RIGHTS: U.S. Double Standard Prompts UN Tactical Twists

RIGHTS: U.S. Double Standard Prompts UN Tactical Twists
By Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 22 (IPS) - The United States, which traditionally castigates human rights violators before the United Nations each year, has rarely or ever been formally condemned by the world body for its own transgressions of civil liberties.

But criticisms of recent U.S. abuses - including arbitrary detentions, torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan - were momentarily under a spotlight at the current session of the U.N. General Assembly, which ends mid-December.

''The United States escaped getting a dose of its own medicine,'' says a West African diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. ''They should be happy that Belarus backed out of a resolution critical of U.S. abuses.''

Belarus, which was fighting a resolution condemning its own violations, implicitly threatened to retaliate by introducing a draft motion accusing Washington of violating the rule of law and abusing the Geneva conventions protecting prisoners of war.

''The practice of incommunicado and secret detention should be ended immediately, and the (U.S.) government should ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards,'' said the proposed draft.

But last week Belarus formally withdrew the resolution before it could be debated and voted on, both by a U.N. committee and the General Assembly.

''The primary reason my delegation had introduced the draft was to demonstrate to the international community that no country in the world was immune to human rights problems and should, therefore, not be exempt from international scrutiny,'' Ambassador Andrei Dapkiunas of Belarus, told delegates.

The draft resolution, ''the first of its kind in United Nations history,'' had achieved that objective, he added.

If adopted, the motion would have urged the United States ''to bring its electoral process and legislative framework into line with international standards,'' and also that it ensure conditions of detention conformed to international standards.''

''Moreover,'' said the draft resolution, ''a zero-tolerance policy on torture should be implemented (by the United States), and urgent measures taken to bring legislation on national security into compliance with U.S. obligations under relevant international instruments.''

The rising criticisms against Washington have been prompted by its suspension of civil liberties and stringent new measures on detention - all in the name of fighting terrorism.

The administration of U.S. President George W Bush has also come under fire for turning a blind eye to military excesses committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay, home to prisoners in the "war on terrorism."

After withdrawing the draft resolution, Dapkiunas said Belarus, situated between Poland and Russia, was ''firmly convinced'' the best way to advance human rights is by means of constructive dialogue, not by country-specific resolutions condemning abuses.

Such resolutions, which have been aimed at countries including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Burma (Myanmar), Zimbabwe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Belarus, ''often purposefully exaggerated the situation of human rights in particular states in order to exert political pressure,'' he added.

Dapkiunas called the use of the resolutions ''an instrument of abuse of the U.N. system for achieving unilateral political goals.''

The draft resolution against Belarus was backed by the 25-member European Union and the United States, as are most other draft resolutions on human rights issues.

It expressed ''deep concern'' the nation had failed to meet its international obligations and commitments to hold free and fair elections and, among other things, urged the government to probe and hold accountable those responsible for the mistreatment of domestic and foreign journalists in connection with the October 2004 vote.

According to longtime U.N. observers, resolutions condemning human rights violations have been directed mostly at developing nations, not at the United States or other western industrialised countries - even if they are known to violate civil liberties or impose capital punishment.

The 116-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest single political grouping at the United Nations, has continued to oppose all country-specific resolutions on human rights.

In a surprising move last week, the U.N.'s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee used a procedural gambit to vote in favour of a ''no-action motion'' on the resolution condemning rights violations in Belarus. It was approved by a vote of 75 in favour to 65 against, with 28 abstentions, meaning no further action could be taken on the resolution.

The move was strongly condemned by two human rights groups, London-based Amnesty International (AI) and the Geneva-based International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

''The recourse to no-action motions is a misguided use of procedural rules to prevent the committee from carrying out one of its important tasks - namely, to consider human rights situations on their merits,'' Michelle Evans of ISHR told IPS.

She said the same procedure was deployed at the April session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, where no-action motions were used to stall resolutions against several countries.

Although the commission approved resolutions condemning human rights violations in Cuba, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Belarus, no-action motions prevented it from adopting resolutions against China and Zimbabwe.

Speaking after the vote in Geneva, U.S. Ambassador Richard Williamson warned delegates against ''playing the procedural game of using no-action motions.''

''These motions amounted to approval of human rights abuses perpetrated by nations that disregarded the fundamental principles of the commission,'' he added.

Evans said she hopes the same procedural games will not be replayed at the General Assembly, which has several resolutions condemning abuses in countries such as Sudan, DRC and Zimbabwe expected to come up for votes later this month. Last week two resolutions, one against Iran and the other targeting Turkmenistan, were adopted by majority votes.

If no-action motions are adopted, AI said in a statement issued last week, they will ''effectively halt any further discussion on the human rights situation in the country concerned.''

Yvonne Terlingen, the group's representative at the United Nations, said the General Assembly is a forum in which all member states must be able to discuss human rights violations in an open and cooperative way to decide on the best action by the international community to promote and protect human rights.

''Simply blocking the consideration of proposals before the committee even has an opportunity to consider them only serves to stifle discussion,'' she said in the statement.

By supporting a no-action motion, a member state undermines the General Assembly's ability to assist in the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in a transparent manner, she added.

''The committee's important tradition of open and transparent debate and decision-making must not be put in jeopardy,'' cautioned Terlingen.

''The bottom line'', said one Asian diplomat, ''is that these countries are really rebelling against the United States.''

''If the United States can get away scot-free with charges of human rights abuses, how can you use a different yardstick to measure violations by other countries?'' he asked. (END/2004)

Send your comments to the editor