UN Watch welcomed the new clarification issued today by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, in response to its Jan. 28, 2008 letter protesting her endorsement of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which contains anti-Semitic provisions.
“Last week the High Commissioner endorsed the Arab Charter, but today she has shown courage in criticizing its ‘incompatibility… with international norms and standards,’ and that’s a step forward,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. “We welcome Ms. Arbour’s recognition today that the Arab Charter includes ‘inconsistencies’ in regard to its approach to the death penalty for children, the rights of women and non-citizens, and anti-Zionism.”
“At the same time, we await a response to our demand that the UN official who advised the High Commissioner to sign the initial January 24 announcement be held fully accountable,” said Neuer. “We are talking about someone who recommended the endorsing of a charter that promotes classically anti-Semitic themes, describing Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as uniquely evil, and advocating its ‘elimination.’ We trust that the High Commissioner — whose mandate centers on the notion of individual responsibility and accountability, and who opposes the culture of impunity – will lead by example and ask the responsible adviser to draw the necessary conclusions.”
“This latest episode only underscores the kind of dangers that are up ahead. With Ms. Arbour serving as secretary-general of the Durban Review process — ostensibly UN meetings to combat racism, but which is chaired by Libya with the help of Iran and Cuba — we trust that she will immediately and forcefully oppose any similar efforts to hijack the language and idea of human rights for anti-Zionism or to denigrate Western democracies,” said Neuer.
UN Watch Testimony to UN Human Rights Council
Sixth Special Session, Jan. 24, 2008
Delivered by Executive Director Hillel C. Neuer
Mr. President,
The nations assembled in this special session on the Gaza Strip, convened by the Arab and Islamic states, face an immediate question. On the proposal to condemn Israel, for the alleged crime of targeting civilians, should they vote for, or against?
Let us consider the proposed resolution. To understand its purpose we are guided best not by the science that studies the conduct of governments, but that which studies the mind. In psychology, attributing one’s own malicious impulses to others is known as projection.
Mr. President, the resolution before us constitutes a classic case of such projection. It is, after all, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations, who deliberately fire rockets—over 200 in the past week alone—at innocent civilians in Sderot and other Israeli towns. It is they who attack from populated areas, using their fellow Palestinians as human shields. It is they who reject the very notion of a distinction between combatants and civilians.
Israel, like the rest of the civilized world, does the opposite. In exercising its right and obligation under international law to defend its citizens from such attacks, Israel risks the lives of its own soldiers to avoid harming civilians. To Israel, causing a civilian casualty is an unintended tragedy; to Hamas, it is a cause for celebration. The world knows this.
The supporters of those who fire rockets at nursery schools summoned us here to accuse Israel of violating international humanitarian law, when in reality it is they who deny—in word and deed—the very premise of that code.
Let us also consider who initiated this session: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan—each of whom just received the lowest possible rating, Not Free, in the annual world survey by Freedom House. Another is Cuba, which just held an election where the ballots had only one candidate. Are these to be the world’s arbiters of human rights?
The truth is that this session was fixed from the start. Those who sponsored it could introduce a resolution declaring the earth to be flat, and it would be assured of the same automatic majority.
The real question we face is something deeper. Can civilization survive—the values of democracy, freedom and basic humanity—when its underlying ideas are, in such high forums, everywhere under assault?
That may not be decided here today, but every international declaration has its influence. Those countries who genuinely care about the future—of the Middle East, of a credible UN, of civilization—will vote No.
Thank you, Mr. President.
********
Cuba (exercising a right of reply):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, usually, Cuba doesn’t exercise its rights of reply for non-governmental organizations. We appreciate their interventions in the Council as we did before in the Commission, even when they have views different from ours. If I am responding now, I am exercising this right to answer something which is the antithesis of a non-governmental organization.
I am referring to UN Watch and the executive director, Hillel Neuer. I must say, he produced a Hollywood-type display, speaking to this Council and ambassadors and delegates.
UN Watch is a lucrative organization amply funded by the CIA and Mossad, which is devoted to denigrating certain member states and this Council. He told us that Israel and his own organization are within the so-called “civilized world.” This implied that this special session is in the world of the barbarians. But I don’t know anything greater than the acts of barbarians than are taking place in Gaza — dark hospitals, people without water, and other things that UN Watch and his executive director haven’t talked about.
I won’t take any more time talking about this false organization, whose voice I have never heard criticizing the concentration camps in Guantanamo. I will simply wait for them calmly in New York, where in the NGOs meeting they will have to render accounts. And we will see what to do with their consultative status.
Below are selected quotes from the January 23-24, 2008 UN Human Rights Council emergency special session condemning Israel for human rights violations in Gaza. The final resolution passed by a vote of 30 to 1 – Canada alone showed moral courage — with 15 abstentions from EU and other states. For more information about anti-Israel resolutions at the Human Rights Council, click here.
“Israel writes another chapter of terror, massacres, ethnic cleansing, which constitute the pillars of its own creation… Any attempt to curb the Israeli actions is dubbed anti-Semitism. They have a free license to persecute the Palestinian Semites.” — Palestinian Ambassador Mohammad Abu-Koash
“The occupation authorities should immediately cease its criminal activities… The real aim of Israel from these aggressions and crimes is in fact to deliberately abort all Arab and international efforts to invigorate the peace process…” — Syrian Ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui on behalf of the Group of Arab states and the Islamic Group
“Occupation… is the worst form of systematic violations of fundamental human rights…” — Egyptian Ambassador Sameh Shoukry on behalf of the African Group
“In the name of God, the most compassionate and merciful… [This is] the worst kind of collective punishment, the murder of civilians and children. The Israeli authorities are committed to do such crimes and they are defying international law… This council must immediately intervene to help the Palestinian people.” — Saudi Arabian Ambassador Abdulwahab Abdulsalam Attar
“Civilians are being killed by air strikes… Israeli helicopters, bulldozers… A humanitarian crisis on an unprecedented scale…” — Pakistani representative Imtinan Elahi Qureshi
“It is ironic that Israel should now have a policy of Ghettoization… What we see now is the wall of Apartheid, as well described by Jimmy Carter…” — Sri Lankan Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka
“Taking Gaza as hostage is unprecedented. This leads to war crimes…” — Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazaïry
“What has been perpetuated by Israel is contrary to international law — bombing houses, killing of women and children. This is contrary to international standards… Occupation is the main reason of these violations…” — Sudanese representative Omer Dahab Fadol Mohamed
“This is the fourth special session on gross violations of human rights by the Israeli regime… These violent and cruel actions constitute flagrant violations of international humanitarian law… Israel continues its crimes and atrocities against Palestinian people.” — Iranian representative Asadollah Eshragh Jahromi
“Aggression and dangerous massacres are perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people… It is ironic that we hear voices calling for equality in dealing with this issue. Equality should mean taking into account sufferings of the unarmed and innocent…” — Yemeni Ambassador Ibrahim Said Al-Adoofi
“Israel’s blockade creates a serious humanitarian crisis. As a result, people were subjected to further injuries. This is one of many violations perpetrated by Israel constantly… Perpetrators should be brought before justice. These violations are supported by the U.S.A. and Western allies.” — North Korean representative Choe Myong Nam
The UN Human Rights Council held an urgent “special session” today to address “human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including the recent ones in occupied Gaza and West Bank of Nablus.” This is the fourth out of six emergency sessions dealing with Israel, and was convened at the behest of Syria and Pakistan on behalf of the Arab and Islamic groups.
It had fiasco written all over it, prompting Israel and the United States to stay away from the meeting, the first time they had done so at the new council.
The Palestinian ambassador accused Israeli leaders of being “in competition” as to who could best prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. “Israel,” he said, “transgresses legal, ethical and moral standards.” Syria said that Israel’s true aim is to “deliberately abort all Arab and international efforts to invigorate the peace process.” Egypt called Israel’s recent actions “the most brutal forms of violation of human rights.” Bangladesh said that recent events “did not represent the first time Israel has committed crimes.”
The Sri Lankan delegation equated the horrors of World War II and recent events. “It is bitterly ironic that Israel, having practiced for decades a policy of invasion, annexation, occupation – should now add a policy of ghettoization of the Palestinian people. The people of Israel know very well, given their own history, the horrors of such ghettoization… We see scenes… that could not but remind us of the horrors of the Warsaw ghetto during World War II.”
Absent from nearly every speech – save the statements of a few states and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour – was any reference to the responsibilities of Hamas and other terrorist groups.
Slovenia on behalf of the EU, and Russia both made one-line references to the “indiscriminate launching of rockets to Israel.” Canada, though, was the only country to express its full and unwavering opposition to any special session or resolution that did not consider “the responsibilities of all parties,” in particular focusing on “Israeli actions, and not condemning or even mentioning the acts of rocket attacks that deliberately target Israeli civilians.”
High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour also took pains to emphasize the hardship on all sides, beginning her remarks by noting that “the right to life [is] imperiled to all, particular for Israel in Sderot, particularly [for] the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Negotiations on a draft resolution continue Wednesday evening, and the Special Session will reconvene and vote Thursday morning.
Friday, January 18, 2008
STEVEN EDWARDS
Canwest News Service
Members of a United Nations women’s rights panel sat aghast yesterday as women in a Saudi delegation defended their status in their country without a hint of irony.
Marking Saudi Arabia’s first appearance before the panel, the team seemed oblivious to the fact the testimony flew in the face of internationally declared standards.
“Women are flourishing in different areas …” said Dr. Lubna Al-Ansari, one of the many women Saudi Arabia dispatched to testify before the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
“We can travel on our own. For instance, for me, I have permission from my husband, so I can move freely and go wherever I want.”
Another delegate defended Saudi Arabia’s ban on driving for women by saying it’s a legacy of history.
“In ancient times, there were no cars. Women used to ride camels and donkeys. They used to participate in all kinds of transportation,” the delegate explained. “When mentalities are ready, women will be able to drive cars.”
A male member of the Saudi delegation focused on Saudi laws allowing polygamy, saying they restrict the number of wives a man can take to four.
“A man who is not confident about treating his women fairly should marry only one woman,” he said. “One reason for polygamy is that the husband may have a strong sexual desire, and maybe just one woman will not necessarily fulfill all his desire.”
He also described polygamy as “humanitarian” because it gives more women opportunities to marry and “covers the expenses” of more of them.
Committee members shot back, accusing Saudi Arabia of failing to meet international norms that guarantee women’s economic, political and civil rights.
“Only when women are free to make their decisions on all aspects of their life, are they full citizens,” committee member Maria Regina Tavares told the session in Geneva.
Saudi Arabia ratified the 1979 women’s rights treaty that the committee oversees eight years ago – but with the proviso that
Islamic Sharia law would prevail if there were conflict between the two.
With a team of more than 45, the Saudi government made its case with one of the biggest delegations ever to turn up for such a hearing.
The monitoring group UN Watch said the Saudi delegation had masked the “pervasive discrimination” against women in the desert kingdom.
“Many of the responses speak for themselves,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based group.
The hearing took place on the heels of a rape case that focused international attention on the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. In that case, the country’s King Abdullah eventually pardoned the 19-year-old rape victim, who’d been sentenced to lashes by Saudi Arabia’s powerful Islamic clerics because she had been in the company of a man unrelated to her.
“Instead of sending massive delegations to the UN to pretend that Saudi women are not treated like chattel, Riyadh should focus on reforming the kind of discriminatory laws that sentence women rape victims to lashes,” Neuer added.
Recent Comments