By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Apr 23 2004 (IPS)

Three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council targeted during this year’s sessions of the Commission on Human Rights eluded censure, while countries that wield little political weight had to face the consequences, say activists and diplomats.

China escaped condemnation of its human rights record by using a procedural mechanism against a censure resolution sponsored by Washington.

Russia came out favoured in a vote on the touchy issue of Chechnya.

The United States rested easy after Cuba withdrew its proposed resolution condemning the continued detentions of foreign nationals at the Guantánamo naval base.

The 53-member Commission on Human Rights, the highest United Nations authority on this issue, approved censures against weaker countries, such as Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar and Turkmenistan.

This unequal dynamic feeds one of the main criticisms of academics, diplomats and human rights activists against the Commission, which concluded its six-week sessions in Geneva on Friday.

But that imbalance does not prevent Weschler and other activists, like Peter Splinter of the U.K.-based Amnesty International, from defending the validity of the Commission’s “Agenda Item 9”, regarding the evaluation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation in individual countries within the U.N. system.

In that respect the stance of the leading non-governmental organisations, like HRW and Amnesty, differs greatly from that of most developing countries, particularly the African and Asian blocs, which favour the elimination or suspension of Item 9.

Splinter said there is a trend towards shifting the evaluation of individual countries from Item 9 to Item 19, which focuses on advisory services and technical cooperation aimed at improving respect for human rights in a given country.

Jean Martin Mbemba, representative of Congo (Brazzaville) and spokesman for the African bloc, said that Item 9 is a “relic of the past” and called on the Commission to adopt a culture of dialogue and to do away with confrontation.

“The current abuse of Item 9 to target Islamic and developing countries does not augur well for the future of this Commission,” said Pakistan’s ambassador Shauka Umer, representing the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in the human rights debates here.

According to Rajmah Hussain, representative from Malaysia: “Agenda Item 9 has been the avenue for the developed countries of the West to push for the adoption of politically motivated country-specific resolutions vilifying developing countries for policies which are not to their liking.”

The United States takes an entirely different position. Richard Williamson, Washington’s representative to the Commission, said there are countries “who routinely abuse their own people, who seek membership often successfully, to get on the Commission in order to protect themselves. It is not surprising that some of those of countries might like to eliminate Item 9.”

In unofficial comments, Williams said the United States would consider leaving the Commission if its members were to decide to eliminate Item 9.

Despite the zeal of the United States and of some other countries of the Commission’s Western bloc to carry out investigations of individual countries, as stipulated in Item 9, this year there was a noteworthy exception: the situation in Iraq was ignored.

“It is a perplexing and troubling omission,” commented interim U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan as the sessions drew to an end Friday.

“There must be accountability in warfare,” he said. “At this time there is no international monitoring of the human rights situation in Iraq,” whether in relation to terrorism or to “the extent of the use of force and the treatment of civilians.”

The European Union, which usually put forth the Iraqi case for consideration of the Commission, this year abstained.

Chris Sidoti, director of the Geneva-based non-governmental organisation International Service for Human Rights, said that the situation in Iraq has fallen under the “consensus of silence” that prevailed on several key issues during the Commission’s sessions, such as the status of the Guantánamo prisoners.

But the divergence of opinion in the Commission extends also to the thematic issues, like racism, discrimination and xenophobia.

The international community’s leading human rights body failed to reach consensus on a “common position” against racism. The proposal of the African group, with support of developing countries, was ultimately approved, but the United States voted against it and the European Union abstained.

Hardeep Puri, India’s representative on the Commission, wondered, “Are we then to conclude from these reservations that there are some human rights causes that are worthy of support and others no?”

“I hope that is not the case,” said the diplomat, stressing that human rights represent a “composite indivisible whole.”

The United States has seen its credibility undercut by its positions on the thematic issues, said HRW’s Weschler, citing Washington’s opposition to debate on matters like the right to health and the right to food.

She also recalled that the United States was voted off the Commission a few years ago after a series of such moves, but as long as they hold seats, “you have a situation in which the strongest countries are able to defend themselves from the Commission scrutiny.”

Excerpt:

By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Apr 23 2004 (IPS)

Three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council targeted during this year’s sessions of the Commission on Human Rights eluded censure, while countries that wield little political weight had to face the consequences, say activists and diplomats.

China escaped condemnation of its human rights record by using a procedural mechanism against a censure resolution sponsored by Washington.

Russia came out favoured in a vote on the touchy issue of Chechnya.

The United States rested easy after Cuba withdrew its proposed resolution condemning the continued detentions of foreign nationals at the Guantánamo naval base.

The 53-member Commission on Human Rights, the highest United Nations authority on this issue, approved censures against weaker countries, such as Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar and Turkmenistan.

This unequal dynamic feeds one of the main criticisms of academics, diplomats and human rights activists against the Commission, which concluded its six-week sessions in Geneva on Friday.

China, Russia and the United States are able to avoid being penalised thanks to the political power of their governments, while it is much easier to condemn politically isolated countries, Human Rights Watch’s U.N. representative Joanna Weschler told IPS.

But that imbalance does not prevent Weschler and other activists, like Peter Splinter of the U.K.-based Amnesty International, from defending the validity of the Commission’s “Agenda Item 9”, regarding the evaluation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation in individual countries within the U.N. system.

In that respect the stance of the leading non-governmental organisations, like HRW and Amnesty, differs greatly from that of most developing countries, particularly the African and Asian blocs, which favour the elimination or suspension of Item 9.

Splinter said there is a trend towards shifting the evaluation of individual countries from Item 9 to Item 19, which focuses on advisory services and technical cooperation aimed at improving respect for human rights in a given country.

Jean Martin Mbemba, representative of Congo (Brazzaville) and spokesman for the African bloc, said that Item 9 is a “relic of the past” and called on the Commission to adopt a culture of dialogue and to do away with confrontation.

“The current abuse of Item 9 to target Islamic and developing countries does not augur well for the future of this Commission,” said Pakistan’s ambassador Shauka Umer, representing the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in the human rights debates here.

According to Rajmah Hussain, representative from Malaysia: “Agenda Item 9 has been the avenue for the developed countries of the West to push for the adoption of politically motivated country-specific resolutions vilifying developing countries for policies which are not to their liking.”

The United States takes an entirely different position. Richard Williamson, Washington’s representative to the Commission, said there are countries “who routinely abuse their own people, who seek membership often successfully, to get on the Commission in order to protect themselves. It is not surprising that some of those of countries might like to eliminate Item 9.”

In unofficial comments, Williams said the United States would consider leaving the Commission if its members were to decide to eliminate Item 9.

Despite the zeal of the United States and of some other countries of the Commission’s Western bloc to carry out investigations of individual countries, as stipulated in Item 9, this year there was a noteworthy exception: the situation in Iraq was ignored.

“It is a perplexing and troubling omission,” commented interim U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan as the sessions drew to an end Friday.

“There must be accountability in warfare,” he said. “At this time there is no international monitoring of the human rights situation in Iraq,” whether in relation to terrorism or to “the extent of the use of force and the treatment of civilians.”

The European Union, which usually put forth the Iraqi case for consideration of the Commission, this year abstained.

Chris Sidoti, director of the Geneva-based non-governmental organisation International Service for Human Rights, said that the situation in Iraq has fallen under the “consensus of silence” that prevailed on several key issues during the Commission’s sessions, such as the status of the Guantánamo prisoners.

But the divergence of opinion in the Commission extends also to the thematic issues, like racism, discrimination and xenophobia.

The international community’s leading human rights body failed to reach consensus on a “common position” against racism. The proposal of the African group, with support of developing countries, was ultimately approved, but the United States voted against it and the European Union abstained.

Hardeep Puri, India’s representative on the Commission, wondered, “Are we then to conclude from these reservations that there are some human rights causes that are worthy of support and others no?”

“I hope that is not the case,” said the diplomat, stressing that human rights represent a “composite indivisible whole.”

The United States has seen its credibility undercut by its positions on the thematic issues, said HRW’s Weschler, citing Washington’s opposition to debate on matters like the right to health and the right to food.

She also recalled that the United States was voted off the Commission a few years ago after a series of such moves, but as long as they hold seats, “you have a situation in which the strongest countries are able to defend themselves from the Commission scrutiny.”

***** + U.N. Commission on Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/)

+ Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/)

+ Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/)

+ International Service for Human Rights (http://www.ishr.ch/)

(END/IPS/WD/HD-IP/TRASP-LD/PC/MP/04)

Excerpt: