Speech before UN Human Rights Council resumed 6th Session
14 December 2007

Delivered by Toby Frankestein, UN Watch Fellow

Thank you, Mr. President,

We meet today to consider a question that many citizens around the world would find difficult to comprehend: whether to keep — or eliminate — the independent expert who reports on human rights abuses in Sudan. From Delhi to Dublin, people will wonder: why are so many members states of the UN’s highest human rights body trying to do away with scrutiny of Sudan’s atrocities in Darfur?

This is especially difficult to understand given that this Council has for the past week heard reports from the UN group of experts on Darfur, and from the Special Rapporteur on Sudan, Ms. Sima Sumar, confirming that Sudan continues to commit gross abuses in Darfur.

The group of experts noted that Sudan’s claims to have made positive progress on the ground is contradicted by all of the information coming from UN and other relevant sources.

They found that Sudan is failing to implement basic recommendations. They called on Sudan to end all acts of violence against civilians, women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and internally displaced persons, as well as human rights defenders and humanitarian workers.

Ms. Sumar found similar conclusions, and reported on how Sudan has promoted a climate of impunity.

Faced with this testimony of the crimes in Darfur, why did Egypt on behalf of the African Group say that there is an “improving situation in Darfur,” and call for eliminating some or all of the experts?

Why did Algeria call on the Council to “bring the work of the group of experts to an end”?

Mr. President, all of this comes in the context of a total assault on the need for any country monitors.

“My delegation is against country mandates,” said Libya on June 12.

“All country rapporteurs should be dropped,” said the Palestinian representative on Mar. 12.

“Shed the institution of country-specific procedures,” said Russia on Oct. 3, 2006.

“Terminate all country mandates,” said South Africa, on June 12.

“Country mandates…should not be part of the agenda,” said Venezuela, on June 12.

“Remove them,” said Iran, on Oct. 3, 2006.

Mr. President,

The reform of this Council as proposed by Kofi Annan in March 2005 was supposed to strengthen human rights scrutiny. And yet members of the Council are now seeking to eliminate the country monitors who report on Sudan and other situations. They eliminated the experts on Cuba and Belarus, failing the human rights victims of those countries.

UN Watch urges the Council not to also let down the victims of Darfur. Thank you.

The post Do not let down the victims of Darfur appeared first on UN Watch.

Speech before UN Human Rights Council resumed 6th Session
12 December 2007

Delivered by Ophélie Namiech, UN Watch Legacy Heritage Fellow

_______________

_______________

Thank you, Mr. President.

UN Watch commends Special Rapporteur Paulo Pinheiro for his latest report, which documents the shocking crimes against peaceful protesters that were committed in September of this year by the military regime in Burma.

Among other things the report finds:

• That the authorities have been covering up the true death toll;
• That the three thousand people arrested by the government included children and pregnant women;
• That the government used torture, with at least 14 individuals dying in custody, including 8 monks and 1 young boy.

The report also showed how, over the years, the denial of basic civil and political rights compromised the standard of living of the population, by denying the emergence of a platform for genuine public dialogue, where people could share their concerns over their increasing lack of access to job opportunities and basic social services, including health and food.

UN Watch supports a strong resolution that will call upon the authorities in Burma:

• To release without delay all who were arrested in the recent peaceful protests;
• To lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, and guarantee the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association; and
• To commit to democracy and the establishment of the rule of law.

Mr. President, the victims of this regime include pregnant women, little children, monks and nuns. By brutal repression the authorities seek to crush the spirit of their own people.

But that spirit is still alive. As Mr. Pinheiro reported, on 26 November, more than 25 women activists showed great personal courage when they paraded in commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It was the first public display of opposition to the military regime since the September crackdown.

Just when the regime believed it had extinguished every last candle of freedom in Burma, these women lit some more.

One day, Mr. President, these little candles will become a torch.

One day, the flame of freedom will light the darkness for the great people of Burma.

One day, Aung San Suu Kyi—and all political prisoners—will be free.

Let us commit ourselves to act—so that this day comes very soon.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The post The flame of freedom for Burma appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Statement on Follow-Up
UNHRC 5th Session
13 June 2007 

Delivered by M.P. Professor Irwin Cotler

Click here for French (below)

            Thank you, Mr. President.

I come from a country, Canada, that has regarded the United Nations as an organizing idiom of Canadian foreign policy, and that has made a substantial contribution to the development of UN law and the cause of human rights.

I regret, therefore, that I could not accept your invitation to join the investigative mission into Beit Hanoun headed by Archbishop Tutu.  May I explain.

First, as a law professor and international lawyer, I could not accept a mandate to hear only one side of a dispute.  The terms of reference deliberately ignored the Palestinian rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Sderot that preceded Israel’s actions, and which continue as we speak.

How could one accept a mandate that violated the right to a fair hearing and fundamental due process?

The mandate also violated the presumption of innocence.  The resolution began by condemning, and I quote, “the Israeli wilful killing of Palestinian civilians.”  How could one accept a fact-finding mission, a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland inquiry, where the conviction was secured and the sentence passed even before the inquiry began?

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Council members that most consistently support the human rights mechanisms of this body—including my country, Canada—all refused to support this mandate.

Regrettably, this discriminatory and one-sided approach has become not the exception but the norm.  For the earlier sessions against Israel reflected not only the same contempt for the rule of law, but systematically singled out a member state for selective and discriminatory treatment, while granting the violators exculpatory immunity.

As the former Canadian Justice Minister, I can tell you that the Canadian people supported the changes establishing this Council because we genuinely believed it would herald reform, organized around the principles of universality, equality and fairness.

It appears that the Council is about to institutionalize the condemnation of Israel as a standing item on the agenda — the permanent singling-out of a member state for differential and discriminatory treatment.

The tragedy, Mr. President, is that all of this is taking place under the protective cover of the UN, undermining thereby the cause of the UN, international law and human rights.  I trust that this Council will restore in process and substance the founding ideals that inspired the establishment of the UN, and the UN human rights system.

FRENCH

Ci-dessous, le discours du professeur Cotler à l’assemblée plénière du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme

Déclaration complémentaire de UN Watch

5ème session de l’UNHRC (Conseil des Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU)

prononcée, le 13 juin 2007

par le parlementaire, professeur Irwin Cotler

« Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Je viens d’un pays, le Canada, qui a considéré les Nations unies comme une expression organique de la politique étrangère du Canada, et qui a contribué de manière substantielle au développement du droit des Nations unies et à la cause des droits de l’homme.

Je regrette donc de n’avoir pu accepter votre invitation à me joindre à la mission d’investigation concernant Beit Hanoun, dirigée par l’archevêque Tutu. Permettez-moi de m’expliquer à ce sujet.

Tout d’abord, en tant que professeur de droit et juriste international, je ne pouvais pas accepter un mandat consistant à n’écouter qu’un des protagonistes d’une controverse. Le mandat ne tenait délibérément pas compte des attaques de roquettes contre la ville israélienne de Sdérot qui avaient précédé les actions d’Israël, et qui se poursuivent tandis que nous continuons de parler.

Comment pouvait-on accepter un mandat qui violait le droit à un débat équitable et à un procès qui préserve les droits de l’accusé.

Le mandat violait également la présomption d’innocence. La résolution commençait par condamner, je cite : “l’assassinat délibéré de civils”. Comment pouvait-on accepter une mission d’enquête, une espèce d’investigation dans le style Alice au Pays des Merveilles, dans laquelle l’incrimination était assurée et la condamnation prononcée avant même le début de l’enquête.

Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les membres d’un Comité qui soutient de la manière la plus consistante les mécanismes des droits de l’homme de cette organisation – dont mon pays, le Canada – aient tous refusé de soutenir ce mandat.

Il est regrettable que cette approche discriminatoire et partisane soit devenue non une exception, mais la règle. En effet, les précédentes sessions contre Israël non seulement ont reflété le même mépris de l’application de la loi, mais ont systématiquement fait d’un Etat-membre l’objet spécifique d’une différence de traitement et de discrimination, et accordé à ceux qui violent la loi une immunité qui les disculpe.

En tant qu’ancien Ministre Canadien de la Justice, je puis vous dire que le peuple canadien a soutenu les changements qui ont permis de créer ce Conseil, parce qu’il croyait sincèrement qu’il annoncerait une réforme fondée sur les principes d’universalité, d’égalité et d’équité.

Il s’avère que ce Conseil est sur le point d’institutionnaliser la condamnation d’Israël en tant qu’élément permanent de son programme, consistant à toujours faire d’Israël l’objet spécifique d’un traitement différent et discriminatoire.

La tragédie, Monsieur le Président, c’est que tout cela se passe sous la couverture tutélaire des Nations unies, minant ainsi la cause des Nations unies, le droit international et les droits de l’homme. J’ai l’espoir que ce Conseil restaurera, dans leur forme et leur substance, les idéaux fondateurs qui ont inspiré la création des Nations unies, et le système des droits de l’homme des Nations unies. »

(The original French translation can be found at: https://www.blogdei.com/index.php/2007/06/18/2112-autour-du-refus-dun-parlementaire-canadien-de-faire-partie-dune-mission-de-lonu-a-gaza)

The post UN Watch Statement on Follow-Up UNHRC 5th Session 13 June 2007 appeared first on UN Watch.

Libyan Human Rights Violations and UN Expert Jean Ziegler

Interactive Dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 5th Session
12 June 2007

Delivered by Toby W. Frankenstein, UN Watch Legacy Heritage Fellow

Thank you Mr. President.

We commend Special Rapporteur Ziegler for raising in his report the plight of hunger migrants and refugees, including the many thousands who regularly seek passage through Libya.¹  This weekend’s events are a tragic reminder of this crisis.  On Thursday, according to news reports, migrants in two boats sent a distress signal while off the Libyan coast, well within the Libyan search and rescue zone of responsibility. Regrettably, Libyan authorities and an Iranian cargo ship reportedly failed to go to their aid despite requests from Maltese authorities.²  The fate of these migrants remains unknown.

This incident underscores the gross and systematic violations by Libya of the rights of hunger migrants and refugees.  As the Special Rapporteur is aware, a major report by Human Rights Watch in September documented how Libya subjects migrants, asylum seekers and refugees to serious human rights abuses, including beatings, and forced return to countries where they could face persecution or torture, such as Eritrea and Somalia.³From 2003 to 2005, more than 140,000 people were subject to return or deportation.  The situation is grave and it is urgent.

Mr. Ziegler, though your report cites the Libyan situation only in passing, you are uniquely positioned to protect these victims.  As you mentioned last year on Swiss TV, once or twice a year you are personally hosted by Colonel Khadaffi, the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, for what you described as “intellectual discussions.”⁴  Also, your credibility on human rights issues with the Libyan government is unimpeachable, due to your status as original spokesman,⁵ jury member⁶ and 2002 laureate⁷ of the Muammar Khadaffi Prize for Human Rights, as cited by Libya at the UN.⁸

Accordingly, Mr. Ziegler, can you tell us about steps that you are taking with the Libyan government to protect these hunger refugees?

Second, we note that your report praises, as examples for the world to follow, the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia,⁹  the country which you recently visited and officially endorsed for membership on this Council.¹⁰  Skeptics in the West may say that what these particular governments share is a varying degree of hostility toward Western values of political and economic liberty, while others may observe that the leaders of all three also each happen to be laureates of the aforementioned Khadaffi Prize.¹¹  With Western democracies being the predominant supporters of the UN human rights machinery, some of its citizens may feel unfairly targeted and begin to question that support.

As you know, UN Watch has always advocated that Western governments strongly support this machinery.

Mr. Ziegler, to help us make our case and rebut the skeptics, can you tell us about Western governments that you have also praised as worthy examples for the world to follow?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Check Against Delivery

¹A/HRC/4/30 at 17.

²“Libyan authorities refuse to rescue migrants due to bad sea conditions,” The Malta Indpendent, June 9, 2007; “Dispersed migrants’ boats saga: fate uncertain,” The Malta Indpendent, June 9, 2007, https://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=52464.

³Human Rights Watch report, “Stemming the Flow: Abuses Against Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees,”  https://hrw.org/reports/2006/libya0906.

⁴Swiss SF1 TV interview of Jean Ziegler, June 27, 2006 (“Jean Ziegler admits that Khaddafi invites him from time to time. . . ‘When the prize was founded, I was asked by the oil-producing countries, like other intellectuals as well, whether I would appreciate it if such a prize was founded. I said yes, this is an opening. . .'”).

⁵Switzerland’s L’Hebdo magazine dedicated a full story under Mr. Ziegler’s photograph, “Le Nobel de Kadhafi — Les autorités libyennes créent un nouveau prix des droits de l’homme. Jean Ziegler met la main à la pâte,” L’Hebdo, 27 avril 1989 (“According to Jean Ziegler, ‘the Nobel Prize is a permanent humiliation for the Third World.’ The timing couldn’t be better-just as Libya is trying to restore its image. With the interest of $10 million-placed in a Swiss bank-it plans to create an international institute for human rights, planned in Geneva, and two ‘anti-Nobel Prizes.’ In mid-April, Jean Ziegler and ten ‘intellectuals and progressive fighters’ thus found themselves in Tripoli to set the project on track.”) Time magazine also reported on the Prize, citing Mr. Ziegler as a representative of the prize committee.  “World Notes: Prizes-And the Winner is. . . ,”  Time, May 8, 1989.

⁶“Jean Ziegler said a prize foundation fund in the name of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is registered in Geneva with capital of $10 million.  Annual winners will be selected and foundation capital managed by a committee of African and European politicians and intellectuals, he said. . . . Ziegler said committee members besides himself include Sam Nujoma, leader of the Southwest African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) and [four others].”  United Press International, April 23, 1989.  See also the official Libyan website, www.gaddafiprize.org, listing Mr. Ziegler as original member of the Popular Committee that manages and awards the prize, and the role of the Nord-Sud XXI institute as the managing organization.  Mr. Ziegler is listed under Geneva Canton files as Vice-Chairman of the related Institut Nord-Sud.  Feuille d’Avis Officielle du canton de Genève, lundi 18 mars 2002, 442/10, at https://www.geneve.ch/fao/pdfs/250_032.pdf.

⁷“French Holocaust denier, Swiss campaigner for victims share Kadhafi prize,” Agence France Presse-English, September 30, 2002; “‘Prix Kadhafi des droits de l’homme’ Jean Ziegler et Roger Garaudy parmi les treize lauréats,” Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)-Service de base français, 30 septembre 2002.  See also www.gaddafiprize.org, inter alia, the “Activities and Events” page for 2002, listing Mr. Ziegler as a prize laureate and discussing his visit to Tripoli to receive it.

⁸See, e.g., Libya’s discussion of the prize in its March 3, 2004 statement to the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, https://www2.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crd04009e.htm.

⁹A/HRC/4/30 at 14, 7, and 6.

¹⁰Indian Country Today, May 10, 2007 (“Jean Ziegler . . . informed Morales that, due to the country’s positive human rights record . . .Bolivia is being considered for a permanent seat on the HRC . . . ‘I am sure that Bolivia will be elected as a member,’ he asserted…”).

¹¹The Khaddafi Prize was awarded to Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 1998; Bolivian leader Evo Morales in 2000 (in recognition of his “bold methods against domination and exploitation exercised by capitalist regimes, notably the United States of America”); and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez in 2004.  That same year, Venezuela nominated Mr. Ziegler to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights.

The post Libyan Human Rights Violations and UN Expert Jean Ziegler appeared first on UN Watch.

Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia, and related intolerance

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 5th Session
11 June 2007

Delivered by Caroline Gross, UN Watch Fellow

Thank you, Mr. President.

UN Watch commends Special Rapporteur Diene for his valuable work in combating racism.  We address two issues.

First, the report before us cites Iran for three anti-Semitic acts:

• Convening an international conference “questioning the truth of the extermination of the European Jews by Nazi Germany”¹;
• Organizing an earlier Holocaust denial cartoon contest; and
• President Ahmadinejad’s repeated calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”²

Just last week, Secretary-General Ban condemned the Iranian leader for his latest statement inciting to “destruction of the Zionist regime.”

Mr. Diene, because the Iranian president continues to violate the Genocide Convention’s Article 3 prohibition against incitement to destroy a national group, what steps can be taken to enforce the Convention’s Article 1 obligation to prevent?

Second, your report identifies the inherent connection between Iran’s anti-Semitism and its promotion of other racist theories.  I quote:

By organizing this conference, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demonstrated his intention to legitimize the revisionism of other forms of racism, in particular, by inviting […] symbolic figures of anti-black racism in the United States of America, such as the Ku Klux Klan — whose main intellectual and ideological platform is the racial inferiority of black people and the need for their physical elimination.³

It seems we have a government whose leaders say one thing when they speak in Africa — but quite another thing in Tehran, where they celebrate David Duke, a man who says that black people are violent, lazy, primitive and promiscuous.⁴

Similarly, when the Iranian leader addresses the General Assembly, he talks a lot about “human dignity” and “justice”.  Yet in December, this same Assembly condemned Iran for treating its minorities with neither dignity nor justice.  Resolution 61/176 on human rights violations in Iran cites the following:

…increasing discrimination and other human rights violations against persons belonging to ethnic ^and religious minorities […] including Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds, Christians, Jews, Sufis and Sunni Muslims; the escalation and increased frequency of discrimination and other human rights violations against members of the Baha’i faith […] and recent violent crackdowns on Arabs, Azeris, Baha’is, Kurds and Sufis.

This policy and practice of racial discrimination violates not only international human rights law.  It also contravenes the basic principles of Iran’s own Constitution—including its guarantees of human dignity and equality under Articles 2, 3 and 14.⁵

Mr. Diene, what steps can you take to further protect Iran’s minorities from their government’s policies of racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance?

¹ Report of 12 January 2007, A/HRC/4/19 at 16.
² Report of May 2007, A/HRC/5/10 at 21.
³ Id. at 21.
⁴ See, e.g., “David Duke: In His Own Words,” https://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/on_blacks.asp.
⁵ Article 2 (6): “The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in […] the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured…” Article 3 (14): “securing the multifarious rights of all citizens, both women and men, and providing legal protection for all, as well as the equality of all before the law.” Article 14: “…the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights.”

The post Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance appeared first on UN Watch.

Darfur Mission is Credible and Its Report Must Be Respected

Speech to UN Human Rights Council, 4th Regular Session
Debate on Report by Mission to Darfur Headed by Jody Williams
March 16, 2007

Delivered by Hillel Neuer

Click for original UN video  
(requires RealPlayer program)

Mr. President,

The Darfur Mission asks the Council to recognize what every ordinary citizen already knows:  that Sudan bears responsibility for large-scale international crimes.

The world now looks to this assembly. The credibility of this Council is at stake.

The arguments of Sudan are like those of the child who murders his parents and then asks for mercy on the grounds of being an orphan.  Sudan refused the Mission entry to Darfur, connived to have their representative on the team resign, and now invokes these as grounds to disqualify the report.  Both arguments are hollow and, as stated by Ghana, contrary to prior precedent.

We are also deeply disappointed by comments made by the Arab League, the OIC, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and many others, challenging the legitimacy of the mission and treating its work as a “non-report.”  The country that invoked the Most Compassionate and Merciful showed neither compassion nor mercy for the victims of Darfur.  A great power acted not with greatness, but out of Olympic-sized commercial interests.

UN Watch urges these parties to recognize that the Mission and its report are eminently credible, and not to ignore the following basic facts:

• First, that the mandate of this Mission respected the principles of due process.  It did not prejudge.  The Mission was instructed “to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of the Sudan in this regard.”  Unlike the missions on Israel, this one did not begin backwards, by starting with the verdict and then seeking facts to support it.

• Second, that the mandate respected the principles of objectivity and non-selectivity.  Unlike the missions, this one was not limited to examining the violations of only one actor in the region of concern.  Its scope covered the actions of all parties.  Indeed, the team noted violations on all sides.

• Third, that Sudan participated in the mandate’s negotiation, together with the groups of which it is a member.  This privilege was not afforded to the concerned country in the council’s previous special sessions.  Sudan was given fair treatment, even deference.  The team was instructed to consult with the Khartoum government, and it repeatedly attempted to do so.  Sudan promised cooperation, and was even praised for cooperation in the resolution.  But it has not cooperated.

• Fourth, that Sudan and its allies participated in negotiating the team’s composition.  As a result, unlike previous Council missions, this one saw the appointment of ambassadors from governments who often voted with the country concerned, one of whom had defended and praised Sudan at the December session.

Mr. President,

The government of Sudan and its supporters have no claim against this mandate or this team.  It has been judged by an eminently fair proceeding, and it must respect that judgment.

If this Council cannot endorse the recommendations of this report, it will cast a shadow upon the reputation of the UN as a whole.

Thank you.

The post Darfur Mission is Credible and Its Report Must Be Respected appeared first on UN Watch.

Joint NGO Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Darfur

Co-sponsored by:

UN Watch
Freedom House
The Transnational Radical Party
International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization
France Libertés
Hope for Africa International
B’nai B’rith International
Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (C.B.J.O.)
International Federation of Social Workers
Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas
European Union of Jewish Students
Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme
Women Environmental Program (WEP)
Coordination Française pour le Lobby Européen des Femmes (C.L.E.F.)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
International Association for Religious Freedom
3 HO Foundation
Liberal International
Women’s Federation for World Peace International
Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme (LICRA)
International Alliance of Women
World Jewish Congress
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic
International Federation of University Women
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
International Volunteerism Organization for Women Education and Development
Women’s International Zionist Organization
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
International Council of Jewish Women
American Psychological Association
International Council of Psychologists
Council for a Community of Democracies 

________________

Oral Statement
UN Human Rights Council
4th Special Session
December 13, 2006

Delivered by Leon Saltiel

Click for video

Thank you, Mr. President.

This is a joint statement on behalf of UN Watch, Freedom House, the Transnational Radical Party, and 28 other NGOs from around the world.

We welcome this special session and its support by so many Council members.  The human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, and it merits this body’s serious and sustained attention.

We urge the Council to adopt a strong resolution.  This Council cannot send peacekeepers, but it can, and should, encourage the Sudanese Government to cooperate with the force the Security Council has authorized.  This Council also should remind the Government of Sudan that, although not the only party to the conflict, it has the primary responsibility to protect its population.

Since 2003, Darfur has been rife with death, destruction, and suffering.  Hundreds of thousands of victims have been raped, tortured, murdered.  Villages and livelihoods have been destroyed.  Millions are displaced.  Despite the signing of an agreement in May, these atrocities have not only continued, but escalated.

These facts have been amply documented by the Special Rapporteur on Sudan, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and many others.  Nevertheless, Sudan and several other delegations have told this Council that these reports are based on misinformation.

In light of these claims, the draft resolutions rightly emphasize the Council’s need for “clear, accurate, and substantiated information” on the situation in Darfur.  We therefore support the immediate dispatch of an assessment mission by the Special Rapporteur, and we urge the Government of Sudan to cooperate fully with that mission.

We thank Secretary-General Annan for his leadership in urging the Council to convene this special session and to begin to address gross violations around the globe.  We hope that this session is just the beginning of the Council’s active engagement, not only on Darfur, but on all major human rights crises worldwide.

Thank you.

The post Joint NGO Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Darfur appeared first on UN Watch.

Statement on Human Rights Violations Around the World

Oral Statement
UN Human Rights Council
3rd Regular Session
December 1, 2006

Delivered by Elizabeth Cassidy
Assistant Executive Director

Click here to watch the video.

Thank you, Mr. President. 

UN Watch welcomes the special session on Darfur, and urges the Council to consider the human rights situations in the other 16 countries and 3 disputed territories that are listed by the leading NGO Freedom House as being the world’s worst. 

These include:

• Violations of freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association in Belarus;

• Persecution of political activists, journalists, and ethnic and religious minorities in Burma;

• Repression of political dissent and of the media in China, as well as human rights violations in occupied Tibet;

• The imprisonment of journalists and pro-democracy activists under abusive prison conditions in Cuba;

• Arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial executions, with impunity, in Haiti;

• Suppression of peaceful political activity and unfair judicial proceedings in Libya, where five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor face the death sentence under false charges;

• The imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, under horrific prison conditions and subject to torture, in North Korea;

• The systematic repression of women and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia;

• Threats against human rights defenders, violence against women, disappearances and political assassinations by Syria;

• Continued impunity for the Andijan massacre and restrictions on independent media and civil society in Uzbekistan;

• Pervasive violence against and intimidation of opposition leaders and supporters, independent media, and civil society in Zimbabwe;

• Widespread war crimes against civilians in Chechnya; and

• Violations in Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Somalia, Turkmenistan, and Western Sahara.   

We hope that at least some of these very grave situations will be among the Council’s next priorities.

Thank you.

The post Statement on Human Rights Violations Around the World appeared first on UN Watch.

________________

UN Human Rights Council
26 June 2006

________________

A Joint NGO Appeal for Human Rights Protection

B’nai B’rith International
Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations
Dzeno Association
Indian Social Institute
International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization
International Union of Notaries
S. M. Sehgal Foundation
Transnational Radical Party
UN Watch
Union Internationale des Avocats
World Information Transfer, Inc
Women’s International Zionist Organization
World Union of Progressive Judaism

Mr. President,

This is a joint statement on behalf of 14 NGOs.  The eyes of the world are turned to the new Human Rights Council in the hope that it will effectively protect and promote human rights universally.  Therefore we look to the full implementation of GA Resolution 60/251.

To truly address the reality of human rights violations on the ground the Council cannot shy away from the most relevant situations around the world. In her recent report, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has mentioned the situations of Uzbekistan, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia, Nepal, Togo, Burma and the DPRK. Based on Freedom House’s list of the “Worst of the Worst” violators and our own estimates, the following is a small selection for the Council’s consideration.

In Europe, in Belarus, peaceful demonstrators were arrested for protesting the discredited March elections. The government violates the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. (HRR)  In Russia, human rights defenders are vulnerable, racist attacks are immune to effective prosecution, and serious human rights violations continue in Chechnya.

In Asia, in Uzbekistan, the crime of the Andijan massacre remains unpunished. Independent journalists and civil society institutions are in peril.  Torture is routine. (HRR)  In Pakistan, violence against women remains a pressing issue, symbolized by the plight of Mukhtaran Mai. In the minority province of Balochistan, security agencies are committing arbitrary arrests and detention, extrajudicial executions, torture and “disappearances” of student and labor union leaders. (AI 2006) In Nepal, recent violence has escalated. The army has committed torture, summary executions, and other gross human rights abuses.  (HRR) 

In North Korea, a dictatorship controls every aspect of political, social, and economic life, holding an estimated 200,000 political prisoners. There is torture and horrific prison conditions.  (HRR)  In East Timor, recent violence is worse than any time since before independence, including torture and extrajudicial killings. (HRR)  In Turkmenistan, there are routine violations of the freedoms of speech, movement, and assembly.  “The new holy book” written by president-for-life Niazov required reading in schools and religious institutions, and the days of the week have been renamed for his relatives. (HRR)

In Africa, Libya imprisons hundreds of individuals for engaging in peaceful political activity. The most well known pressing issue is the situation of 5 Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on death row under false charges, who have been tortured. (HRW 2006)  In the Democratic Republic of Congo, 4 million have been killed since 1998.  Armed groups are killing, raping, and abducting civilians throughout the country.  (HRR)

In Sudan, there have been consistent, widespread reports of atrocities, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts conducted by the Sudanese government’s Janjaweed militias and the UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorizing a Chapter 7 force. (HRR)  Zimbabwe has committed systematic and widespread human rights violations against the rights to housing and food as well as free and fair elections. (AI 2006 and HRW 2006) In Equatorial Guinea arbitrary detention is a problem, the government is imprisoning scores of prisoners of conscience and political prisoners and lacks a juvenile justice system. (AI 2006)

In the Middle East, in Syria, human rights defenders are threatened. Violence against women continues, with a judicial system that suspends punishment for a rapist if he chooses to marry his victim. Thousands of Syrians, Lebanese and other nationals remain “disappeared.” (AI & HRW 2006)  In Saudi Arabia, religious police discriminate against women in the workplace, home, and the courts, and restrict their freedom of movement and choice of partners. Security services arrest people for practicing Christianity.  (AI 2006)  Iran consistently represses the rights of human rights defenders, political prisoners, and minorities.  Discriminatory laws and practices in particular target ethnic and religious minorities, including Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, Christians and Baha’is. (AI 2006)

In the Western hemisphere, in Cuba, there is the pressing human rights issue of imprisonment of journalists.  Prisons are generally kept in poor and abusive conditions and political prisoners are frequently punished by long periods in isolation cells. (HRW 2006)  Guerrilla groups, paramilitaries and government forces are implicated in gross abuses with impunity in Colombia, which has one of Latin America’s most serious human rights situations and contains one of the world’s largest internally displaced populations.  (HRR)  In Haiti, with almost total impunity, police forces regularly conduct arbitrary arrests, torture, beatings, extrajudicial executions and are involved in drug trafficking and other criminal activity and journalists face threats and violence for their reporting. (HRW 2006)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(Sources:  AI = Amnesty International; HRW = Human Rights Watch; HRR = various human rights reports.)

The post IMPLEMENTATION OF GA RESOLUTION 60/251 appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Written Statement on Iran’s Incitement to Genocide to the Sixty Second Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

UN Document E/CN.4/2006/NGO/95 (PDF version)
[English or French]

The post UN Watch Written Statement on Iran’s Incitement to Genocide to the Sixty Second Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights appeared first on UN Watch.