By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Mar 24 2003 (IPS)

A proposal to open a debate on the Iraq question in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights highlighted profound differences between – and within – regional blocs.

The discrepancies were seen, for example, between Arab nations, with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and particularly Kuwait opposed to a debate on Iraq in the Commission, a Latin American diplomat who asked not to be identified told IPS.

India is another country that is reluctant to discuss the Iraq question. In addition, there are Latin American countries that hold conflicting positions. Peru and Guatemala, for example, are flatly opposed to debating the U.S.-British war on Iraq, he said.

The initiative to discuss the question was presented by Algeria, Burkina Faso, Libya, Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Syria, Sudan and Zimbabwe, said Annick Stevenson, spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The nine-nation group called for a discussion on the effects of the war on the Iraqi people and the humanitarian situation in Iraq, and urged the Commission to reaffirm the applicability, in the current conflict, of the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in war-time.

A week ago, the Commission – the highest UN body on human rights – began its annual sessions, which will run through Apr. 25.

The high commissioner’s statement, which called on the parties to the conflict to respect international law and human rights, paved the way for the question to be debated in the Commission. However, the introduction of the proposal for a debate was held up by the underlying divisions.

Several countries argue that the conflict in Iraq does not constitute a human rights issue, but rather a problem of peace and security, which should thus be dealt with in the sphere of the UN Security Council.

But human rights groups argue that the Security Council already failed with respect to Iraq, and suggested that a special session of the UN General Assembly be convened.

The special General Assembly should ”condemn the aggression against Iraq,” said Alejandro Teitelbaum, of the American Association of Jurists, who referred to the conflict as ”another attempt of colonial war against all the peoples of the world.”

The delegate of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Malik Ozden, backed that demand, and said the international community should reach a decision on a response by the UN members, ”the only guarantors of the UN Charter and its implementation…against flagrant violations of international law.”

But the 53 nations sitting on the Commission remain divided, and the dispute over the debate on Iraq is expected to last all week long.

The Latin American source who spoke to IPS predicted that the Commission would take at least a day to examine the procedural aspects of the initiative, which would reflect the political positions taken by the different countries.

The nations pushing for a debate are also expected to introduce a resolution, which could include the idea of sending Vieira de Mello himself to Iraq to assess the situation of human rights on the ground and brief the Commission before it concludes its annual period of sessions.

A year ago, the Commission decided to send then-high commissioner Mary Robinson on a fact-finding mission to the occupied Palestinian territories.

But the Israeli government failed to respond to Robinson’s request for authorisation of the visit, and the source said an eventual Iraqi mission could be frustrated due to similar reasons.

The differences over Iraq marked the climate in which debates began this week, said the source, who added that the United States was applying ”brutal pressure” on the rest of the Commission members.

One of the U.S. representatives, Kevin E. Moley, said ”Nations of conscience should not allow the Commission to become a protected sanctuary for malefactors.”

The Washington delegation is headed this year by conservative ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who represented her country before the UN in New York under president Ronald Reagan (1981-1989).

Kenneth Roth, executive director of the U.S. rights organisation Human Rights Watch, recalled in Geneva that Kirkpatrick was ”most famous for introducing blatant double standards into U.S. human rights policy.”

Washington pressured so-called ”totalitarian” communist governments to improve their human rights records, while turning a blind eye to the excesses of allied right-wing authoritarian regimes, Roth said in a news briefing Monday.

But now, he added, we are facing the danger of ”a new double standard” reflected in ”a view that is increasingly dominant in Washington: that the United States should be above international law.”

According to that view, ”human rights standards are perfectly good for everybody else, but are inappropiate for the superpower, because it has special security responsibilities,” he stated.

Excerpt: