48-page study disproves “inflated claims” of Arbour critics and defenders

Geneva, August 4, 2008  — A new study on Louise Arbour’s performance as UN rights chief gives her mixed reviews on confronting violators, and urges her replacement, Navanethem Pillay, to adopt a stronger approach toward UN heavyweights such as China, Russia and Egypt. The Right to Name and Shame, a 48-page report by UN Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva that monitors the United Nations, was presented today at the inaugural meeting of the UN Human Rights Council’s expert advisors. The report is the first to scrutinize the tenure of a UN high commissioner for human rights.  Click Here for Full Report: “The Right to Name and Shame”

“Critics and defenders of Arbour’s record seem to agree on one thing: the best measure of her success as High Commissioner is the degree to which she properly criticized countries that violate human rights,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, who oversaw the report.

“Bearing neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, the UN’s top human rights official must make use of her unique bully pulpit to name and shame violators, throwing a spotlight on their abuses,” said Neuer.

How Arbour carried out this mission is thoroughly analyzed in the UN Watch’s report. The first part examines every one of her official UN statements issued in 2007 and 2008, measuring Arbour’s criticisms of countries. The second part is an in-depth analysis of Arbour’s approach toward selected regions.

The statistics will surprise critics in the U.S. Congress who accused Arbour of “spend[ing] her time condemning democracies and defending tyrants.” The report shows that, in her UN statements during 2007 and 2008, Arbour criticized 40 different countries, many of them ruled by non-democratic regimes. Out of 79 critical statements, only 10 were directed at countries rated as free by Freedom House, like Canada, Italy and Japan. The other 69 were directed at countries with poor human rights records, including Angola, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe.

Defenders of Arbour’s record may be equally surprised. Contrary to claims that Arbour “routinely singled out” China and Russia “for fierce criticism,” the UN Watch report shows that, in her official statements over 2007 and 2008, Arbour criticized China only once—and that she never said a word about Russia, where democracy has severely deteriorated.

In a March 2008 interview with the Washington Post, Arbour acknowledged using a softer approach on both countries — who wield great power at the UN — saying she chose a strategy of private engagement “that is likely to yield some positive results” over one that “would make me and a lot of others feel good.” As a U.N. official, the Post interview related, “[Arbour] was constrained by the reality of the organization’s power centers, including China, Russia and the Group of 77, a bloc of more than 130 developing countries. In that context, she said, ‘naming and shaming is a loser’s game.’”

“Indeed, the report’s most disturbing findings,” said Neuer, “are that in the period examined, Arbour published no statements at all for victims in 153 countries—places where human rights range from poor to appalling, including Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Viet Nam and Yemen. Arbour’s oft-repeated mantra was the fight against impunity. The reality, though, is that, despite Arbour’s other accomplishments, many serial abusers were granted effective impunity.”

Beyond the statistics, the report features a qualitative assessment of Arbour’s treatment of selected regions, giving her high grades for taking on Sudan and Myanmar. Arbour rightly held the U.S. accountable for violations in Iraq and elsewhere, according to the report, but her methods may have been counter-productive, including her filing of legal briefs in U.S. and Iraqi court proceedings, an intervention that she used for no other country.

In the Middle East, the report found that Arbour spoke out against Iran’s violations of women’s rights and its executions. However, unlike other high UN officials, she failed to address President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and calls to eliminate Israel. “By contrast,” said Neuer, “Arbour did issue statements about perceived offenses to Islam, unintentionally encouraging 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 Arab-dominated Human Rights Council, whose resolutions have justified Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, her statements were disproportionately weighted against Israel. Arbour rarely if ever criticized 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,” said Neuer. “As the new high commissioner, Pillay should do her utmost to ensure that situations of gross violations around the world do not go ignored. To balance the selectivity and politicization that is undermining the Human Rights Council, Pillay must take advantage of her independence to assert a universal approach based instead on objective human rights standards.”

________________________________________________________________________________

Le droit de nommer et humilier

Une analyse du bilan de Louise Arbour, Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme sortant, et recommendations pour la nouvelle chef des droits de l’Homme à l’ONU, Navanethem Pillay

Genève, le 4 aout 2008 — Aujourdh’hui, UN Watch a publié son rapport sur le bilan du mandat de Louise Arbour, Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme sortant. Pour lire l’integralité du rapport en anglais, cliquez ici.

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.

Pour lire l’integralité du rapport en anglais, cliquez ici

The post New Report Gives UN Rights Chief Mixed Reviews on Confronting Rights Violators appeared first on UN Watch.

48-page study disproves “inflated claims” of Arbour critics and defenders

Geneva, August 4, 2008  — A new study on Louise Arbour’s performance as UN rights chief gives her mixed reviews on confronting violators, and urges her replacement, Navanethem Pillay, to adopt a stronger approach toward UN heavyweights such as China, Russia and Egypt. “The Right to Name and Shame,” the 49-page report by UN Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva that monitors the United Nations, is the first of its kind to review the tenure of a UN high commissioner for human rights. The report was authored by Canadian international lawyer Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. An executive summary of the report follows below.

Click Here for Full Report: “The Right to Name and Shame”

________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary

The Right to Name and Shame

An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, With Recommendations for High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay

Navanethem Pillay’s replacement of Louise Arbour as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights requires an examination of the responsibilities and priorities of a critical international position, one 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 review of the recently concluded—and controversial—tenure of former High Commissioner Louise Arbour. The 48-page report, with four detailed tables of statistics and analysis, 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.
________________________________________________________________________________

Le droit de nommer et humilier

Une analyse du bilan de Louise Arbour, Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme sortant, et recommendations pour la nouvelle chef des droits de l’Homme à l’ONU, Navanethem Pillay

Genève, le 4 aout 2008 — Aujourdh’hui, UN Watch a publié son rapport sur le bilan du mandat de Louise Arbour, Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme sortant. Pour lire l’integralité du rapport en anglais, cliquez ici.

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.

Pour lire l’integralité du rapport en anglais, cliquez ici.

The post New Report Gives Louise Arbour Mixed Reviews on Confronting Rights Violators appeared first on UN Watch.

Aug. 4, 2008
Op-Ed by Alfred H. Moses, UN Watch Chair

Is the United Nations’ follow-up to the racist 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism headed for the same fate? Perhaps. In response to the newly released UN blueprint for next April’s Durban II in Geneva, EU members need to defend the red lines set by France, the UK and the Netherlands.

What went wrong with Durban I? Despite its supposedly universal intentions, compromises were made to satisfy the non-aligned group of 118 countries, dominated by Islamic states.

Slavery was and is evil. But by addressing only the trans-Atlantic slave trade of previous centuries while ignoring the modern Arab slave trade and other forms of slavery, the 2001 conference showed itself to be more concerned with scoring points than promoting human rights.

Read More

UN Watch Releases Major Report on Tenure of Former UN Rights Chief Louise Arbour

UN Watch this week released a major study of Louise Arbour’s performance as UN rights chief over the past four years, refuting inflated claims made by both her critics and defenders, and giving the Canadian jurist mixed reviews on how she took on violators. Click here for report. The report also offers concrete recommendations for her replacement, Navanethem Pillay of South Africa, urging her to adopt a stronger approach in confronting UN heavyweights like China, Russia and Egypt.

Critics and defenders of Arbour’s record seem to agree on one thing: a principal measure of her efficacy and success as High Commissioner is the degree to which she properly criticized countries that violate human rights. Bearing neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, the UN’s top human rights official must make use of her unique bully pulpit to name and shame violators, throwing a spotlight on their abuses.

How Arbour carried out this mission is thoroughly analyzed in UN Watch’s 48-page report, “The Right to Name and Shame,” released today at inaugural meeting of the UN Human Rights Council’s expert advisors. The first part examines every one of her official UN statements issued in 2007 and 2008, precisely measuring Arbour’s criticisms of countries. Detailed tables show the 40 countries that Arbour criticized, with comparative analysis; the 153 countries that she did not criticize; and an examination of the 2008-2009 membership of the UN Human Rights Council — the countries that new High Commissioner Pillay will have to deal with. The final part of the report provides in-depth analysis of Arbour’s approach toward selected regions.

Click for more

Défis majeurs pour la nouvelle chef des droits de l’homme à l’ONU

par Hillel Neuer, directeur exécutif de UN Watch

Après sa nomination au poste de Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’homme à l’ONU, qui devrait être rendue officielle aujourd’hui, la juge sud-africaine Navanethem Pillay, qui remplacera la Canadienne Louise Arbour, devra immédiatement faire face à trois défis majeurs pour écarter les attaques, de plus en plus nombreuses, menées contre les libertés individuelles dans le monde.

Dans un premier temps, Mme Pillay devra intégrer rapidement les différences qui existent entre une position de juge à la Cour pénale internationale de la Haye, où la délibération est le maître mot, et un poste de Haut Commissaire aux droits de l’homme, qui requiert un pouvoir de décision et d’influence sans égal. Mme Pillay ne devra pas hésiter à exposer les pires violations des droits de l’homme dans le monde, comme les massacres au Darfour, la brutalité de la junte militaire en Birmanie, les persécutions en Chine ou encore la destruction du Zimbabwe par Mugabe.Cliquez ici pour en savoir plus.

More Than Just Talk

By Ban Ki Moon

Detractors often call the United Nations a “talking shop” of 192 nations where, it has memorably been said, “no issue is too small to be debated endlessly.”

But the real UN, almost invisible to the general public, is the action-oriented UN. This real UN feeds 90 million people in more than 70 countries – forming a thin blue line between hungry people and starvation. It wipes out debilitating diseases like smallpox and polio and vaccinates 40 percent of the world’s children. It provides $2 billion annually in emergency disaster relief and maintains the second-largest army in the world – a global peacekeeping force of 120,000 men and women who go where others can’t or won’t go. Read More

Qaddafi Tells Durban II of “Racism Against Maids,” as Son Arrested for Beating Maid at Geneva Hotel

Many newspapers over the past few weeks have reported on Libya’s hostile measures against Switzerland and its citizens. Few, though, have noted the irony of it all, in several ways tied to the UN.

The conflict began after Hannibal, the youngest son of Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi, and his wife Aline were arrested by Geneva police in their luxury hotel, which is situated next to the UN human rights office. Two of their servants, a Moroccan man and a Tunisian woman, had complained of being beaten with a belt and coat hanger, causing hotel staff to call in the authorities. The 32-year-old son of the desert despot has a long record of violent run-ins with the law across European capitals.

The couple were charged with assault. Hannibal spent two evenings in detention while his wife, who came to Geneva to give birth, was transferred to a maternity unit. Released on $500,000 bail, they flew back to Libya escorted by doctors from Geneva’s main hospital. Read More: Libya’s Durban II pledge to fight “racism against maids”

“The Bad Boy of Diplomacy”: Israel’s Maariv magazine cover story on UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer

Yesterday’s magazine section of Maariv, Israel’s second-largest newspaper, featured a cover story on the work of UN Watch. “UN Watch is a non-profit organization whose role is to monitor the various United Nations councils and to make sure that they are faithfully performing their duties and meet the criteria that the UN set for them in its founding charter,” reported Maariv. “With the help of research, routine contact with ambassadors and regular appearances before the Human Rights Council, UN Watch has successfully influenced public opinion by means of leading media outlets around the world, such as the New York Times, the Economist, Al-Jazeera and others. Its impact has been clear.” Click here for PDF scan of the article

UN Watch Quoted by BBC, Reuters, Agence France-Presse,Agencia EFE, Press Trust of India, front page of Ottawa Citizen, and more…

The post Issue 178: Alfred Moses Op-Ed on Durban II, Report on Louise Arbour, Qaddafi Jr. Arrested for Beating Maid appeared first on UN Watch.

New UN Watch Report gives former commissioner Arbour mixed reviews

Geneva, July 18, 2008 — The UN’s new human rights chief, Vanethem Pillay of South Africa, will need to fend off increased threats to individual freedoms around the world, UN Watch said today.

“We look forward to working with Judge Pillay in Geneva,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring organization based there.

He identified three major challenges facing the UN’s new human rights commissioner.

“First, Pillay will need to use her unique bully pulpit to throw a spotlight on the world’s worst violations, including Sudan’s mass killings in Darfur, Burmese brutality, Chinese persecution, and Mugabe’s destruction of Zimbabwe,” said Neuer.

A UN Watch report (click for draft) to be released next week on Louise Arbour, Pillay’s predecessor, found that her UN statements in 2007 and 2008 addressed violations by 40 countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Nepal, Iraq, the U.S. and Sudan.

However, the report also found that Arbour kept silent on systematic violations by Russia and Egypt, and issued only one statement on China. Arbour has admitted holding back with certain governments. “Because Pillay is from Africa,” said Neuer, “we hope she will have the political leeway to go where some Westerners feared to tread.

“Second, Pillay needs to serve as a counter to the UN Human Rights Council, which is in a dramatic, downward spiral, and resist the latest attempt by its members to subject her office to their direction.”

In the past year, the council eliminated its protective mandates for victims in Cuba, Belarus, and Congo (DRC). At its March and June sessions, the council imposed new curbs on freedom of speech in deference to Islamic sensitivities, altering its mandate on freedom of expression and restricting what NGOs can say during plenary debates. Another resolution threatens retaliation against council experts who cite countries for violations.

“Pillay must vigorously defend the vital role at the council played by experts and human rights groups. The repressive regimes that dominate the council systematically harass NGOs, repeatedly interrupting them during debates.”

Third, Neuer noted that Pillay, who was born in Durban, now inherits the dubious post of secretary-general of the Durban Review Conference, the UN’s upcoming sequel to the 2001 world conference on racism in South Africa, which was itself accused of stoking racism and anti-Semitism.

France, the U.K. and the Netherlands have threatened to walk away from the April 2009 conference in Geneva if it appears headed to replay the fiasco of 2001. Canada has already announced that it will not attend, and the current U.S. administration has voiced a similar view.

“The preparatory sessions and the latest draft declaration for Durban II—a process chaired by Libya, with Iran as vice-chair—shows alarming signs that we are in for a replay of the worst excesses of 2001,” said Neuer. “Pillay has a singular responsibility, and hopefully the credibility, to ensure that the world anti-racism effort is not once again hijacked by the forces of hatred.”

The post UN’s New Rights Chief Must Counter Global Assault Against Individual Liberty appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, July 8, 2008 — The UN’s human rights office announced today that it will pay NGOs up to $2,000 each to attend the upcoming African regional meeting in preparation for the 2009 Durban Review Conference on racism.Click here for UN lump-sum info

Despite assurances to the contrary, this means that the UN will likely wind up funding groups such as the Cairo-based Arab Lawyers Union, which circulated anti-Semitic materials at the original 2001 conference in South Africa, including Nazi-like caricatures that depicted Jews with hook-noses and fangs.

Although the UN announcement only refers to NGO funding for the August 24-26, 2008 preparatory meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, observers expect a similar policy to be applied to the April 2009 final conference to be held in Geneva.

The UN human rights office’s $214 million annual budget, drawn from the general UN budget and voluntary contributions, is mostly paid by Western countries.

UN Declares: Islamic Shari’a Taboo in Council Debates

Geneva — From now on, all references to human rights violations related to Islamic Shar’ia law are prohibited in the chamber of the UN Human Rights Council. So ruled council president Doru Costea after a dramatic debate in the recently concluded June session.

It all started when veteran rights activist David Littman — undaunted by the repressive regimes who only last month sought to expel him from the UN — tried to deliver a speech on violence against women and what Islamic scholars can do to prevent it.

Egypt’s Amr Roshdy Hassan repeatedly interrupted, aggressively challenging the council president: “Regardless of the result of the vote — I couldn’t care less if I will win or lose this vote — my point is that Islam will not be crucified in this council!”

The president ultimately gave in, declaring: “Statements should refrain from making judgments or evaluations of a particular religion. . . I can promise that at the next evaluation of a religious creed, law, or document, I will interrupt the speaker and we’ll go on to the next one.”

The new ruling follows an Islamic-sponsored text adopted by the council in March that turned its mandate on freedom of expression upside down. Instead of investigating the actions of governments in order to protect individual freedom, the expert is now charged with investigating individuals — those who “abuse” their freedom of speech through religious or racial discrimination, i.e., by saying anything deemed offensive to Islamic sensibilities. Everyone in the world is now potentially subject to the UN’s new speech control.

What does all of this signify?

An iron curtain has descended across the world’s highest human rights body. Behind that line lie all the human rights violations committed in the name of a certain religion, about which no one dare speak: suicide terror attacks, honor killings, female genital mutilation, forced child marriage, violence against gays, stonings, state censorship of free speech, jailing of bloggers, prohibitions against freedom of religion, and much, much more.

UN officials, diplomats and even major human rights figures have been afraid to take on this new regime, which now exercises an almost total control over the Human Rights Council, as well as increasing measures of influence over other forums of world opinion.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil,” said Edmund Burke, “is that good men do nothing.” Would that more people showed the courage of Mr. Littman.

Click here for full transcript of UN debate

UN Watch Quoted in National Post: “Arbour exits bruising UN posting”

By Graeme Hamilton

Montreal, June 21 — As United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour has made her share of enemies during the past four years. But with her term expiring on June 30, the former Supreme Court of Canada judge surely never expected that the most ferocious parting shot would come from back home.

On Tuesday, Vic Toews, Conservative MP and Treasury Board President, called Ms. Arbour “a disgrace” in the House of Commons. He later elaborated that “the comments that Louise Arbour has made in respect of the state of Israel and the people of Israel are, in fact, a disgrace, and I stand by those words.”

Far from dressing down Mr. Toews, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s spokesman noted that the government congratulates Ms. Arbour on her “career” but added that it “hasn’t always agreed with the positions she has taken.”

As Ms. Arbour has noted, getting under people’s skins is part of the role of the high commissioner, which she assumed in 2004. “It would be extremely problematic to do this kind of work and make only friends,” she told CBC in March. But what is striking about her tenure is the degree to which her enemies are found not just in repressive dictatorships but in modern democracies. Critics accuse her of focusing too much on Israel and the United States, leaving the impression that they are abusers on a par with terrorists and tyrants.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, has taken exception to much that Ms. Arbour has done in the Middle East. (Although even he thinks Mr. Toews went too far: “That’s not the kind of language we would use.”)

“There is no question that in her statements she has applied a double standard,” he said. “Israel, of course, has to be held accountable… The problem was that she made no distinction between terrorist groups that celebrate every time they hit civilians as a victory, as opposed to Israel, which is trying to defend itself from terrorist groups, and which regards every civilian killed in collateral damage as a tragedy.”

Ms. Arbour angered supporters of Israel when during the 2006 war in Lebanon, she said Israeli commanders were courting possible war-crimes prosecution. “The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control,” she said. Later, during a visit to Israel, she implied that Israel was more deserving of blame because the terrorist rockets were rarely lethal, whereas the Israelis displayed “recklessness” and “catastrophic” civilian casualties were foreseeable.

Mr. Neuer said such statements play into Hezbollah’s hands. “The effect was really to encourage extremists,” he said. “I’m sure her intentions are pure, but I think it’s part of an ideology that does see America and Israel as part of the problem and not part of the solution.”

Click for more

UN’s Expert on Palestine Repeats Sept. 11 “Inside Job” Theory

FoxNews.Com
By Joseph Abrams

June 19, 2008 — Critics are calling for the resignation of a U.N. official who publicly supports investigating theories that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an “inside job.”
Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, investigates alleged Israeli violations of human rights law for the U.N.’s Human Rights Council.

But the former Princeton professor would also like to investigate whether “some sort of controlled explosion from within” destroyed the Twin Towers, he told FOXNews.com.

“I do think there are questions that haven’t been answered, questions about the way the buildings collapsed and the failure to heed a variety of signals that there was danger coming,” Falk said…

Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a non-governmental organization that monitors the U.N., wants Falk removed from his job.

“He should resign,” said Neuer, who raised concerns about Falk’s ability to be an objective observer…

Click for more

Nouveau : UN Watch lance son site en français

UN Watch vient de lancer aujourd’hui la version française de son site Internet. Les francophones ont désormais accès aux publications de UN Watch – et autres – en français sur des sujets clefs concernant les Nations Unies, les droits de l’Homme, Israël et le Proche-Orient, ou encore l’antisémitisme. Le site offre une sélection, pour l’instant modeste, des principaux travaux de UN Watch et sera étendu par la suite. Pour accéder à la version française du site de UN Watch, cliquez ici.

Despite 4 Million Dead, UN Eliminates Congo Human Rights Investigation; UN Watch Protests in Plenary Speech

In testimony before the June session of the UN Human Rights Council, UN Watch called the 47-nation body to task for its recent elimination of the country mandate investigating the Democratic Republic of Congo, “a place where conflict over the last eight years has led to four million deaths.” Intern Daniel Kuhn delivered the speech. Click for video and text

Article par Alfred H. Moses, président de UN Watch, dans Le Temps: “L’UE doit agir dès maintenant pour sauver Durban II”

1 Juillet 2008 — Hier lundi s’est ouverte la réunion du comité des Nations unies chargée d’entamer les négociations sur le contenu de la déclaration finale de «Durban II», la conférence de suivi du très controversé sommet mondial contre le racisme de Durban en 2001, qui se tiendra à Genève en avril 2009.

Est-elle condamnée à subir le même sort que Durban I? Non. L’Union européenne (UE) peut encore sauver le processus en agissant, dès maintenant, avec fermeté. Suite à la publication du projet de travail de la conférence de Durban II, les pays démocratiques doivent défendre leurs lignes rouges…

Pour en savoir plus, cliquez ici

Directeur de UN Watch interviewé par Radio-Canada au sujet du bilan de Louise Arbour

Hillel Neuer, directeur exécutif de UN Watch, est interviewé par Radio-Canada au sujet du bilan de Louise Arbour, Haut Commissaire pour les droits de l’Homme. “Elle n’a pas su faire la différence entre ceux qui célèbrent la mort des civils et ceux qui perçoivent ces pertes comme une tragédie. En d’autres termes, elle a assimilé le pyromane et le pompier.”

Pour écouter et lire l’entretien, cliquez ici

The post Issue 176: UN Declares Islamic Shari’a Taboo; UN Watch lance son site en francais appeared first on UN Watch.

Following is a timeline of the events as they unfolded around the globe.

   Jan. 24, 2008, Geneva: High Commissioner Arbour issues an official statement: “I welcome the 7th ratification required to bring the Arab Charter on Human Rights into force… the Arab Charter on Human Rights is an important step forward [to] help strengthen the enjoyment of human rights.” At U.N. headquarters in New York, Marie Okabe, spokesperson for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, highlights Arbour’s statement at the daily press briefing . When asked by a journalist, she does not have the text of the charter.

   Jan. 25, 2008, United Arab Emirates: The Arab world takes note of Arbour’s support for the Arab Charter, prominently featured in this article by the United Arab Emirates news agency.

   Jan. 28, 2008, Geneva: UN Watch is the first to speak out, exposing the hateful provisions in the Arab Charter, and requesting action from Arbour. UN Watch sends her a detailed letter:

In addition, UN Watch sends out a press release to the international media urging immediate action.

   Jan. 29, 2008, World: UN Watch’s exposé of the Arab Charter is published around the world, including in Canada’s National Post, Switzerland’s Le Temps, theJerusalem Post, the Montreal Gazette, and Argentina’s Agencia de Noticias Judia.

   Jan. 30, 2008, Geneva & New York:  Arbour issues a clarification. Now she asserts that various Arab Charter provisions are “incompatible” with international norms. The UN headquarters in New York issues a new release entitled “Arab rights charter deviates from international standards” — a complete reversal from the signal sent by the original Jan. 24 statement, “High Commissioner for Human Rights Welcomes Ratification Bringing Into Force Arab Charter on Human Rights.”

Arbour’s new statement:

• “Throughout the development of the Arab Charter, my office shared concerns with the drafters about the incompatibility of some of its provisions with international norms and standards. These concerns included the approach to death penalty for children and the rights of women and non-citizens.”
• “Moreover, to the extent that it equates Zionism with racism, we reiterated that the Arab Charter is not in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 46/86, which rejects that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. OHCHR [the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] does not endorse these inconsistencies.”

   Feb. 1, 2008, Canada:  Newspaper editorials and letters throughout Arbour’s native Canada sharply criticize her original endorsement as well as her later clarification:

• “In the space of about 72 hours this week, the one-time poster girl of Canada’s legal establishment — former war crimes prosecutor, and Supreme Court Justice — had first endorsed, then backed away from endorsing (sort of) the Arab Charter on Human Rights,” wrote George Jonas, a columnist with Canada’s National Post. “Within three days, our fearless crusader for human rights — oops, wrong word, sorry — lapsed back into a sort of, well, shall we say, benign Canadian neutrality about a ‘regional’ charter, or ‘human rights’ as seen by a culture that has been known to greet mass murder with celebratory ululation. We don’t endorse it holus-bolus, you know; we endorse it only up to a point. Not the bad bits, just the other ones.”
• The Montreal Gazette editorial board concurred: “Her flip-flop this week on the new pan-Arab ‘human-rights charter’ — a watery document at best — was an embarrassment for a woman who is now the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This charter, which equates racism with Zionism and urges its signers to eliminate both, should have been quickly and firmly denounced as unacceptable.”
• “It will not do,” wrote John Robson of the Ottawa Citizen, “to claim that Ms. Arbour is too naive to grasp the context. Especially since the new UN Human Rights Council was created in 2006 largely because the old Human Rights Commission was so anti-Semitic it had become a public relations problem instead of just a moral one. She knows what these governments say at the UN, and what they applaud.”
• “Human rights are just that — rights for all humans, regardless of political ideology, ethnicity, religion or other category,” wrote the Calgary Herald. “That simple message seemed at first to be lost on Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights, when she uttered her support for an Arab charter on human rights that states ‘efforts must be deployed for (the) elimination’ of Zionism. Those who attack ‘Zionism’ which is merely the right of Israel to exist, would be highly unlikely to attack ‘Americanism’ or ‘Canadianism,’ denying those countries the right to exist, in the same manner they deny Israel.”
• In a separate column, the Herald’s Susan Martinuk added that “there was considerable expectation that Arbour was the one who would lead the UN to stand up to the world’s bullies … but now she has become more of the problem than the solution. [When] Arbour ‘clarified’ her position, she merely stated that the rejection of Zionism is contrary to a 1991 UN resolution. Not exactly reassuring. She shouldn’t get off the hook so easily. This isn’t the only instance in which Arbour has shown bad judgment and supported questionable documents.”
• “As high commissioner,” wrote the Winnipeg Free Press, “Ms. Arbour does not hold an official Canadian position at the UN, but as a former Canadian Supreme Court justice she is inextricably linked with this country in the mind of the international community. Her about-face on the Arab charter spares Canada the continued embarrassment of her original position but cannot erase the image it at first enforced.”
• And in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Brian Jones of The Telegram said that “We are long past the days when people could say, as many often did, ‘I’m not anti-Semitic. I’m just anti-Zionist.’ Even Amnesty International — no great friend of the Jewish state, ironically — expressed concern about the charter’s aim of ‘rejecting’ Zionism. It was one thing to reject Zionism in, say, 1890 or 1920 — i.e., to oppose the movement of Jews back to their ancestral homeland — but in 2008 the rejection of Zionism essentially entails denying the legitimacy of Israel as a state.”“Powerful people such as Arbour,” said Jones, “tread a dangerous path. At a time when the West should be unequivocally supporting Israel against its many enemies, they hem and haw and fudge and say, to all intents and purposes, ‘I’m not anti-Semitic, but …’ Just in case Arbour hasn’t noticed, the vast majority of violence in the world today can be traced to Islamic fundamentalists’ jihad against Zionism, or, to put it more clearly and bluntly, their hatred of Israel. Actions such as hers will merely help prolong and extend the violence.”

The post Issue 173: UN rights chief clarifies stance on Arab charter appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, Jan. 31 — UN Watch welcomed the new clarification issued today by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, in response to its Jan. 28, 2008 letter protesting her endorsement of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which contains anti-Semitic provisions.

“Last week the High Commissioner endorsed the Arab Charter, but today she has shown courage in criticizing its ‘incompatibility… with international norms and standards,’ and that’s a step forward,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director.  “We welcome Ms. Arbour’s recognition today that the Arab Charter includes ‘inconsistencies’ in regard to its approach to the death penalty for children, the rights of women and non-citizens, and anti-Zionism.”

“At the same time, we await a response to our demand that the UN official who advised the High Commissioner to sign the initial January 24 announcement be held fully accountable,” said Neuer.  “We are talking about someone who recommended the endorsing of a charter that promotes classically anti-Semitic themes, describing Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as uniquely evil, and advocating its ‘elimination.’  We trust that the High Commissioner — whose mandate centers on the notion of individual responsibility and accountability, and who opposes the culture of impunity — will lead by example and ask the responsible adviser to draw the necessary conclusions.”

“This latest episode only underscores the kind of dangers that are up ahead. With Ms. Arbour serving as secretary-general of the Durban Review process — ostensibly UN meetings to combat racism, but which is chaired by Libya with the help of Iran and Cuba — we trust that she will immediately and forcefully oppose any similar efforts to hijack the language and idea of human rights for anti-Zionism or to denigrate Western democracies,” said Neuer.

The post UN Watch Welcomes Clarification by UN Rights Chief on Arab Charter appeared first on UN Watch.

The post UN Rights Chief Must Clarify Endorsement of Arab Charter with Anti-Semitic Provisions appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, Jan. 16, 2008 – UN Watch expressed concern today after Sri Lanka’s representative in Geneva called the office of High Commissioner Louise Arbour “unqualified” to report on the island’s bloody conflict. Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, said it was legitimate to debate statements by the world body but was “disappointed that a vice-president of the Human Rights Council would negate a core duty of the UN’s highest human rights official.”

Earlier this week, Ms. Arbour issued a statement calling on all parties to the Sri Lankan conflict to respect international law and ensure the protection of civilians. Yesterday, in response, the office of Sri Lanka’s envoy to the Human Rights Council, Dayan Jayatilleka, called Arbour’s statement “gratuitous” and complained of “obvious bias” by her office. “The High Commissioner has once again proven . . . how unqualified the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is in monitoring and reporting human rights in Sri Lanka as an independent actor,” said the statement.

“We regret the use of ill-advised language and the disputing of the UN’s jurisdiction to monitor the events in Sri Lanka,” said Neuer.

The office of Ambassador Jayatilleka also repeated a charge often levelled by China and other countries who oppose scrutiny of their records, saying the “OHCHR should be more transparent in its funding and decision-making” and “more representative of the world’s peoples and regions in its composition.”

Neuer said Sri Lanka’s latest statement against High Commissioner Arbour’s office “only underscores the dangerous attempts by repressive regimes to eliminate all forms of independent human rights scrutiny.” China, Iran, Sudan and other members of the “Like Minded Group” successfully introduced a Human Rights Council resolution (HRC 4/6) in March 2007 that imposed geographic requirements, instead of merit, as the basis for staff hiring by Ms. Arbour’s office, and sought to curb her independence.

The post UN Watch Expresses Concern After Sri Lanka Rejects UN Human Rights Monitoring as ‘Unqualified’ appeared first on UN Watch.

“UN’s last chance to save the Human Rights Council from itself,” says UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer

Geneva, Nov. 2, 2007 —  A coalition of 27 non-governmental organizations is urging senior officials and member states of the U.N. to oppose a set of proposed changes to the Human Rights Council that would end that body’s scrutiny of abuses in Cuba and Belarus, obstruct resolutions that name specific countries for violations, and institute an Islamic-sponsored initiative to permanently censure Israel under a fixed agenda item.

In a letter sent today (see full text below) to Mr. Ban, the President of the General Assembly, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, and all 192 UN ambassadors, the NGO coalition—including the Geneva-based UN Watch, Freedom House, Directorio Democratico Cuba, and 24 other groups from Switzerland, Italy, Pakistan, Australia and Nigeria—urged the General Assembly to excise the regressive elements of the proposal that on Monday will be presented in person by Human Rights Council president Romulus De Costea.

The General Assembly will be asked next week to validate the much-criticized June 2007 changes adopted by the Human Rights Council, its subsidiary, by “taking note” of a report that contains the package. The General Assembly has full discretion to veto or modify any council decision. In the past, the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) successfully overturned several resolutions of its subsidiary, the discredited and now-defunct Commission on Human Rights. This past summer, ECOSOC reversed decisions by its Committee on NGOs in order to accredit two gay rights organizations.

“At a time when free speech and other basic liberties are increasingly under assault by Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus and Fidel Castro in Cuba, the proposal to fire the independent UN human rights experts who report on violations by both regimes—and to eliminate these mandates forever—is simply unconscionable,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “Despite what many thought in June, it’s not too late—UN officials and member states have one last chance to save the Human Rights Council from itself.”

According to Neuer, “the proposed changes to council procedures would also make it harder than ever before to introduce country resolutions against Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other serial abusers; intimidate the remaining ten independent experts through a restrictive ‘code of conduct’; and breach the promise of a clean agenda for the new council.”

Under the proposal, Section 7 of the council’s permanent agenda, the result of intense pressure from Arab and Islamic states, would revive what the UN Department of Public Information described last year as “the agenda item targeting Israel.” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon publicly criticized the proposed agenda item in a statement issued on June 20, 2007—for which he was rebuked by the Islamic bloc in the council plenary a month later—and High Commissioner Arbour, in letters sent to various NGOs, has called the item “selective.”

“To top it off,” said Neuer, “the June pact was rushed through in the darkness of night through unprecedented irregularities that included denying Canadian representative Terrence Cormier his right to vote.” For photos and a detailed timeline of the June drama at the council, click here .

Neuer noted that a majority of the General Assembly “proved twice last year that it can do the right thing for the victims in Belarus,” with a vote in December to censure the Lukashenko government for violations, and then successfully blocking its bid for a Human Rights Council seat in May.

______________________________

JOINT NGO LETTER SENT TO 192 UN MISSIONS, SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON, HIGH COMMISSIONER LOUISE ARBOUR, AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT

Dear Excellency,

Concerning next week’s General Assembly debate and proposed resolution on the Human Rights Council, on behalf of the 27 undersigned non-governmental organizations, we urge you to support amendment of the proposed text as follows, with our additions in bold.

Joint NGO Proposal:  General Assembly Resolution on the Human Rights Council

The General Assembly,

Taking note of Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007,

1.      Welcomes the text entitled ‘United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution-Building’, as contained in the annex to the present resolution, including its appendices, subject to the following amendments:
 

1. a)       The mandate of the independent expert to investigate the human rights situation in Cuba shall not be eliminated, and is hereby renewed;

1. b)       The mandate of the independent expert to investigate the human rights situation in Belarus shall not be eliminated, and is hereby renewed;

1. c)       Section 117(d) of the resolution, purporting to impose restrictions on the effective introduction of country resolutions, is hereby repealed; and

1. d)       Item 7 of the Agenda and Programme of Work, purporting to institutionalize the permanent indictment of Israel as a special agenda item, and which has been criticized by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human rights Louise Arbour, is hereby repealed.

2. Expresses its grave concern that on 19 June 2007, Canada, a Council member, was denied its right to vote on the resolution, and that the resolution was never put to the plenary for action, and calls on the Council in future sessions to fully respect the rules and procedures of the General Assembly.

*    *     *      *    *    *    *    *    *    *

Hillel Neuer
Executive Director
United Nations Watch
Switzerland

Jennifer Windsor
Executive Director
Freedom House
U.S.A.

Malka Claire Marcovich,
President
Mouvement pour l’Abolition de la Prostitution et de la Pornographie
et de toutes formes de violences sexuelles et discriminations sexistes (MAPP)
France

Paul Usi Elomien
Secretary- General
Community Social Welfare Foundation
Nigeria

Tom Johannesen
Secretary General
International Federation of Social Workers
Switzerland

Leah Aharonov
President
International Council of Jewish Women
Israel

François Ullmann
President
Ingenieurs du Monde
Switzerland

Ana Maria Stame Cervone
Main Representative
Centrist Democratic International
Italy

Mrs. Babette Francis
National & Overseas Co-ordinator
Endeavour Forum Inc.
Australia

Yolanda L. Jackson
International Liaison
Women’s Sports Foundation
U.S.A.

Gibreil Hamid
President
Darfur Peace and Development Centre
Switzerland

Roy W. Brown
International Representative
International Humanist and Ethical Union
Switzerland

Dr. Harris O. Schoenberg
President
UN Reform Advocates
U.S.A.

Abdul Wahab Khan
Chairman
Environmental Protection Society (EPS)
Pakistan

Klaus Netter
Geneva Representative
B’nai B’rith International

Rama Enav
Representative to the UN in Geneva
Women’s International Zionist Organization

Claude Mostowik msc
Convenor
Pax Christi Australia [NSW]
Australia

Rosario Monfort
Project Director
Women’s Board – ECS
Nigeria

Virginia Swain
ECOSOC Representative
Association of World Citizens
U.S.A.

Charmian Common
Geneva Representative
Universal Esperanto Association
France

John Suarez
Directorio Democratico Cubano

Jonathan Gallagher
Deputy Secretary General
International Religious Liberty Association
U.S.A.

Daniel Lack
Geneva Representative
International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists

Massimiliano Bettini
International Relations Executive
Vides International
Italy

Rabbi François Garaï
Main Representative
World Union for Progressive Judaism
Switzerland

Esohe Aghatise
Asociazione Iroko Onlus
Italy

Angela C. Wu
International Director
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
U.S.A.

The post UN Set to End Scrutiny of Cuba and Belarus, Indict Israel; 27 NGOs Protest appeared first on UN Watch.