Amnesty International's Secretary General has warned that the credibility of the UN Human Rights Council and of the entire UN is at stake.
Irene Khan, on the occasion of the Fourth Session of the UN Human Rights Council, said that the UN Human Rights Council was born out of an incomplete process of the reform of the United Nations. Speaking at a press conference in Geneva, Ms Khan said that one Council was created and another one was not fully reformed.
"The failures and frustrations of one aspect of reform should not be allowed to cast a shadow over the rest. Governments need to take a principled and constructive approach based on human rights in this Council - or they will undermine confidence in the entire UN and that is a dangerous, zero-sum game for all sides."
Ms. Khan said that it is very important for the UN system to restore confidence in itself. Describing the Human Rights Council is one of the key achievements of the UN reform process of 2005, Irene Khan said that, for the last nine months, its protection mandate has been put in cold storage while it focuses on its architecture.
"Architecture is important -- it is important that the Council gets it right. The Special Procedures form an important part of such architecture, which is why NGOs have launched a petition calling for their preservation."
She said that today's discussion may be a technical one on Special Procedures, but it has very important implications not just for the Council but for human rights and the UN. The Special Procedures -- the Human Rights Council's special rapporteurs and representatives, independent experts and working groups -- are among the most innovative, flexible and responsive tools created by the UN to promote and protect human rights.
For further information:
Read Irene Khan's full speech at the Geneva Press Conference
Sign the petition calling for the preservation of the Special Procedures: http://www.actforspecialprocedures.org
Friday, April 13, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Dr. Al-Mufti: Human Rights Council Resolution Quite Serious
Sunday 8 April 2007
Khartoum (Sudanvisiondaily)
The resolution issued lately in Geneva by the Human Rights Council about human rights situation in Darfur is alarmingly serious and needs to be cautiously dealt with. It provides findings for the UN resolution (1709) about entry of international forces and (1593) related to holding the International Criminal Court.
This was stated to Sudan Vision by the Director, Khartoum International Human Rights Centre, Dr. Ahmed Al-Mufti.
He pointed that the Geneva resolution speaks about armed attacks against civilians and destruction of villages. This comes without any hint at efforts exerted by the Government of Sudan in this respect. The resolution hints also at human rights and humanitarian law violations.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that the committee formed according to this resolution is formed of seven United Nations mechanisms which are always present in the United Nations. This means it is impossible to resist any decision or recommendation arrived at by this group, by the Sudanese government. The decision will also deprive the government of any opportunity for defence against any decisions or recommendations made. This committee, unlike the Judie Williams committee or the international committee which came before to inspect situations in Darfur and recommended referring the issue to the ICC in The Hague, this committee is not on “Ad Hoc Committee”.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that issuing the resolution through conciliatory opinions, means that the country concerned will abandon its right to vote in return for the resolution text being acceptable to it.
He added that this is a well-known tactical procedure in international gatherings for human rights. Sudan had used this procedure before.As for the Geneva Resolution, it did not include the government’s point of view towards rejecting international forces.
Khartoum (Sudanvisiondaily)
The resolution issued lately in Geneva by the Human Rights Council about human rights situation in Darfur is alarmingly serious and needs to be cautiously dealt with. It provides findings for the UN resolution (1709) about entry of international forces and (1593) related to holding the International Criminal Court.
This was stated to Sudan Vision by the Director, Khartoum International Human Rights Centre, Dr. Ahmed Al-Mufti.
He pointed that the Geneva resolution speaks about armed attacks against civilians and destruction of villages. This comes without any hint at efforts exerted by the Government of Sudan in this respect. The resolution hints also at human rights and humanitarian law violations.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that the committee formed according to this resolution is formed of seven United Nations mechanisms which are always present in the United Nations. This means it is impossible to resist any decision or recommendation arrived at by this group, by the Sudanese government. The decision will also deprive the government of any opportunity for defence against any decisions or recommendations made. This committee, unlike the Judie Williams committee or the international committee which came before to inspect situations in Darfur and recommended referring the issue to the ICC in The Hague, this committee is not on “Ad Hoc Committee”.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that issuing the resolution through conciliatory opinions, means that the country concerned will abandon its right to vote in return for the resolution text being acceptable to it.
He added that this is a well-known tactical procedure in international gatherings for human rights. Sudan had used this procedure before.As for the Geneva Resolution, it did not include the government’s point of view towards rejecting international forces.
U.N. Rights Council vs. Freedom
Source:http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5d187e2d-fffe-4d8e-8ffb-dae0d8121001
By Brett D. Schaefer, 4/3/2007 10:58:29 AM
The closer one observes the United Nations, the more one notices how disconnected it is from reality -- especially when debating human rights. Its bias and politicization was on full display recently at the fourth session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which saw continued attacks on Israel and intolerance of criticism.
In its first year, the HRC has proven just as feckless in confronting human-rights abuses and as prone to politically motivated attacks as its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. And the commission's record was so bad, even former Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted it "cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole" and called for its replacement.
In a disheartening repeat of one of the old commission's worst failings, the HRC's first "special session" last summer on Israel adopted a one-sided resolution condemning Israel and ignoring provocations by Palestinian-armed groups.
This became a pattern: In its first three sessions, the council adopted 10 resolutions addressing human-rights concerns in specific countries -- eight of which harshly condemned Israel. The council's first three "special sessions" on extraordinary human-rights issues also targeted Israel.
Ongoing repression in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe is ignored. Only under immense pressure from the media, human-rights groups and Western governments did the HRC address the world's most urgent human-rights crisis, the genocide in Darfur. Even then, a number of member states opposed a "special session" on Sudan and successfully watered down two resolutions regarding the Darfur situation.
The fourth session of the Human Rights Council, under way in Geneva, is following this profoundly disappointing record. The HRC's expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused Israel of conducting an apartheid policy against the Palestinians and of extensive human-rights crimes. Three new resolutions condemning Israel are expected.
No other state receives such scrutiny. Indeed, it was a struggle for states concerned about Darfur to even get the HRC to hear a presentation by the council's own "High-Level Mission" established last December to assess the situation in Darfur. Don't hold your breath waiting for the council to act on this report or condemn Sudan for refusing to cooperate with the High-Level Mission.
Such hypocrisy, though, is to be expected from a council that includes Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other states with questionable commitment to human rights. However, one would hope a U.N. body dedicated to promoting human rights would cleave more closely to those ideals during its deliberations. Sadly, this is not the case.
In reaction to the blatant bias against Israel, Hillel Neuer of the nongovernmental organization United Nations Watch in Geneva expressed dismay and challenged the council to live up to the ideals of those who created the original Commission on Human Rights in 1946 and made promoting human rights a central U.N. purpose:
"Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate. This council has done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel."
Mr. Neuer criticized the hypocrisy of the Council, noting that "the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?" Judging by the council's refusal to condemn Palestinian atrocities, the answer is "no."
One would expect many council members to disagree or object to Mr. Neuer's statement. However, the Council President went further. He chastised Mr. Neuer. In an unprecedented move, he said he would not thank Mr. Neuer for his comments -- a customary measure that follows every statement before the HRC, regardless of merit. He further threatened to strike Mr. Neuer's comments from the record.
Considering the hostile, insulting and dishonest earlier statements by states like Burma, North Korea and Sudan, it is clear that free speech is a privilege denied human-rights groups that confront the council over its poor record -- but strongly protected for regimes that abuse human rights.
So much for dispelling the "shadow" Kofi Annan rightly decried.
Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He was an observer at the fourth Session of the Human Rights Council. This first appeared in the Washington Times
By Brett D. Schaefer, 4/3/2007 10:58:29 AM
The closer one observes the United Nations, the more one notices how disconnected it is from reality -- especially when debating human rights. Its bias and politicization was on full display recently at the fourth session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which saw continued attacks on Israel and intolerance of criticism.
In its first year, the HRC has proven just as feckless in confronting human-rights abuses and as prone to politically motivated attacks as its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. And the commission's record was so bad, even former Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted it "cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole" and called for its replacement.
In a disheartening repeat of one of the old commission's worst failings, the HRC's first "special session" last summer on Israel adopted a one-sided resolution condemning Israel and ignoring provocations by Palestinian-armed groups.
This became a pattern: In its first three sessions, the council adopted 10 resolutions addressing human-rights concerns in specific countries -- eight of which harshly condemned Israel. The council's first three "special sessions" on extraordinary human-rights issues also targeted Israel.
Ongoing repression in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe is ignored. Only under immense pressure from the media, human-rights groups and Western governments did the HRC address the world's most urgent human-rights crisis, the genocide in Darfur. Even then, a number of member states opposed a "special session" on Sudan and successfully watered down two resolutions regarding the Darfur situation.
The fourth session of the Human Rights Council, under way in Geneva, is following this profoundly disappointing record. The HRC's expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused Israel of conducting an apartheid policy against the Palestinians and of extensive human-rights crimes. Three new resolutions condemning Israel are expected.
No other state receives such scrutiny. Indeed, it was a struggle for states concerned about Darfur to even get the HRC to hear a presentation by the council's own "High-Level Mission" established last December to assess the situation in Darfur. Don't hold your breath waiting for the council to act on this report or condemn Sudan for refusing to cooperate with the High-Level Mission.
Such hypocrisy, though, is to be expected from a council that includes Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other states with questionable commitment to human rights. However, one would hope a U.N. body dedicated to promoting human rights would cleave more closely to those ideals during its deliberations. Sadly, this is not the case.
In reaction to the blatant bias against Israel, Hillel Neuer of the nongovernmental organization United Nations Watch in Geneva expressed dismay and challenged the council to live up to the ideals of those who created the original Commission on Human Rights in 1946 and made promoting human rights a central U.N. purpose:
"Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate. This council has done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel."
Mr. Neuer criticized the hypocrisy of the Council, noting that "the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?" Judging by the council's refusal to condemn Palestinian atrocities, the answer is "no."
One would expect many council members to disagree or object to Mr. Neuer's statement. However, the Council President went further. He chastised Mr. Neuer. In an unprecedented move, he said he would not thank Mr. Neuer for his comments -- a customary measure that follows every statement before the HRC, regardless of merit. He further threatened to strike Mr. Neuer's comments from the record.
Considering the hostile, insulting and dishonest earlier statements by states like Burma, North Korea and Sudan, it is clear that free speech is a privilege denied human-rights groups that confront the council over its poor record -- but strongly protected for regimes that abuse human rights.
So much for dispelling the "shadow" Kofi Annan rightly decried.
Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He was an observer at the fourth Session of the Human Rights Council. This first appeared in the Washington Times
UN Human Rights Council criticized over resolution condemning religous intolerance
Freedom House Condemns Passage of UN Resolution Supporting Limits on Free Speech
Full Story:
[Freedom House/IFEX statement]
http://reclaimthemedia.org/communications_rights/un_human_rights_council_critic=5083
A resolution justifying suppression of unpopular speech, adopted March 30 by the UN Human Rights Council under the guise of discouraging "defamation of religion," constitutes a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights, Freedom House said today. That so many democratic states abstained or voted in favor is a cause for further alarm, the organization declared.
The resolution, sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), condemns defamation of religions in general though it mentions only Islam specifically. Presented as a measure to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslims, the resolution asserts that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law." The resolution passed the council 24-14, with nine abstentions.
"This resolution condones state punishment for public utterances that authoritarian governments will claim defame religion," said Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. "It is utterly inappropriate for the Human Rights Council to justify censorship and the stifling of dissenting voices."
Last February, the OIC tried to inject a similar "anti-blasphemy" provision into the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council, but failed.
"That the resolution was not only reintroduced, but has now actually been passed by an absolute majority of the Council," said Windsor, "will prompt reasonable observers to wonder if the Council has fallen through the looking glass of 'Alice in Wonderland'."
"Citizens of just 14 democracies among the 47 members of the Council can be proud today that their governments had the clarity of vision to vote No," said Ms. Windsor. "Far too many democracies abstained or voted in favor of the ignominious proposition. Guatemalans, in particular, should be proud that theirs was the only one of eight Latin American countries to cast a vote for free expression. Five others abstained, and - alarmingly - Mexico joined with Cuba to vote yes for suppression of free speech."
"It is not surprising or interesting that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Azerbaijan would vote for such a proposition," she continued. "It is a disappointment that democracies such as Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, India, Nigeria, and Uruguay would abstain. That democracies such as Mali, Mexico, the Philippines and South Africa would vote in favor of such an odious declaration is appalling. Today they have earned the shame their citizens must feel."
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world.
Full Story:
[Freedom House/IFEX statement]
http://reclaimthemedia.org/communications_rights/un_human_rights_council_critic=5083
A resolution justifying suppression of unpopular speech, adopted March 30 by the UN Human Rights Council under the guise of discouraging "defamation of religion," constitutes a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights, Freedom House said today. That so many democratic states abstained or voted in favor is a cause for further alarm, the organization declared.
The resolution, sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), condemns defamation of religions in general though it mentions only Islam specifically. Presented as a measure to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslims, the resolution asserts that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law." The resolution passed the council 24-14, with nine abstentions.
"This resolution condones state punishment for public utterances that authoritarian governments will claim defame religion," said Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. "It is utterly inappropriate for the Human Rights Council to justify censorship and the stifling of dissenting voices."
Last February, the OIC tried to inject a similar "anti-blasphemy" provision into the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council, but failed.
"That the resolution was not only reintroduced, but has now actually been passed by an absolute majority of the Council," said Windsor, "will prompt reasonable observers to wonder if the Council has fallen through the looking glass of 'Alice in Wonderland'."
"Citizens of just 14 democracies among the 47 members of the Council can be proud today that their governments had the clarity of vision to vote No," said Ms. Windsor. "Far too many democracies abstained or voted in favor of the ignominious proposition. Guatemalans, in particular, should be proud that theirs was the only one of eight Latin American countries to cast a vote for free expression. Five others abstained, and - alarmingly - Mexico joined with Cuba to vote yes for suppression of free speech."
"It is not surprising or interesting that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Azerbaijan would vote for such a proposition," she continued. "It is a disappointment that democracies such as Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, India, Nigeria, and Uruguay would abstain. That democracies such as Mali, Mexico, the Philippines and South Africa would vote in favor of such an odious declaration is appalling. Today they have earned the shame their citizens must feel."
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world.
'What About The Rights Of Israelis!'
by Marc Shoffman in Geneva - Thursday 5th of April 2007
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=6006
The United Nations is neglecting other areas of human rights because it is too obsessed with the Palestinian territories, Israel’s Ambassador to the Human Rights Council said this week.
Itzhak Levanon expressed anger at the UN in Geneva after it passed two resolutions criticising Israel’s treatment
The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed to resend a delegation to the Palestinian territories and called on Israel to comply with investigators. But Levanon described the ruling as “selective” and “biased.”
It comes after UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard presented a report to the UN last month criticising the killing of 19 Palewstinian civilians in Beit Hanoun last November. The resolution calls on Israel to “end its military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”
Levanon criticised the Council for failing to consider how the Israelis have to live. He told TJ that there is no point in complying with the demands.
He said: “I don't see the benefit of discussing the issue. We had our own investigation on Beit Hanoun, we have our own values, the Jewish values. We reached a conclusion and apologised, why do I need people to come and check what I have already done, if they don't believe me then it doesn't make any difference.
“The UN took a special session, a selective step, to see what happened. Beit Hanoun and Gaza do not exist in a vacuum, it was a direct result of terrorists. Is there no Israeli suffering?
“If they send a mission to examine both sides I would accept it. But they took a one sided resolution.”
He accused Arab countries of trying to hijack the Council, “The human rights situation is very bad. Darfur is sometimes discussed because there is a genocide. But there are other places, Chechnya, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all these have human rights problems and daily persecutions that must be discussed. The fact that Israel has excavated something to make it safer, this is not the place to discuss it.
“The Council is letting down all human rights, everyone should be under review, Israel, the UK, and Arab states, everybody without any exception. If you would like to reach a higher level of human rights you have to deal with it, but Muslim countries are trying to hijack the agenda.”
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=6006
The United Nations is neglecting other areas of human rights because it is too obsessed with the Palestinian territories, Israel’s Ambassador to the Human Rights Council said this week.
Itzhak Levanon expressed anger at the UN in Geneva after it passed two resolutions criticising Israel’s treatment
The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed to resend a delegation to the Palestinian territories and called on Israel to comply with investigators. But Levanon described the ruling as “selective” and “biased.”
It comes after UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard presented a report to the UN last month criticising the killing of 19 Palewstinian civilians in Beit Hanoun last November. The resolution calls on Israel to “end its military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”
Levanon criticised the Council for failing to consider how the Israelis have to live. He told TJ that there is no point in complying with the demands.
He said: “I don't see the benefit of discussing the issue. We had our own investigation on Beit Hanoun, we have our own values, the Jewish values. We reached a conclusion and apologised, why do I need people to come and check what I have already done, if they don't believe me then it doesn't make any difference.
“The UN took a special session, a selective step, to see what happened. Beit Hanoun and Gaza do not exist in a vacuum, it was a direct result of terrorists. Is there no Israeli suffering?
“If they send a mission to examine both sides I would accept it. But they took a one sided resolution.”
He accused Arab countries of trying to hijack the Council, “The human rights situation is very bad. Darfur is sometimes discussed because there is a genocide. But there are other places, Chechnya, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all these have human rights problems and daily persecutions that must be discussed. The fact that Israel has excavated something to make it safer, this is not the place to discuss it.
“The Council is letting down all human rights, everyone should be under review, Israel, the UK, and Arab states, everybody without any exception. If you would like to reach a higher level of human rights you have to deal with it, but Muslim countries are trying to hijack the agenda.”
HR Council to Resume Organization
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BE9CD7C8F-9000-46CF-86CA-C3463901A324%7D&language=EN
Geneva, Apr 6 (Prensa Latina) The UN Human Rights Council confirmed on Friday, shortly before beginning a break for April s religious celebrations, that it will restart negotiations on Tuesday for its own institutional shaping.
The new UN branch, according to the resolution approved by the General Assembly, should conclude that process before June 18, and its permanent working commissions are working hard toward that objective.
The issue is to achieve consensus about its working methods and forms, which allow the authority to comply with its duties without falling into the vices that put paid to its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission.
That commission yielded to the pressures of the United States and its allies for implementation of selectivity and double standards that turned it into an instrument of the White House s aggressive foreign policy against the southern countries.
The four commissions, designated to represent the 47 current Council members, are trying to achieve consensus about essential issues such as a temporary universal revision of the human rights situation.
This point seeks to achieve equal participation of all in the analysis of any incident or denunciation, of course including the countries affected, and avoiding injustice or political manipulation when deliberating.
The working groups are also making efforts to define a fair procedure to formulate and treat denunciations about any crisis in the area of prerogatives of populations, social sectors, or individuals.
May and June will be important for the Council because, besides concluding that process, it should renew almost a third of its members and develop its fifth ordinary session before the new members assume their posts.
hr ccs iom jrr
Geneva, Apr 6 (Prensa Latina) The UN Human Rights Council confirmed on Friday, shortly before beginning a break for April s religious celebrations, that it will restart negotiations on Tuesday for its own institutional shaping.
The new UN branch, according to the resolution approved by the General Assembly, should conclude that process before June 18, and its permanent working commissions are working hard toward that objective.
The issue is to achieve consensus about its working methods and forms, which allow the authority to comply with its duties without falling into the vices that put paid to its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission.
That commission yielded to the pressures of the United States and its allies for implementation of selectivity and double standards that turned it into an instrument of the White House s aggressive foreign policy against the southern countries.
The four commissions, designated to represent the 47 current Council members, are trying to achieve consensus about essential issues such as a temporary universal revision of the human rights situation.
This point seeks to achieve equal participation of all in the analysis of any incident or denunciation, of course including the countries affected, and avoiding injustice or political manipulation when deliberating.
The working groups are also making efforts to define a fair procedure to formulate and treat denunciations about any crisis in the area of prerogatives of populations, social sectors, or individuals.
May and June will be important for the Council because, besides concluding that process, it should renew almost a third of its members and develop its fifth ordinary session before the new members assume their posts.
hr ccs iom jrr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)