Has the UN Human Rights Council Become Frankenstein?

The post Issue 590: Has the UN Human Rights Council Become Frankenstein? appeared first on UN Watch.

Rise and Fall
The United Nations Human Rights Commission was founded by one of the great humanitarians, Eleanor Roosevelt.

Not There to Help Victims
I’ll never forget when the coup d’état happened in Gaza, when Hamas violently ousted the PLO. I happened to be at the United Nations Human Rights Council during that time.

They are not there to help the victims. They are there to scapegoat. It is part of a narrative, where Israel is this meta-criminal.
Most Hated Person at the UN   
I have become the most hated person at the United Nations. When I walk into the Human Rights Council, I feel the glares of hatred, of enmity directed at me.

So when I walk into the Human Rights Council, I feel the hatred all around me; and it’s not easy.
Not Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
At the end of the day, this is a political body. It is not a body as most Europeans think, when they hear the words “United Nations Human Rights Council,” and when they read a headline “The UN Human Rights Council said” — for most Europeans, that’s like saying “And the Lord said to Moses at Sinai.” They think it’s gospel.

Europeans don’t realize that, and they don’t want to know that. They have really a fantasy, which is very beautiful and it’s very pretty, but it hasn’t been true in perhaps five decades.
Why the UN Matters
Like it or not, the UN matters. The United Nations is the single most important repository of international legitimacy, and people around the world believe in the UN.
Even though things are upside down, we need to be there and we need to fight lies and spread the truth.

CLICK FOR VIDEO
For more information on the film, “Beyond Paranoia: The
War Against the Jews” by filmmaker Monique Schwartz, click here. 
 

The post Issue 584: UN Watch Executive Director Interviewed in New Documentary Film: “Beyond Paranoia: The War Against the Jews” appeared first on UN Watch.

CLICK FOR VIDEO

UN Watch’s report was quickly picked up by editorial boards and media agencies; examples below.

By New York Post Editorial Board
February 26, 2016

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If the United Nations was trying to mock itself, it couldn’t have done a better job than it did this week, when it re-elected Syria’s ambassador to a top spot on its Special Committee on Decolonization.
The panel — set up in 1960 to push for the freedom of European colonies and to oppose “subjugation, domination and exploitation” — re-elected Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari of Syria as rapporteur.
That’s right: Syria — whose five-year campaign of murder against its own people has taken a toll nearing a half-million lives.
OK, UN panels of this kind are worse than useless. They regularly put foxes in charge of hen-houses — as when a UN women’s-rights board gave Iran a seat at its table in 2015.
Indeed, the decolonization panel also made Venezuela its chairman and Cuba a vice-chair, despite the horrific human-rights records of both regimes.
But Syria’s behavior makes an utter joke of the principles the panel was set up to uphold: “self-determination,” an end to “armed action or repressive measures . . . against dependent peoples” and respect for the “integrity” of national territory.
On each count, it would be hard to find a worse offender than Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime.
“It is incomprehensible for the UN on one day to lament the regime’s killing and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Syrians,” says UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer, “and to then hand this gift of false legitimacy to the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad.”
Neuer says the move will let Assad & Co. portray itself as a “human-rights arbiter.”
Which may actually be the entire, repugnant point of these UN committees.
___________
‘Incomprehensible’: UN Committee Elects Assad Regime to Leadership Post 
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – A group of United Nations’ member-states on Thursday elected the Assad regime to a leadership post of a special committee dealing with decolonization, sparking protests from a human rights group that had earlier urged U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon to intervene.

Hearing no objectives, Ramirez declared Ja’afari – as well as three nominated vice chairmen, the representatives of Cuba, Sierra Leone and Indonesia – “elected by acclamation.”
The Venezuelan then led “a round a applause for our friends,” told them he looked forward to working with them “in taking forward the noble work of the special committee,” and invited Ja’afari to take his seat on the podium.
Before the Syrian sat down, Ramirez – a former foreign minister in President Nicolas Maduro’s cabinet – gave him a hug.
According to U.N. estimates well over 250,000 people have been killed and 12 million displaced in the civil war in Syria.
U.S. taxpayers account for 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget.
The committee – full name, the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples – has 24 members.
Ten of them are free democracies, according to Washington-based Freedom House. They are Antigua & Barbuda, Chile, Dominica, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tunisia.
None of those 10, nor any other member of the committee, raised objections to Syria’s “election” as rapporteur.
Ahead of the election, the non-governmental organization U.N. Watch urged two of the democracies in particular, Chile and India, to oppose Syria’s election.
U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said after Thursday’s session the two governments should be “ashamed” for joining the consensus vote.
He also criticized Ban for not intervening ahead of the vote.
“It is incomprehensible for the U.N. on one day to lament the regime’s killing and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Syrians – to declare the regime guilty of ‘extermination’ of its own people – and to then hand this gift of false legitimacy to the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad,” Neuer said.
“Today’s U.N. vote only helps the Assad regime portray itself a U.N. human rights arbiter. That’s indefensible, and an insult to Syria’s victims,” he said. “Morally, Mr. Ban should do the right thing and at least condemn the decision.”
Neuer also called on U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power and European Union ambassadors to condemn what he called the “absurd and morally obscene” election outcome.
He said the elections of the Syrian and Venezuelan ambassadors to their respective posts would be “trumpeted by both the Assad and Maduro regimes” as a propaganda victory.
He recalled that the regime after a previous election of Ja’afari called it “yet another recognition by members of the committee of the Syrian important and key role.”
The decolonization committee, established in 1961, advocates independence for 17 specific territories around the world, including American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam.
Neuer called the 55 year-old body “anachronistic,” noting that it has often been “criticized as a costly irrelevance.”

The post Issue 579: Video: UN Elects Syria to Top Committee Post appeared first on UN Watch.

       

  

Committee sessions debate the future of places such as Gibraltar, the Falklands, Bermuda, French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

It is mandated to uphold fundamental human rights in opposing the “subjugation, domination and exploitation” of peoples.

There are 17 territories still before the anti-Western committee, and most do not want independence — which is only one of the reasons the committee, dominated by third-world nations, is often criticized as a costly irrelevance.

The 17 territories still listed as colonies by the committee are American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, East Timor, the Falklands, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos, St. Helena, the United States Virgin Islands and Western Sahara.

Corruption & Exotic Travel

The committee is notorious for its habit of holding regional seminars in tropical islands—”alternately in the Caribbean and the Pacific”—at considerable expense. Madeleine K. Albright, as U.S. representative at the United Nations in the late 1990s, called these expenditures ”frivolous and unneeded.”

At the time, activities of the committee were investigated by the United Nations inspector general, Karl T. Paschke, who concluded that money was being squandered.

UN Watch is urging current U.S. ambassador Samantha Power to follow her predecessor and finally speak out against the travesties of justice worked by this anachronistic and corrupt committee.

The post Issue 578: UN Elects Syria & Venezuela to Leadership on Committee Against "Subjugation of Peoples" appeared first on UN Watch.

APPEAL SENT TO WASHINGTON, PARIS & LONDON

UNESCO board includes US, UK, France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark

GENEVA, Dec. 15 – An international coalition of 55 members of parliament, pro-democracy dissidents, human rights NGOs and religious groups launched a campaign today calling on UNESCO to reverse its recent election of Syria to two committees dealing with human rights. The appeal (see below for full text & signatories) was sent today to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and UK Foreign Minister William Hague.

“It is shocking that the UN’s leading agency on science, culture and education voted unanimously to give two position of global influence on human rights to a regime that has been raping, torturing and killing its own men, women and children,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group based in Geneva, which spearheaded the initiative.

“This was an unconscionable decision that must be reversed immediately, and UNESCO should apologize for it.”

Signatories to today’s appeal include members of the Australian, British, Canadian, Italian and Norwegian parliaments, as well as two members of the European Parliament.

“UNESCO’s 58-member executive board, which includes the US, France, Britain, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Italy and Denmark, should never have ratified the Arab League’s nomination of Syria last month. When a regime is murdering, torturing and raping its own men, women and children.”

Links:

* UNESCO list showing Syria on the two committees

* Membership of 58-member UNESCO executive board which elected Syria

*****************

Appeal for UNESCO to Cancel Its
Election of Syria to Human Rights Committees

Shocked that the UNESCO Executive Board, on 11 November 2011, elected the Syrian Arab Republic to two committees dealing with human rights—the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations, which examines communications relating to the exercise of human rights, and the Committee on International Non-Governmental Organizations, which is charged with overseeing the work of civil society and human rights groups within UNESCO;

Having considered the recent findings of United Nations Human Rights Council investigators that the Syrian regime has in the past year committed crimes against humanity, including the murder of 5,000 of its citizens, the torturing of children and rape;

Recalling that earlier this year, after United Nations Watch revealed that Syria had cynically submitted its candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, a global protest campaign emerged with the support of Human Rights Watch, the Syrian Human Rights Committee, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and numerous other NGOs and UN stakeholders, helping to successfully defeat the candidacy of the Assad regime;

Guided by the principled opposition expressed by the UNESCO Director-General herself, Ms. Irina Bokova, who has stated that she “does not see how the Syria can contribute to the work of the committees”;

Declaring that each day that the Syria continues to sit on the aforementioned UNESCO human rights committees constitutes an affront to the memory of the innocents who continue to be killed by the Assad regime, and casts a shadow upon the reputation of UNESCO, and of the United Nations system as a whole;

We, the undersigned Members of Parliament, human rights organizations, civil society representatives and pro-democracy dissidents and activists, do hereby appeal to the UNESCO Executive Board to urgently remove the Syrian regime from the aforementioned human rights committees, and to publicly apologize to the victims of the Syrian regime for having elected it in the first place.

Angie Bray, Member of British Parliament

Frieda Brepoels, Belgian Member of European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Human Rights

Irwin Cotler, Member of Canadian Parliament, Liberal Critic for Human Rights, Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Human Rights

Michael Danby, Member of Australian Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs

Ana Gomes, Potuguese Member of European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Human Rights

Matteo Mecacci, Member of Italian Parliament, Chairman of Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

Karin S. Woldseth, Member of Norwegian Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director, UN Watch, Switzerland

Rami Nakhle, Syrian National Council

Lama Atassi, Syrian democracy activist

Ismael Hachem, President, France Syrie Démocratie

Ahed Al Hendi, Syrian dissident, Cyberdissidents.org

Yang Jianli, Former prisoner of conscience and survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre, President, Initiatives for China

Dr. Osama Kadi, President, Syrian Centre for Political and Strategic Studies

Robert R. LaGamma, President, Council of the Committee of Democracies

Amina Bouayach, President, Organisation Marocaine des Droits Humains, Morocco

Yang Kuanxing, Chinese writer, original signatory to Charter ’08 manifesto calling for political reform in China, Editor of China E-Weekly

Abdinoor Farey, Executive Director, Somali Youth for Peace and Development, Somalia

Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Executive Director, Gram Bharati Samiti, India

Dr. Harris O. Schoenberg, President, UN Reform Advocates, USA

Okay Machisa, National Director, Zimbabwe Human Rights Association, Zimbabwe

Phil ya Nangoloh, Executive Director, NamRights, Namibia

Nguyên Lê Nhân Quyên, Delegate, Vietnamese League for Human Rights, Switzerland

Catherine Legna, Secrétaire général, Comité international des Juristes pour la défense des victimes de la répression du soulèvement en Iran, France

Peter Hesse, Director, Peter Hesse Foundation, Germany

Francois Ullmann, President, Ingénieurs du Monde, France

John Suarez, International Secretary, Directorio Democratico Cubano

Sylvia G. Iriondo, President, Mothers and Women against Repression / MAR por Cuba

Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer, Citizens for Global Solutions, USA

Dr Richard Lawson, Founder, Campaign for Global Human Rights Index, UK

Nazanin Afshin-Jam, President, Stop Child Executions, Canada

Hu Ping, Editor in Chief, Beijing Spring

Wang Longmeng, President, Chinese-Tibetan Association France

Christina Fu, President, New Hope Foundation, USA

Duy Hoang, Spokesman, Viet Tan, Vietnam

Jacky Mamou, President, Collectif Urgence Darfour, France

Panayote Dimitras, Spokesperson, Greek Helsinki Monitor, Greece

Dr. Theodor Rathgeber, Forum Human Rights, Germany

Dickson Mugendi David Ntwiga, Executive Director, Solidarity House International, Kenya

Gibreil Hamid , Darfur Peace and Development Centre, President, Switzerland

Alain Jakubowicz, President, Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme, France

Sr Catherine Waters, OP, Main Representative to UN, Catholic International Education Office, USA

Simone Abel, Director, René Cassin, United Kingdom

Jean Stoner, SNDdeN, NGO Representative at the United Nations, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, USA

Dr Charles Mwape, President, Christian Coalition, Zambia

David French, former Chief Executive Officer (2003-2009), of Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Virginia Swain, Director and CoFounder, Center for Global Community and World Law, USA

Orrvar Dalby, Director International Program Department, Norwegian People’s Aid, Norway

Nirvana González Rosa, General Coordinator, Latin American and Caribbean Women’s Health Network, Chile

Angelamaria Loreto, President, IUS PRIMI VIRI International Association, Italy

Galina Nechitailo, Vice President, Environmental Women’s Assembly, Russia

Ali Egal, Chairman, Fanole Human rights & Development Organization, Somalia/Kenya

Léonie de Picciotto, Representative to the UN Geneva, International Council of Jewish Women, Switzerland

Kyung B. Lee, President, The Council for Human Rights in North Korea, Canada

The post 55 MPs, rights groups & dissidents urge UNESCO to cancel election of Syria to human rights committees appeared first on UN Watch.

The Secretary-General’s idea of a new, leaner and cleaner human rights entity, which he would elevate to the status of a council, stands as an unabashed repudiation of the High Level Panel’s recommendation to grant membership to all 191 U.N. member states, a decidedly paradoxical remedy given the Panel’s diagnosis that the Commission’s woes are the result of its unsavory composition. Annan’s proposal to exclude human rights criminals from deciding human rights norms seems obvious enough. Not so, however, in an international organization whose proceedings are too often dominated by dictators and despots. Annan’s plan, though not without perils, is bold, principled and courageous. But can it work?

Before considering how to bring about change, however, we ought to recognize that, sullied though the Commission bathwater is, there is a baby worth keeping.

First, there are the Commission’s independent human rights experts. Many perform critical work for the cause of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Experts like Stephen Toope and Asma Jahangir, both of whom addressed UN Watch’s debate on reform held during the session, speak out for the disappeared and for those whose freedom of religion is denied. (Last week, Jahangir was brutally arrested in her native Pakistan for participating in a marathon held to highlight violence against women.) Similarly, in previous sessions, Param Cumaraswamy, former Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, drew the world’s attention to the subversion of justice in such places as Belarus, Zimbabwe and his own native Malaysia, for which he was harassed in Malaysian courts.

To be sure, there are some bad apples, even one that is rotten to the core. Jean Ziegler, the Swiss politician who in 1989 helped found the Moammar Khadaffi Human Rights Prize (and then won the prize in 2002), has been the U.N. expert on hunger for the past five years. Rather than work for the genuinely hungry populations of the world, Ziegler has made a mockery of his mandate by pursuing an overtly political agenda of anti-Americanism and Israel-bashing. At the most recent session, Ziegler devoted himself to accusing the U.S.A. of both committing genocide in Cubaand starving children in Iraq. Fortunately, there are term limits, and by next year his will end for good. A reformed human rights system will require far greater vigilance on the part of member statesthose responsible for having elected, and, worse,reelected Ziegler to screen out the abusers. If that can be achieved, the system ofspecial procedures should be preserved and even strengthened.

Second, the Commission is a singular occasion for NGOs to openly confront states that abuse human rights, and for activists from around the globe to build valuable coalitions. Unlike the General Assembly or the Security Council, the Commission allows NGOs to play a substantial role, allotting them the same amount of speaking time as most states. This allows human rights groups to expose violations, a process that sometimes rouses state replies and even changes of behavior. To be sure, as with the experts, there are also NGOs belonging to the Dark Side–those who are in reality government-organized (the “GONGOs”), like the groups from Cuba and China, and those who pursue politicized agendas that run contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter. On the whole, though, the Commission has been made a far better place by the participation of civil society.

Indeed, during the latest session, there were NGO figures whose very presence inspired young and old alike. Ravi Nair, of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center, a feisty group based in New Delhi, energized a packed room of delegates to fight for democratic values, while speaking at a seminar on the U.N. Democracy Caucus. Similarly, Emilie Barrucand, the young ethnologist from France, stirred Geneva activists with her elegant but powerful voice for the Kayapo and other disenfranchised native peoples of the Amazon rain forests. After living among these tribes, in the most remote regions of Brazil, Barrucand founded Wayanga, an organization to defend their rights, culture and traditional grounds. Any reform must safeguard the vital role of NGO figures like Nair and Barrucand in championing the cause of human rights victims worldwide.

Ultimately, though, the real power of the Commission is commanded by its 53 state members. It is they who determine the agenda and enact the resolutions which become the object of international attention and influence global opinion. They alone appoint the experts and supervise their work. And, as the Secretary-General understands, so long as rogue regimes wield enormous control–to the extent that draft resolutions seeking to condemn Sudans mass rape and killings in Darfur are first given to Sudan and allies for their approval (which explains why all such initiatives have been emasculated or extinguished)–the Commission will continue to cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

If, as Annan proposes, membership could be limited to states with strong records, the new human rights entity could well become an effective and respected voice for victims. But who will decide which states pass muster? Will China and Russia, both rated “Not Free” by the latest Freedom House annual survey, allow themselves to be excluded? Not likely. At the U.N., substantive criteria are difficult to enforce. Article 23 of the U.N. Charter requires that in electing non-permanent members of the Security Council, special regard be paid to a state’s contribution to peace and security. This has proved a dead letter, however, with states such as Syria, a certified state sponsor of terrorism, winning a seat on the Council, and even serving as its president.

What holds a better chance of surviving is the requirement of a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly. With assertive campaigning from democratic voices, this should at least suffice to keep out the Sudans of this world–those suspected of genocide or other gross abuses–which would be a significant step forward.

No wonder, then, that the jackals have begun to circle Annan’s plan, with the Non-Aligned Movement hoping to kill it before it grows. To reflect coherently on the proposed reform, the Commission in April passed an African-sponsored resolution calling for an extraordinary 6-day session in June. Seeking to exploit their disproportionate power in Geneva, the anti-democratic forces would then formally adopt the outcome of this anti-reform meeting–thereby handing the Secretary-General a fait accompli. Normally, such resolutions are rubber-stamped by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In a rare move, however, thanks to a counter-offensive by the Western group, ECOSOC is expected to diminish the gathering to a 2-day informal consultation. From all of this, one thing is clear: the struggle has begun.

Yes, Annan’s plan has its risks. One is that a human rights council will emerge with increased powers–such as the ability to meet in permanent session and deal with imminent crises–yet, while bearing the stamp of new and reformed, will in effect remain controlled by the same power structures, and continue previous abuses. A key litmus test for reform will be the new council’s treatment of the Middle East. If the Arab-led campaign of one-sided measures against Israel remains–monopolizing key debates at the expense of genuine causes around the world, treating Israel alone under a separate agenda item, denying Israel membership in any of the Commissions regional groups–we will have accomplished little.

Still, this is the Commission’s only hope, and it’s time to take a side. We need to rally behind the Secretary-General. True, the devil is in the details, but these should wait. The first goal ought to be encouraging states attending the New York summit in September to offer a simple endorsement of Annan’s proposal. Vigorous negotiations would follow, but from a good starting point. The E.U. is heading in this direction, though some of its members remain enamored by the status quo.

The early, halcyon days of the Commission saw the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other important covenants. History’s most evil empire had been destroyed, and it was a time of naive optimism, when the world hoped to restore human dignity and even eradicate the scourge of war. Today, after witnessing the return of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda and today’s Sudan, reality has hardened us. Yet in a year that has opened horizons for democracy in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq, Lebanon, even perhaps in Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, let us dare to believe that humanity can still do better.

The post Issue 132: Time to Rally for Annan’s Human Rights Reform appeared first on UN Watch.

Analysis:  The resolution is non-binding and went virtually unnoticed by the media.  Which may be just as well, given that the procedures contemplated may not even exist.  Still, the Senate’s call to suspend Sudan raises issues worthy of careful consideration by those seeking to improve the UN’s handling of human rights.

It is clear that the Senate was primarily interested in making a statement, one that would rightly pressure Sudan to end its widespread killings.  The bi-partisan resolution, accompanied by powerful speeches from both Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist and Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle, comes within the context of Washington’s leadership role in the diplomatic campaign to halt the atrocities as well as its significant relief efforts for Darfurs victims.

It is less clear, however, whether anyone on Capitol Hill ever really thought this through.  For one thing, the remedy called for is essentially unavailable if not legally, then politically.

States are elected for rotating terms to the Commission on Human Rights by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), according to regional allocations.  Suspension or removal of a state from the Commission is nowhere mentioned in ECOSOC’s Rules of Procedure, and has no precedent.  On the other hand, Rule 24 does grant ECOSOC a broad power to define the composition of the Commission, suggesting there is nothing to prohibit a state from requesting a special session to challenge Sudan’s membership. Legally, then, suspension might be achievable.

Politically, however, it is highly unlikely.  Since the U.S. has yet to request a special session of the Commission on Human Rights regarding Sudan – despite its April 23 promise to do exactly that – it would seem strange for it to request one of ECOSOC, which, despite being the Commissions parent body, carries a decidedly lower profile in public consciousness. Yet even if it were feasible to oust Sudan from the Commission, would this be a good idea?  Our instinct says yes.  After all, how can a body associated with human rights be  governed by a state responsible for the worlds most appalling human rights violations?  Sudan’s membership – which was renewed by ECOSOC in May, prompting the U.S. representative to walk out in protest – sullies the Commission if not the very concept of human rights.

However, one needs to consider unintended consequences.  If we are to adopt the proposition that Sudan must be expelled because scoundrels cannot sit on a body dedicated to virtue, by implication we risk turning all surviving members into saints.  Members such as Saudi Arabia, which treats women as chattel;  Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe brings oppression and starvation to a country once known for its bounty; China, which persecutes religious minorities; or Egypt, which imprisons dissidents for exposing its fraudulent elections, promotes anti-Semitism in its state-run media, and tortures homosexuals.  Will the U.S. and its democratic allies seek their suspension, and others like them, too?

Since the answer is no, perhaps we are better simply to acknowledge that the Commission on Human Rights, a once-proud institution, has been taken over by abuser regimes seeking to defend each other from censure – and that membership tells nothing of a country’s record, only of its success in the latest round of UN horse-trading.

Or, of course, we could attempt real reform of the Commission.  But that cannot be achieved on an ad hoc basis, however well-intentioned.  Interesting proposals exist. One idea is to require threshold criteria for membership in the Commission, such as ratification of the main human rights treaties; prompt reporting to UN human rights bodies; and issuing open invitations to UN human rights investigators.  Further, states recently condemned by the Commission for serious rights violations would be disqualified.  Sergio Vieira de Mello, the late High Commissioner for Human Rights, had stressed the need for a code of guidelines for membership of the Commission, and a code of conduct for serving members.  The more formal the criteria, the easier to enforce.

These and other proposals for UN reform require thorough debate by the international community.  Saving the victims of Sudan’s ethnic cleansing requires immediate action.

The post Issue 122: U.S. Senate Urges Suspension of Sudan from UN Commission on Human Rights appeared first on UN Watch.

And is there honor, too, among the world’s free states?

In the answer to this question lies the fate of the UN.  For if democracy’s supporters cannot join together with greater strength and determination than its foes – to wit, if democratic India and South Africa persist in voting as the dictatorships do – then the world body will continue to hemorrhage the legitimacy needed to fulfill its founding vision.

Regrettably, too many democracies adhere to alliances organized around the accidents of geography, or dated ethnic, Third World or Cold War groupings.  Free nations, instead, ought to be voting their values.  What the UN needs – what the world needs – is a democracy caucus.

Fortunately, over the past few years, momentum has been gathering to achieve this very goal.  Well over 100 nations have come together – first at Warsaw in 2000 and then again at Seoul in 2002 – to build an alliance known as the Community of Democracies (CD).  Nations in the CD have committed themselves to consolidating their own democratic institutions, and to working with other countries regionally and globally to encourage democratization.  Importantly, the group has expressly mandated cooperation at the UN – a Democracy Caucus.

But can it actually work?  Skeptics rightfully question how the CD’s coalition of over 100 countries can accomplish anything.  This involves two intertwined objections.  One concerns the difficulty of managing that many members.  The second, though, goes to the very ideological raison d’etre of the group.  A big and inclusive tent looks nice, but, by embracing those whose democracy credentials are dubious at best, may ultimately stand for nothing.

The management challenge is real.  Nevertheless, the accomplishments speak for themselves.  Progress has been achieved by delegating leadership into the hands of the initial 10-member Convening Group, made up of Chile, India, Poland, the Czech Republic, the U.S.A., Mali, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, and South Korea.  Energized by the infectious dynamism of the new democracies, this steering committee successfully oversaw the full CD’s adoption of the 2000 Warsaw Declaration, which affirmed core democratic principles and practices, and the 2003 Seoul Action Plan, which prescribed regional organization and education for democracy and good governance.

Thus, in 2003, Romania hosted a Regional Conference and NGO Forum that emphasized transparency and accountabilty in public institutions as a prerequisite for strengthening democracy.  (Ceaucescu must be rolling in his grave.)  The Convening Group is now preparing for the CD’s next major assembly in early 2005, in Santiago, Chile.  It may be a big group, but things are getting done.

Moreover, notwithstanding the CD’s big-tent approach, it affirmed its core principles before the Seoul conference by deliberately excluding numerous countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan and Malaysia.  Furious, Hosni Mubarak, Pervez Musharraf and Mahathir Mohamad all refused offers to send observers.  Yet those who did gain admission, from Albania to Uruguay, had all the more reason to feel their invitation was worth something.

At the UN, the CD’s cooperation is only in its infancy.  But its baby steps are worth noting, if only to envision how they can become strides toward a mature and cohesive alliance. <>

One year ago, the Convening Group expressly encouraged the formation of “coalitions and caucuses within the UN” to support democracy.  Specifically, it called for consultation and coordinated action at the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Commission on Human Rights.

Wasting no time, the March 2004 session of the Commission on Human Rights saw its first meeting of CD member states.  Their communiquי reaffirmed human rights and the essential elements of representative democracy.  Also, the Convening Group helped draft three resolutions promoting democracy.

These texts were not designed to provoke controversy, but at least two of them did exactly that.  For the resolution on good governance and human rights, Cuba insisted upon a separate vote to oppose the paragraph that dared to mention the Community of Democracies.  (Similarly, at the informal sessions preceding the Commission, Malaysia was incensed by the same reference.)  And on the resolution for enhancing the role of organizations in promoting democracy, eight countries abstained, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and China – with Cuba charging that the text ignored the world’s “various different forms of democracy.”  Interestingly, states voting on this resolution did not keep discipline as members of the Asian Group, Arab League, or Non-Aligned Movement — rather, each had to decide if it supported democracy or not.  Perhaps the old alliances are penetrable after all.

After the Commission, Convening Group representatives in Geneva have continued to meet regularly under Chile’s leadership, brainstorming on further collaborations.  And in a few weeks’ time, coinciding with the General Assembly’s 59th session, CD foreign ministers will assemble in New York to discuss future cooperation at the UN.  They ought to adopt concrete measures to entrench the Democracy Caucus, such as the assignment of an active convening Chair, with a permanent staff to coordinate consultations and common positions.

It’s high time for democracies to stick together – not “thick as thieves”, but thicker.

The post Issue 121: Create a Democracy Caucus at the UN appeared first on UN Watch.

URGING UN TO PROTECT VICTIMS: In a statement under Agenda Item 11 (Civil and Political Rights), Jonathan Goldberg, UN Watch’s Morris B. Abram Fellow, implored the Commission to end its traditional silence over the violation of political rights in Zimbabwe, women’s rights in Iran and religious rights in China. So long as these regimes escape censure, the UN’s top human rights body, Goldberg said, is “sheltering the perpetrators, not the victims.” In Zimbabwe, Goldberg added:

the Mugabe regime continues to trample political rights with impunity. Right now, the leader of the democratic opposition is being prosecuted for treason-when his true crime is being an opponent of the President. Of 57 members of parliament in the Movement for Democratic Change, about 50 have been charged with crimes.

In Iran, noted UN Watch, the theocracy’s treatment of women “is no less disquieting. Women who dare to dress ‘immodestly’ […] risk public humiliation, and sometimes violence.”

UN Watch similarly demanded action regarding China’s treatment of Tibetans. The Commission was called upon to “be true to the UN Charter-which seeks ‘to affirm faith in fundamental human rights'”-and not to “give sanctuary to those who would deny it.” In the end, Commission members failed to propose any resolution on Iran, while measures concerning China and Zimbabwe were voted down by procedural “no action” motions.

EXPOSING UN DISCRIMINATION: The Commission was very active, however, in singling out one member state for unequal treatment. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is typically targeted with five resolutions. This year, in addition, a “Special Sitting” was urgently convened, requested by the Islamic states, to discuss Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.

Speaking on behalf of UN Watch, Executive Director Hillel Neuer took the floor to challenge the very legitimacy of the debate:

The convening of this Special Sitting is yet one more egregious illustration of the unending pattern and practice of discrimination by this Commission against one state. […] Is the Commission practicing equality when, out of 192 states, only one is singled out, year after year, for differential and discriminatory treatment? […] When every state may join a regional grouping-which is a necessity for meaningful UN participation — except one, Israel?

ADVOCATING UN RAPPORTEUR FOR SYRIAN-OCCUPIED LEBANON: When the Special Sitting ended-strongly condemning the “tragic assassination” of Yassin-the Commission returned to the topic originally under discussion: “Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine.” This Agenda Item, which on its face applies to any Occupied Arab Territory, was in the past only used to single out alleged violations by Israel. UN Watch was apparently the first to recognize, in a statement delivered by Neuer, that the Item’s mandate allows consideration of other states as well:

Syria’s occupation of Lebanon is in open violation of Security Council Resolution 425 and Resolution 520, which demand the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty […] Syria’s denial of the Lebanese nation’s inherent right to self-determination, its suppression of their fundamental freedoms […] is symptomatic of the Syrian regime’s overall disregard and disdain for human dignity and human rights.

This approach, said UN Watch, “was underscored in recent weeks by Syrian police crackdowns against peaceful human rights protesters in Damascus, and the killing of Kurds in Qamishli.”

Though states rarely engage NGO statements, Syria and Lebanon both requested a right of reply. While they failed to refute any of the specific violations cited by UN Watch, the ambassadors insisted that Syrian forces were in Lebanon as part of “fraternal relations between the two nations.” And if the UN Watch representative would visit Syria, he would see that “all live in peaceful coexistence.” The Syrian ambassador objected to any discussion of his country under this Item, which “should not be a platform for jokes.” However, the U.S. representative asserted unequivocally that UN Watch had the right to address Syrian violations.

As expected, under Item 8 the Commission passed resolutions solely against Israel. Nevertheless, as UN Watch demonstrated, so long as this Item remains on the Agenda, Syria, and the Beirut regime it controls, run the risk that, through a device designed to target Israel, their violations will again be exposed before the world.

The post Issue 120: UN Watch speaks at the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights appeared first on UN Watch.

At the Commission, now more than ever, it is the inmates who are running the asylum.

Consider the past three years.  First, in 2001, the United States was unprecedently denied a seat at the Commission’s 53-member table.  Hard lobbying by China and Cuba, aimed at muzzling their strongest critic, produced a tacit alliance with Europe, who, long before the row over Iraq, was looking to put Washington in its place.

Next, in the 2002 session, America’s removal led to what government-controlled Iranian TV trumpeted as “a very important and decisive development.”  After a UN human rights expert reported on the Islamic Republic’s chilling practices — flogging of youths, systematic discrimination against women, “public and especially cruel executions”, torture and killing of political activists — members of the Commission, driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), voted down any attempt at reproving Tehran.  And then they fired the expert.

Finally, in 2003, the veil was gone:  Colonel Khadaffi’s jamhariyah, the “state of the masses” whose record of abuse Human Rights Watch described as “appalling”, was chosen to be Chair of the UN’s top human rights body.  Only Canada and Guatamela joined the U.S. in opposition; Europe abstained.  Any remaining vestige of the Commission’s legitimacy evaporated overnight.

The current session, just underway, looks like a repeat.  Already, Cuba rejected an expert report on its imprisonment of dissidents, barring its author from visiting the Communist island.  The Palestinians advocated more “armed means” (read: bus bombings) against Israel. The Pakistanis, acting for the OIC, have just pushed through a special sitting to discuss the killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.  Their goal:  ignore the spreading fires of terror that hit Madrid, Karbala and Ashdod, and condemn the legitimate attempts to put them out.

Amid all the darkness, however, three new stars may shine light on this session, and the CHR’s future direction.

This year’s Chair is Ambassador Michael Smith of Australia. The obstacles are many, but he is sincerely seeking reform.  Another luminary is Richard Williamson, head of the U.S. delegation.  He is vigorously advancing a vision of freedom as the birthright of all, demanding that states such as Burma, Iran or North Korea put an end to their abusive policies and practices, whether against women’s equality, the rights of children or of ethnic and religious minorities.  Finally, Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, a former international prosecutor, will later this year become High Commissioner.  Hopes are high that she will emulate the independent-minded Sergio de Mello, murdered last year by terrorists in Iraq.

Ultimately, reform of the Commission depends on the will of democracies to form their own alliance.  A caucus is materializing in connection with the emerging Community of Democracies.  Should the Commission’s new leading lights wish to adopt a project that stands to make a real difference for human rights victims worldwide, this is the one.

The post Issue 119: Opening of the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights appeared first on UN Watch.