycott of Israel appeared first on UN Watch.

Rights Group Warns Against ‘Foxes Guarding the Chickens’; Opposes U.N. Rights Council Seats for China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia

unwatch — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:31:54 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

UN Watch Concerned About Stalled Geneva Bid for Special Session on Sri Lanka Killings

New York, May 12, 2009 — The expected reelection today of China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia to the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite their much-criticized human rights records, means that, “once again, it will be the foxes guarding the chickens,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring group.

Neuer said U.S. engagement with the council “could make somewhat of a difference, if the U.S. acts vigorously to protect principles now under assault, such as freedom of speech, and if it initiates resolutions and special sessions to put a spotlight on genocide in Sudan, religious repression in China, execution of gays in Iran, and other gross abuses that are today being completely ignored.”
Meanwhile, in Geneva, the council’s credibility is at stake as a bid to convene an emergency session on killings by Sri Lanka is failing to muster the needed support of 16 out of 47 council members.

So far, reports UN Watch, 14 have signed on: Argentina, Bosnia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, U.K. and Uruguay. But Ukraine, Japan and Chile have not.

Geneva insiders report that Sri Lanka’s ambassador in Geneva is threatening countries with a break in diplomatic relations if they suport the special session.

In New York at the General Assembly today, more than a third of the countries vying for seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council have dismal human rights records that should disqualify them from membership, according to a report released at the U.N. last week by UN Watch and Freedom House.

The report warns that at least four of the eight countries in question—Bangladesh, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia—are virtually guaranteed seats in today’s election because of a lack of competition from more democratic countries. Click here for new report.

“The U.N. squanders a golden opportunity to promote human rights when it once again chooses the worst offenders to run its highest human rights body,” said Neuer. “This will send absolutely the worst message to victims worldwide — oppressed women in Saudi Arabia, jailed journalists in Cubua — and lend false international credibility to repressive governments that routinely violate the rights of their own citizens.”

Dissidents and former political prisoners from Cuba and Saudi Arabia joined the two rights groups last week in rejecting the candidacies of their countries.

“As someone who suffered for 19 years from the Castro regime’s beatings, solitary confinement, and inhumane treatment, I urge the U.N. to reject Cuba’s candidacy next week,” said Guillermo Estevez, who showed the crowd his scars from beatings by Cuban authorities.

“For encouraging independent journalism in Cuba, agents harassed, stalked and beat me,” said 25-year old Liannis Merino, who left for the U.S. two years ago.

Ali Al-Ahmed of the Gulf Affairs Council said that Saudi Arabia, his native country, was one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, where basic freedoms are completely denied and women and minorities subjected to massive and systematic discrimination. Al-Ahmed and other members of his family were political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.

The report by UN Watch and Freedom House came as the UN General Assembly today prepared to elect 18 new Human Rights Council members, or one-third of the body’s membership. Each regional group is apportioned a specific number of seats. However, in three of the five regional groups — Asia, Latin America and Western Europe — the number of countries running does not exceed the number of open seats.

The study described eight countries as not qualified, including Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Russia and Saudi Arabia. All of these countries are incumbent candidates. In addition, the report questioned the eligibility of Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria and Senegal, whose human rights records are mixed.

UN Watch and Freedom House evaluated each of the 20 candidates based on its record of human rights protection at home and its record of human rights promotion at the UN. The evaluation cited a range of sources including country rankings by Freedom House, UN Watch voting analyses, reports from Reporters San Frontières, The Economist, Democracy Index, and the Democracy Coalition Project.

Click here for full report.

The post Rights Group Warns Against ‘Foxes Guarding the Chickens’; Opposes U.N. Rights Council Seats for China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch to Award Annual Human Rights Prizes to Rwanda Genocide Survivor and Canadian Activist for Iranian Women Facing Execution

unwatch — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:08:19 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Geneva, April 21, 2009 — Tonight, at its annual dinner gala, in the shadow of the Durban Review Conference, the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch will give its highest honor to two true human rights heroes, who are a beacon of hope for human rights activists and victims around the world.

The Morris B. Abram Human Rights Prize, named after the late civil rights leader and founder of UN Watch, will be awarded to Ester Mujawayo, a survivor of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda who devotes her life to caring for fellow survivors — the widows, the orphans, and the sick. “She sanctifies the memory of the victims, fights hatred, intolerance, and genocide denial, to reaffirm human dignity and give hope to the generations to come,” reads the UN Watch award inscription.

“It is not enough that we pass resolutions and talk about these tragedies,” says Mujawayo, who will be addressing a UN Watch-organized human rights conference tomorrow. “The genocide in my country was preventable — and as long as the United Nations sits in this conference and does not address the real crises, history is doomed to repeat itself.”

UN Watch will then present its Human Rights Hero Award to Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a former Miss World Canada who is co-founder and President of Stop Child Executions, an organization whose aim is to try and put a permanent end to executions of minors in Iran and abroad, and which has managed to help save many lives.

UN Watch will recognize Ms. Afshin-Jam tonight “for her work in fighting cruelty, injustice and intolerance, and defending the lives of women and children. She is the voice for the voiceless and a hero for the cause of freedom, justice and peace.”
“The work these incredible women do every day means a great deal to survivors and victims in Rwanda and Iran, but are also an inspiration to activists and victims around the world,” said Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch. “They have dedicated their lives to the defense of some of the world’s most vulnerable. These awards are a small token of our appreciation and admiration for them both.”

Both of the women being honored at tonight’s dinner are tireless fighters for the causes of justice and human rights in their home countries and throughout the world. Their families have faced horrific tragedy at the hands of the Iranian and Rwandan regimes, and have turned their tragedy to action that may prevent what they experienced.

The Morris B. Abram Human Rights Prize and the Human Rights Hero Award are the highest honors that UN Watch bestows.

The post UN Watch to Award Annual Human Rights Prizes to Rwanda Genocide Survivor and Canadian Activist for Iranian Women Facing Execution appeared first on UN Watch.

The Right to Name And Shame: An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour with Recommendations for New High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay

zadmin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:16:26 +0000

Summary

Click for Full Report (PDF)

The new appointment of Navanethem Pillay as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is an opportunity to reflect upon the requirements, responsibilities and priorities of an international position that stands on the front lines of the struggle for the idea of universally guaranteed individual rights. This report by UN Watch presents the first initial review of the recently concluded—and controversial—tenure of former High Commissioner Louise Arbour. The report draws lessons for the future and offers concrete recommendations for incoming High Commissioner Pillay.

Our examination of Ms. Arbour’s tenure focuses as a case study on her record in issuing official statements that held countries accountable to their human rights obligations, a measure of performance recognized as significant by both critics and defenders of the former UN human rights chief. Examining all of Arbour’s UN statements published in 2007 and 2008, the report’s findings challenge inflated claims made by her critics as well as defenders.

As a broad and indicative sample of her overall tenure, the report (Tables 1 and 3) documents every country criticism published by Arbour on her UN website during 2007 and 2008, in the form of press releases, remarks delivered to the Human Rights Council, public lectures, reports and amicus curiae legal briefs. After each statement, the most salient country criticism by Arbour is featured, followed by a rating of Strong, Moderate or Weak, with additional analysis where relevant. The report also lists the country situations that Arbour did not address during this period (Table 2).

On the one hand, the data disproves the claims of certain critics that Arbour devoted more time to condemning democracies instead of tyrants. In the period examined, Arbour criticized 39 different countries, many of them ruled by regimes with poor records on human rights and democracy, including Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Out of 79 official criticisms of countries that Arbour issued during this period, only 10 were dedicated to condemning free democracies. The record shows that she was a determined advocate for the adoption of international human rights standards and that she spoke out for many victims around the world.

At the same time, the evidence does not support the inflated claims made by many of her defenders. For example, claims that Arbour “routinely singled out” China and Russia for “fierce criticism” have no empirical basis. On the contrary, a review of all her UN statements issued during 2007 and 2008 shows that Arbour held back from criticizing many countries that wield power and influence at the UN. She was silent, or spoke out no more than once, on systematic human rights abuses committed by China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council, and on those committed by Egypt, a country that exercises great influence at the Human Rights Council through its leading position in various UN country groupings. Similarly, Arbour only issued one statement for human rights victims in Angola, Chad, and Kazakhstan, whose very systems deny basic civil and political freedom.

The report’s most disturbing findings, however, are that in the period examined, Arbour published no statements at all for billions of victims residing in 153 countries—many of whose human rights records range from poor to appalling, including Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burkina Faso, North Korea, Gabon, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Viet Nam and Yemen. Arbour’s oft-repeated mantra was the fight against impunity. It is unfortunate, therefore, that so many serial abusers were granted effective impunity.

Going beyond the empirical study reflected in Table 3, the report also provides an in-depth examination of Arbour’s treatment of selected regions. On Sudan, Arbour spoke out strongly and consistently, defying the Khartoum regime’s powerful supporters. She also was firm in denouncing major abuses by the Burmese regime. On China and Russia, with the exception of certain efforts early in her tenure, Arbour largely held back from issuing public criticisms. This was unjustified, and it is to be hoped that new High Commissioner Pillay will be more outspoken. Arbour was right to hold the U.S. accountable for its record, but her methods, including intervention through amicus curiae legal briefs, may not have been effective.

In the Middle East, Arbour spoke out against certain violations by Iran. However, unlike other high UN officials, she failed to address President Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic campaign of Holocaust denial and incitement to genocide. By contrast, upon demands from certain UN alliances, Arbour did issue statements about perceived offenses to Islam, which may have encouraged the Islamic states’ campaign at the UN to curb freedom of speech. On the Arab-Israel conflict, while Arbour’s approach could not be compared to that of the Human Rights Council, her statements were weighted against Israel. With few exceptions, Arbour did not criticize Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria or other countries in the Middle East with highly problematic records.

There is no magic formula for how to criticize countries. However, High Commissioner Pillay should adopt a methodology that will ensure that situations of gross human rights violations around the world are not ignored. In particular, she should address compelling situations neglected by the Human Rights Council, which, despite attempts at reform, is now in a downward spiral. High Commissioner Pillay will need to resist the renewed attempts by repressive regimes on the council to subject her office to their control. She should speak out for the threatened country mandates, and vigorously safeguard the vital role at the council played by experts and NGOs. With the council marred by selectivity and politicization, it is vital for High Commissioner Pillay to use her independence to provide a universal approach based on objective human rights standards.

Sommaire Exécutif

La nomination de Navanethem Pillay au poste très convoité de Haut Commissaire pour les droits de l’Homme de l’ONU représente une occasion unique de réfléchir sur les exigences, les responsabilités et priorités qui découlent de ce poste international, un poste qui se trouve au premier plan de la lutte en faveur des droits individuels garantis pour tous.

Ce rapport de UN Watch présente le tout premier examen du mandat, quelque peu controversé, de la Haut Commissaire Louise Arbour, qui vient de s’achever. En examinant minutieusement le passé récent, le rapport dresse des leçons pour le futur et propose ainsi des recommandations concrètes adressées à la nouvelle Haut Commissaire Pillay.

Notre examen du bilan de Mme. Arbour se concentre sur ses déclarations officielles qui exposent les violations des droits de l’Homme commis par différents Etats. Cette méthode est un moyen significatif de mesurer la performance de la Haut Commissaire sortant, un moyen reconnu à la fois par les détracteurs et les supporters de Louise Arbour. En passant en revue toutes les déclarations officielles de l’ancienne chef des droits de l’Homme en 2007 et 2008 publiées sur le site de l’ONU, le rapport réfute certaines des revendications les plus ardentes faites par, à la fois ses défendeurs et ses critiques.

Le rapport (cf. tableaux 1 et 2) répertorie toutes les critiques formulées par Arbour en 2007 et 2008 concernant différents pays. Ces déclarations, telles qu’elles figurent sur le site Internet de l’ONU sous la forme de communiqués de presse, de discours prononcés au Conseil des droits de l’Homme ou lors de conférences publiques, de rapports, et de mémoires juridiques amicus curiae, représentent un vaste échantillon représentatif de son mandat général.

Après chaque déclaration, les principales critiques exprimées par Arbour sont analysées. Elles sont ensuite répertoriées selon qu’il s’agisse de critiques fortes, modérées ou faibles, et sont accompagnées de remarques supplémentaires le cas échéant. Le rapport énumère également les situations dans des pays spécifiques qu’Arbour n’a pas abordées durant cette période (cf. tableau 3).

D’une part, les données ainsi récoltées réfutent les allégations de certaines critiques qui affirment qu’Arbour a consacré la plupart de son temps à condamner les démocraties plutôt que les tyrans. Pendant la période examinée, Arbour a critiqué 39 pays différents, tels que le Sri Lanka, le Myanmar (anciennement la Birmanie), le Pakistan, le Soudan ou encore le Zimbabwe. Sur 79 de ses critiques officielles des pays, 10 critiques seulement ont condamné les démocraties libres. L’étude montre qu’Arbour s’est avérée être une fervente avocate militant en faveur de l’adoption de standards internationaux des droits de l’Homme. Le rapport révèle également qu’elle a témoigné en faveur de nombreuses victimes à travers le monde.

D’autre part, le rapport réfute aussi les allégations exagérées provenant de beaucoup de ses supporters. Les affirmations selon lesquelles Arbour aurait régulièrement vivement critiqué la Chine et la Russie ne sont pas fondées. Au contraire, un examen minutieux de toutes les déclarations prononcées par Arbour dans le cadre de l’ONU en 2007 et 2008, montre qu’elle s’est abstenue de critiquer de nombreux pays, ces mêmes pays qui jouissent d’un pouvoir et d’une influence considérables au sein de l’ONU. Par exemple, elle a passé sous silence, ou n’est intervenue qu’une seule fois sur, les abus systématiques des droits de l’Homme perpétués par la Chine et la Russie, deux Etats influents, à la fois membres du Conseil de Sécurité et du Conseil des droits de l’Homme, ou encore les violations commises par l’Egypte, un pays qui exerce une influence colossale au sein du Conseil des droits de l’Homme grâce à sa position de leader du groupe africain, de la Ligue arabe, du groupe islamique et du groupe des non alignés.

De même, Arbour n’est intervenue qu’une seule et unique fois en faveur des victimes en Angola, au Tchad et au Kazakhstan, dont les systèmes mêmes rejettent les libertés civiles et politiques fondamentales.

Notre plus grande préoccupation, néanmoins, est qu’Arbour n’a publié aucune déclaration officielle sur la situation des droits de l’Homme dans 153 pays, dont de nombreux pays présentant de mauvais voire d’effroyables bilans en matière de droits de l’Homme, comme l’Algérie, le Bahreïn, le Bangladesh, la Biélorussie, le Burkina Faso, la Corée du Nord, le Gabon, la Jordanie, le Koweït, la Libye, l’Arabie Saoudite, la Syrie, le Viet Nam ou encore le Yémen.

The post The Right to Name And Shame: An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour with Recommendations for New High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay appeared first on UN Watch.

Darfur Victim Delivers UN Watch Speech to Human Rights Council

unwatch — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:42:34 +0000

“We do not need more reports. We need action.”

Click for Video

Geneva, Dec. 12, 2007 — UN experts reported yesterday to the Human Rights Council that Sudan has failed to live up to its commitments to improve the human rights situation in Darfur. However, Sudan insisted that “the situation is improving,” and complained about “double standards and selectivity.” Supporting Sudan were Pakistan for the Islamic group, and Egypt for the African group, which said that “the international community has failed to truly assist Sudan regarding Darfur.” Malaysia praised Sudan’s “positive engagement” and said Sudan faced “many difficulties” and needed to be “given the time and resources it requires” to implement its obligations.

UN Watch reponded in a speech delivered by Gibreil Hamid, a survivor from Darfur. See full text below.

UN Human Rights Council
Geneva, Switzerland, Dec. 11, 2007
UN Watch Speech on Darfur

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Many think that the tragedy in Darfur began in 2003. From personal experience, I can testify that this is not the case.

I was born in a small village called Taradona, near Zalinge, in West Darfur. The people were living peacefully until the genocidal regime now in Khartoum seized power in a military coup. It was a black day for the whole country.

In 1989, gunmen attacked my village in the early morning, killing over fifty people from my family. For me, it was the beginning of a nightmare that has lasted eighteen years. Until today, no one knows who committed this atrocity, or why. I can forgive, but I will never forget.

Since 2003, Darfur is known as the worst humanitarian catastrophe on earth. Diplomatic efforts have failed to stop the crimes of the Sudanese government.

We, the victims of Darfur, were hoping so much that this new Human Rights Council would give us a voice, and make a difference in our lives. Yet the genocide continues, and it seems that all this Council does is ask for more reports.

Mr. President, we, the victims of Darfur, come before this council today with a simple message. We do not need more reports. Time is running out. We need action. Our humanitarian situation is critical. Our security situation worsens every day. The Janjaweed are killing and raping us. The innocent civilians of Darfur are in desperate need of protection. We need action, and we need it now.

On behalf of UN Watch and all of the victims of Darfur, I plead before the Council today: please stop adopting resolutions that praise Sudan for its so-called “cooperation.” Please do not eliminate the independent expert on Sudan. Please take action to end the terrible crimes of war.

To all those who are willing to speak out against genocide: May God bless you and give us peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The post Darfur Victim Delivers UN Watch Speech to Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

Issue 161: DEAF & DUMB ON DARFUR

unwatch — Thu, 31 May 2007 07:53:00 +0000

Sunday’s New York Post featured the following book review by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

DEAF & DUMB ON DARFUR

By HILLEL NEUER

May 27, 2007 — THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK: BEARING WITNESS
TO THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR
BY BRIAN STEIDLE WITH GRETCHEN STEIDLE WALLACE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 256 PAGES, $24.95

Click to order

It has been a year since the United Nations replaced its discredited Commission on Human Rights with the new Human Rights Council and the promise of reform. At the time, Louise Arbour, the top U.N. human-rights official, hailed the “dawn of a new era,” while Amnesty International celebrated a “victory for human-rights protection.” But a year later, one finds that the “reform” resulted in more power for the Islamic and Third World blocs, with democracies playing defense and losing.

Out of 192 nations, the council has seen fit to condemn only one country—Israel—while granting immunity to Hamas and Hezbollah. Violators like Burma, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe go ignored. The one possible exception is Darfur. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan shamed the council into holding a session on the Sudanese province last December.

Yet the texts adopted at that meeting and at a subsequent March gathering were toothless, raising the question: If the foremost U.N. human-rights body can’t bring itself to condemn the worst violations known today—more than 200,000 murdered, mass rape of women and girls, displacement of millions—how can anyone expect it to take action anywhere?

The council is failing to do the minimum against the maximum crime: genocide. It’s failing the Darfur test.

For too many council members, genocide is not something to fight but to deny. In plenary speeches, the 56-strong Islamic Conference “commends” Sudan for its “unceasing efforts to ameliorate the situation in the Darfur region.” Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jaziry, speaking for the African group, challenges “the alleged links” between the Khartoum regime and the Janjaweed, which “have yet to be objectively documented.” Nothing could be more necessary or timely, therefore, than Brian Steidle’s “The Devil Came on Horseback,” a powerful first-hand account of the Darfur genocide.

The author, an ex-Marine who was an observer in Sudan with the African Union forces, documents the gruesome attacks by government-sponsored Arab militias against innocent civilians whose dark skin, they are told, renders them “dirty.” Based on extensive e-mails sent to his sister, Gretchen, the book’s co-author, Steidle recreates his conversations with Sudanese perpetrators and victims alike. Some of the dialogues are flat, but the value of this cri de coeur is less literary than moral and, with hope, legal.

Steidle’s narrative is a desperate attempt to awaken the world’s conscience to atrocities that Sudan desperately seeks to hide. Like Mia Farrow—whose recent op-ed on China’s “Genocide Olympics” scared Beijing into dispatching an unprecedented mission to pressure Khartoum—individuals like Steidle are achieving more for Darfur’s victims than all the exertions of the U.N. Human Rights Council combined. Elections earlier this month resulted in new seats for Angola and Egypt, joining Fidel Castro, Hu Jintao and the House of Saud. Darfuris will wait in vain for their long nightmare to be broken by the promised dawn.

Hillel Neuer is executive director of UN Watch in Geneva (unwatch.org).

The post Issue 161: DEAF & DUMB ON DARFUR appeared first on UN Watch.