Archive for February, 2008

Non-Democracies seek to increase control over UN High Commissioner Arbour’s work

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 22, 2008 in High Commissioner of Human Rights and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

The UN Human Rights Council held an organizational meeting today to plan its main annual session coming up in March.

The Council president went over the draft schedule for the session and announced that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will be addressing the Council at its opening.

Other than the procedural issues, there were two substantive matters that were brought up.

The first was an attempt by Council members to exercise control over the office of the High Commissioner, long suspected as a Western redoubt in a universe otherwise dominated by Islamic and Third World countries.

The request — by Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, Algeria and China — was to include a special segment during the session in order to discuss the Strategic Management Plan of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The High Commissioner presented this document to the Geneva ambassadors last month. Pakistan stressed the need to “streamline” the relationship between the Council and the High Commissioner.

Egypt said that the African Group had posed 11 detailed comments on the strategic plan and there was not enough time for responses. They want to put these remarks on the record. The strategic plan may not conform with the strategic framework as set out by HRC resolutions and that is why this needs to be discussed within the HRC framework. China said that the Council has the right to provide guidance to the OHCHR. They also asked for advance consultations on the issue in the future.

Slovenia on behalf of the EU and Switzerland came to the defense of the High Commissioner. Slovenia said that such a segment is not necessary as the program already has an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner. Switzerland said that the Strategic Plan is an internal document, that was presented as a courtesy and in the spirit of transparency. Such documents do not need to be approved. It is important to preserve the autonomy and one should not impose internal management on the office.

The second substantive issue arose from an intervention by Amnesty International. Its Geneva-based representative, Peter Splinter, commented on the proposals of the Consultative Group, which was tasked with the mandate of making proposals for the vacant mandate-holder positions. Peter Splinter said he is concerned with the process for the selection of the new Special Rapporteurs. The report of consultative report did not respect all requirements. The process had to be transparent and the proposals substantiated. No explanations were offered for the alternatives nor how the suggestions of other stake-holders were taken into account. The report did not detail how the required criteria are fulfilled. Moreover there are only two women candidates. Amnesty asked for a new report in conformity with resolution 5/1. Peter Splinter concluded by saying that AI does not take a position in support or against any candidate.

Algeria called AI’s statement a “gross misinterpretation.” Pakistan sarcastically suggested that Amnesty be included in the Consultative Group.

Algerian Ambassador: Islamophobia is like Nazism

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 22, 2008 in "Defamation of Religion", Freedom of Religion and Racism. 0 Comments

The Ad Hoc Committee of the UN Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards — a follow-up group to the 2001 Durban conference against racism — continued its work Wednesday and considered recommendations by a group of five human rights experts. (To read about previous Ad Hoc Committee meetings, click here). The report by the group of experts included recommendations regarding additional conventions, optional protocols and other mechanisms to combat racism.

Egypt found the report “unacceptable,” particularly a section on recommendations to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) to combat the nexus of racism and religion, since such recommendations omitted “issues related to defamation of religion.”

Supporting Egypt, committee chair Idriss Jazairy of Algeria likened 20th century Nazism and anti-Semitism to the current wave of Islamophobia. “When I was a young boy in France during World War II,” said Ambassador Jazairy, “I could see the ways Jews were mistreated. [This mistreatment was] not because of the articles of their faith, but because of what they (Jews) were. Muslims are facing acute challenges in this century, like the Jews were exposed to difficult challenges in the last century…We should keep in mind the experience of the 20th century as we try to address the challenges of the 21st century.”

The committee also considered the issue of complementary standards related to racism faced by people “under foreign occupation.” While the report by the group experts concluded that no new mechanisms are necessary, Syria, Pakistan, and Egypt made lengthy interventions on the evils of occupation and the need for a new convention or optional protocol on the matter. Syria argued that such standards are needed as “certain countries force women to give birth at checkpoints” and “raze kindergartens,” while Pakistan and Egypt stated that “foreign occupation is the worst form of human rights abuse.”

Chairman Jazairy said that “if discrimination against some Semites is racism, then such discrimination against a larger group of Semites should also be discrimination.”

UN Watch director Hillel Neuer elected VP of NGO Human Rights Committee

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 21, 2008 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC), NGOs and UN Watch News. 1 Comment

Click for HTML version and photo

Geneva, Feb. 20, 2008 — UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer was elected vice-president of the Geneva-based Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights, part of the worldwide Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations (CONGO).

The Special Committee is composed of more than 50 NGOs with UN consultative status that are active on a range of human rights issues. It works to bring together international NGOs, improve their cooperation, disseminate information, and increase their exchanges with the United Nations and its agencies.

Executive Director Hillel Neuer with the President of the UN Human Rights Council, Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea, February 19, 2008.

“UN Watch is both immensely proud and gratified that Hillel Neuer has been elected a vice-president of the Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights,” said Alfred H. Moses, chair of UN Watch. “Hillel’s election by acclamation is testimony to his leadership role on behalf of UN Watch in championing human rights worldwide,” said Moses.

“I am grateful to the special committee for this opportunity to promote the vital role of non-governmental organizations in the protection of human rights,” said Neuer.

“I extend my congratulations to Budi Tjahjono, the new president, and to the other members of the bureau. I look forward to fruitful cooperation with them and all of the committee’s constituent NGOs as we continue our critical work to enable NGOs to further the cause of human rights.”

The new bureau, which was elected on Febraury 8, 2008 and held its first meeting on Monday, is as follows. President: Budi Tjahjono (Pax Romana), Vice-Presidents: Hillel Neuer (UN Watch), Peter Prove (Lutheran World Federation), Helen Sackstein (International Alliance of Women), Treasurer: Lee Weingarten (Women International League for Peace & Freedom), Secretary: Philippe Dam (CONGO). Bureau members serve for three years

Algeria tells UN Durban follow-up session: Islamohobia is the new anti-Semitism

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 19, 2008 in "Defamation of Religion", Antisemitism, Durban 2009, Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Middle East and Racism. 0 Comments

In what may be a portent of things to come, Islamic accusations against the West dominated a UN session today dedicated to follow-up of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa. 

This week in Geneva saw the first meeting of the “Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards,” which was created by a UN Human Rights Council resolution on follow-up to the 2001 Durban conference.  Initiated by Algeria on behalf of Africa, it was adopted in December 2006 over the opposition of the EU, Canada and other democratic states on the Council.  The resolution sought to “heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism.”

The Ad Hoc committee is not formally part of the planning for the controversial 2009 Durban Review Conference, but is an overlapping entity that treats the same theme and involves the same diplomats.  Its mandate is to elaborate “complementary standards” to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and to provide “new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism including incitement to racial and religious hatred.”

The EU this week reiterated its unease with the committee but pledged to cooperate. Egypt on behalf of the African Group justified the need for the committee.

Today’s session quickly turned to familiar UN subjects of “foreign occupation,” the Danish cartoon controversy, Islamophobia, and colonialism:

  • Algerian Deputy Permanent Representative Mohammed Bessedik drew thinly veiled comparisons of today’s treatment of Muslims to the Nazi atrocities against Jews.  “The policy of targeting Muslims would actually aim at dehumanizing them by assaulting their identity to legitimize an attitude of racial discrimination similar to the one that targeted another Semitic people in the 20th century.” He described the threat of “reawakening the hydra of the anti-Semitic campaigns of the 20th century, which we now call Islamophobia.”  Click for full speech (in French)
  • Egypt’s representative cited the Danish cartoon controversy as an example of where legislation exists but was not implemented, or has not been updated. He also criticized recent fires and riots in Paris and other European cities. These, he claimed, can constitute threats to international peace and security. “Let this mechanism prevent these phenomena from escalating, so that the Security Council does not have to deal with them,” he urged. 
  • The representative of Belgium asked that specific country cases not be named, but Egypt denied having made references to any particular country, adding “If political exploitation of migrants or religions for political reasons comes from a particular region, if fires and riots come from a particular region, if resistance to combat these phenomena come from a particular region, this is not my responsibility.”
  • Egypt offered the example of the “Da Vinci Code” film, which was deemed insulting “by the Christian Pope and by the 7-8 million Christians in Egypt.” Egypt did not allow this movie to be shown in any movie theater and “even bringing it in as a tourist can get you in trouble.” Christians are not a majority in Egypt and Sharia law is the pillar of Egyptian law, he said, but respect for all religions is paramount. The devout Muslim members of parliament were the first to push for this legislation, he noted.
  • In thinly veiled jibes against Israel, “foreign occupation” was raised repeatedly by Islamic states. Syria and Algeria called it one of the worst forms of human rights violations. Egypt referred to countries that occupy other countries for a lengthy period as “a form of racism by itself” and “a racist regime of occupation.”
  • Egypt accused the Europeans of lacking political will to combat racism.
  • Senegal stressed the need for finding new language for contemporary manifestations of racism — another way of calling for a reopening of the Durban 2001 declaration.
  • Egypt and Pakistan criticized “racial profiling” against individuals of a different religion. Egypt said that this should constitute a complementary standard.

U.S. to go before U.N. Racism Review Panel

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 19, 2008 in Racism. 0 Comments

The U.S. is up for review this week before the 18-member UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), on February 21 and 22.  Below is a summary of the American submissions to the Committee, the panel’s questions posed to the U.S., and two of the many NGO reports.

U.S. Submission to CERD

The U.S. submitted a 115-page report answering the standard CERD questionnaire about domestic laws and policies on racism.  It includes:

•          “The United States is a vibrant, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural democracy in which individuals have the right to be protected against discrimination based, inter alia, on race, color, and national origin in virtually every aspect of social and economic life.  The U.S. Constitution and federal law prohibit discrimination in a broad array of areas, including education, employment, public accommodation, transportation, voting, housing and mortgage credit access, as well as in the military, and in programs receiving federal financial assistance.  In addition, nondiscrimination obligations are imposed on federal contractors and subcontractors by Executive Order.”

•          “Two subjects of concern have been particularly acute in the years since 2000.  The first involves the increase in bias crimes and related discriminatory actions against persons perceived to be Muslim, or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent, after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  The second involves the impacts of the changing demographic caused by high rates of immigration into the United States – both legal and illegal.  The continuing legacies described above, in addition to these more recent issues, create on-going challenges for the institutions in the United States that are charged with the elimination of discrimination.  Thus, despite significant progress, numerous challenges still exist, and the United States recognizes that a great deal of work remains to be done.”

CERD Questions to U.S.

Following the standard procedure, the CERD asked the U.S. for clarifications, including the following:

 -     The application of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to non-citizens (possibly a veiled to Guantanamo Bay detainees)
-          Conformity of US civil rights statutes – which provide that claims on racial discrimination must be accompanied by proof of intentional discrimination — with the Convention
-          Racial profiling
-          Residential segregation
-          Racial re-segregation of public schools
-          Police brutality against people belonging to racial, ethnic or national minorities
-          Various measures adopted in the wake of 9/11 to prevent and punish all forms of discrimination against Muslims and Arabs, South Asians and persons perceived as Muslims or Arabs
-          Ill-treatment of undocumented migrants crossing the Mexican-American border
-          Equal and effective enjoyment of rights for indigenous peoples
-          Adequate health care and services to people belonging to minorities
-          Rehabilitation of minorities after Hurricane Katrina

NGO Submissions

May NGOs also filed their own submissions to the panel, which can be viewed here.  Following are two examples.

Amnesty International (click here for report) expressed serious concerns about “the discriminatory treatment of non-US nationals held by the US military in the context of the so-called ‘war on terror,’ the latter an issue not touched upon in the USA’s report.”  Amnesty also addressed the U.S. government’s “failure to protect indigenous women from sexual violence and concerns about the treatment of displaced residents of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”  It also expressed deep concerns about death penalty and racial minorities.

Human Rights Watch (click here for report) raised three specific issues as a complement to the other NGO submissions:

·       “First, we provide specific evidence of the United States government’s failure to inform the constituent states about ICERD [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination] and its provisions and to seek information from the states, so that it can review their policies and practices in light of the treaty. We believe these failures constitute violations of Article 2.1 of ICERD.”

·       “Second, we view the discriminatory treatment of Haitian refugees as a violation of the right to equality before the law as provided in Article 5.”

·       “Third, in the context of racial disparities in the sentencing of black and white youth to life without the possibility of parole … Human Rights Watch presents the Committee with new data that challenge the US government’s assertion that ‘disparities are related primarily to differential involvement in crime by the various groups … rather than to differential handling of persons in the criminal justice system.’ Our data demonstrate that in at least 10 states black youth arrested for murder are significantly more likely to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole than white youth arrested for the same crime. We believe these data provide an egregious example of unequal treatment before the courts, in violation of the United States’ treaty obligations under Article 5(a).”

Conclusions

Following the session this week, the panel will prepare its concluding observations, which will be available here.

President Sarkozy: France to “disengage” from UN’s Durban II racism conference if abuses recur

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 14, 2008 in Durban 2009. 0 Comments

 Click here for full HTML version with links

UN Watch urges other European leaders to set “red lines” at upcoming conference

Geneva, February 14, 2008 — UN Watch praised French President Nicolas Sarkozy for sending a powerful warning last night to organizers of the UN’s “Durban II” racism conference, one that must now be emphasized by other European leaders.

In an address to over 1,000 guests attending the annual dinner of the French Jewish community’s umbrella organization, known as the CRIF, President Sarkozy said, “the Durban conference in 2001 led to intolerable excesses from certain states and numerous NGOs that turned the conference into a forum against Israel, and no one has forgotten.”

“France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001. Our European partners share France’s concerns. France will chair the EU in the final months preceding the review conference.  I say to you:  if ever our legitimate demands are not taken into account, we will disengage from the process.”

“President Sarkozy showed great moral clarity as the first European leader to publicly set red lines for Durban II,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. “To prevent the worst, the EU’s 26 other leaders must also make clear that if the conference breaches basic principles, they will walk out.”

Continue reading ‘President Sarkozy: France to “disengage” from UN’s Durban II racism conference if abuses recur’

UN rights chief praises Cuba for hosting pro-Castro UN investigator

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 14, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

(Click here for HTML version with links to sources)

UN Watch urges High Commissioner Arbour to clarify her position on Cuba and UN official Jean Ziegler

Geneva, February 14, 2008 — The UN’s human rights chief should reconsider her praise of Cuba’s record and of the recent mission there by a UN official compromised by ties to the Castro regime, said UN Watch today.

In a letter sent to High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based human rights monitoring group, urged her to recognize Cuba’s consistently negative role at the UN Human Rights Council. UN Watch also questioned Arbour’s praise of a mission to Cuba by Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, whose position at the world body was sponsored by Cuba, and who co-founded the Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize that was given to Fidel Castro in 1998.

  Continue reading ‘UN rights chief praises Cuba for hosting pro-Castro UN investigator’

South Africa says it will host ‘Durban II’ racism conference, UN Watch fears repeat of 2001 debacle

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 14, 2008 in Antisemitism, Durban 2009 and Racism. 0 Comments

Geneva rights group welcomes today’s principled statement by Secretary Rice                    

Geneva, February 14, 2008 — After South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki announced that his country will play host to a follow-up session of the discredited 2001 Durban anti-racism conference, UN Watch expressed worry about a repeat of the original debacle. The Geneva monitoring organization welcomed today’s statement by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as reported by the Associated Press, that the U.S. will not attend the meeting if it is anti-Semitic, and UN Watch called on other states to clarify their red lines.

“Next year, South Africa will play host to the Review Conference to evaluate the implementation of the decisions of the World Conference Against Racism which was held in our country in [2001],” Mbeki told the South African parliament on Friday. (Click for full speech.)

Although some observers had speculated that Mbeki meant to refer only to a regional preparatory meeting, senior sources in South Africa confirmed that the government intends to host the final 2009 Durban Review Conference.

The original 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa was supposed to combat racism, but was widely criticized as having degenerated into a festival of hate, with virulent anti-Semitic street demonstrations and physical attacks, leading the United States and Israel to walk out. Canada recently announced it will not participate in what has become known as “Durban II,” citing concerns that the process was heading once again in harmful directions.

“Those of us trying to prevent a recurrence of the 2001 violence and hatred are alarmed by the prospect of holding the sequel in the same country,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

“Moreover, the text of the UN resolution on Durban II, as well as UN practice for all review conferences, require that the meeting be held within the framework of the General Assembly in New York, or at the UN’s European headquarters in Geneva.”

“Only the UN has the power to decide the venue,” said Neuer, “and the European Union and other member states need to make clear that a breach of the rules on this question would be the crossing of a red line.”

The location of the 2009 meeting is expected to be finalized at the upcoming April 2008 meeting in Geneva of the conference’s planning committee. The African and Islamic blocs are expected to support South Africa’s request, along with other countries including Cuba, China and North Korea.

“Apart from venue,” said Neuer, “with Qaddafi’s Libya as chair of the planning committee, and Ahmadinejad’s Iran as a vice-chair, there are obviously many other serious concerns that need to be addressed.”
 

Damascus uses UNESCO designation to claim title as “capital of resistance culture”

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 7, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

The Culture of Tyranny

By Guest Contributors  Nir Boms and Jonathan Spyer

The ancient city of Damascus received another mark of recognition last week. Following in the wake of Liverpool – which was recognized as the European Capital of Culture, and Stavanger in Norway, which was named the non-EU European Capital of Culture, UNESCO last week designated Damascus as the Arab Capital of Culture for 2008.

In a speech celebrating this decision, Syrian President Bashar Assad chose to highlight a very specific element of his capital city’s culture – namely, Damascus’s self-appointed role as the center of Arab ‘resistance.’ “Damascus is the capital of resistance culture by symbolizing Arab culture” he declared, and went on to define ‘resistance culture’ as “the culture of freedom and defending freedom.”

A closer look at what exactly President Assad means by ‘resistance culture’ might lead one to ask whether the type of activity designated by the term really deserves the acclaim and recognition of an august international body such as UNESCO.

UNESCO’s Cultural Capitals Program was launched in the Arab world in1998. It aims to promote the cultural aspects of development and increased international cooperation.

The new Arab Capital of Culture has a unique approach to “international cooperation.” Damascus serves as the headquarters of a long list of designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), and an alphabet soup of smaller organizations similarly committed to the practice of violence against civilians. This particular approach to encouraging international cooperation brought the Assad regime to international recognition even prior to its latest accolade from UNESCO. Syria has successfully defended its position at the top of the USA’s list of “countries supporting terrorism” since 1979.

Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has served as the operational headquarters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and as a nexus for the transfer of external funds to operatives of these organizations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Seized documents revealed a series of direct financial transactions from Syria to the two terrorist organizations. Syria, who was quick to recognize the Hamas Government in Gaza (despite the objection of the Palestinian Prime minister) also announced a public donation campaign to support it.

According to the State Department, Syria gives the Lebanese militia Hizballah “substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid”. Iranian arms bound for Hizballah regularly pass through Syria which effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon between 1990 and 2005, and which is currently engaged in attempting to regain control in Beirut.

Hizballah’s July 2006 missile strikes on Israeli cities – another expression, presumably, of the “culture of resistance,” prompted allegations that Syria and Iran were using the group to deflect international attention from other issues, such as Iran’s contentious nuclear program.

Syria is also active in Iraq. David Satterfield, Co-ordinator for Iraq at the State Department, recently noted that the US had received ‘no Syrian cooperation’ in attempting to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. Rather, he continued, “Syria still allows foreign fighters and suicide bombers to pass across its territories into Iraq.” A recent US media report estimated that 90% of foreign fighters entering Iraq to take part in insurgent activity come via Syria.

In Lebanon, Damascus is thought to be behind the wave of killings of anti-Syrian political figures which began with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. Syria is doing its utmost to prevent the emergence of a new president and a stable government in Lebanon. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner last week told Arab reporters in Paris that “Syria wants to appoint the prime minister in Lebanon, the ministers, the distribution of ministries and the governmental plan of action through its allies in Beirut.”

The new Capital of Culture and Resistance also, according to U.S. defense and intelligence reports, maintains an active chemical weapons program. Other reports suggest that Syria was clandestinely working on a nuclear program when these efforts were halted by a successful Israeli attack in September, 2007.

Thus, the ‘culture of resistance’ means acts of terror against civilians, the deliberate subversion of the governments of neighboring countries, the assassination of political opponents and the apparent attempt to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. One wonders if this is what UNESCO – which describes its own goal as ‘to build peace in the minds of men’ had in mind. The title of ‘Arab capital of culture’ is currently held by the capital of one of the most brutal and lawless regimes in the world. Arab culture – which has given so much of lasting beauty and value to humanity – surely deserves a better representative.

Nir Boms is vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East. Jonathan Spyer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya.

Originally published at http://threatswatch.org/
 

Saying it all in 420 words: European commentators, Israel and the Gaza Strip

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 7, 2008 in Middle East. 0 Comments

The Times, January 31, 2008

A barrage against Israel
The critics had another field day yesterday. But their arguments are dishonest

By Robin Shepherd

Yesterday’s publication of the Winograd report into Israel’s prosecution of the 2006 campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon provides a new opportunity for commentators to demonstrate their capacity for sober, balanced analysis. They will note the criticisms directed against Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister, while lauding the report as a display of democratic accountability unthinkable in any other country in the Middle East. Never failing to see the bigger picture, they will carefully weigh the options faced by a democracy under fire from some of the dangerous people on the planet.

Forget it. Most commentators, of course, will do nothing of the sort. Such is the obsessive desire to beat the Jewish state with any stick available, we should prepare for yet more moral inversion and wilful distortion. To get a sense of the sheer irrationality of the anti-Israeli polemicists, it is worth looking at recents events in Gaza.

Apologists for extremism had long argued that occupation rather than ideology was the “root cause” of terrorism. Terrorism would therefore cease once occupation ended. That argument has now been conclusively defeated. Since Israel withdrew, Palestinian militants have fired more than 4,000 rockets from Gaza at Israeli civilian targets.

Now, there is not a state in the world that could ignore this kind of barrage. So what were the options? One was reoccupation. Another was to carpet-bomb the areas from which the rockets are being fired. Many states would have done both. Israel has done neither.

What has Israel actually done? First, it has built a barrier around Gaza to limit the ability of suicide bombers to kill civilians. Secondly, it makes incursions to target the terrorist infrastructure. Thirdly, it has restricted imports into Gaza to stop bomb-making equipment from getting to the terrorists in aid and food packages. Fourthly, it has applied economic sanctions against the Hamas regime. Israel, in other words, has chosen the strategy least likely to cause heavy loss of life while still exercising its right to self-defence.

The condition of the residents of Gaza is dire. But ultimate blame for this surely rests with Hamas, other militants and the culture of violence in Palestinian society that sustains them. In the absence of all this there would, of course, be no security barrier, no military incursions, no trade restrictions and no sanctions.

In the topsy-turvy world of British and European commentary, however, reasoned argument is cast aside. The frenzied, rhetorical onslaught against the Jewish state is at best intellectually lazy. At worst it forms part of a hateful agenda that shames those who indulge in it.

Robin Shepherd, a senior fellow at Chatham House, is writing a book on European attitudes to Israel.

Original URL:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3278541.ece

Durban II update: 2009 conference location undecided, NGO forum in doubt

Published by
UN Watch
- at February 5, 2008 in Uncategorized. 1 Comment

On January 30, 2008, the UN’s Jose Domingo Dougan-Beaca, head of the Anti-Discrimination Unit at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), briefed NGOs in Geneva on the latest news concerning Durban II:

  • Location of 2009 conference undecided:  No country has yet volunteered to host the final 2009 Durban Review Conference. New York and Geneva are two locations being considered.
  • NGO Forum “cast a negative light”:  There is a debate at the OHCHR on whether a NGO Forum should take place at the 2009 conference. OHCHR is thinking against it, since the NGO forum at Durban 2001 cast a “negative light” on the entire conference.
  • Regional meetings:  Brazil is the only country that has offered to hold a regional coordination meeting in advance of the 2009 conference. The OHCHR will send letters to regional groups asking that they organize any regional coordination meetings between June and September 2008.

* * *

Following are highlights from last week’s 6th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action:

  • An inter-sessional working group on Durban will likely be created and meet between this year’s two substantive Durban planning sessions, between May and October 2008.
  • In the absence of the U.S., Canada, and Australia, the European Union found itself leading opposition to various efforts by the African and Islamic states. The EU strongly resisted attempts to introduce new topics into the Durban II discussion — i.e., topics not contained in the original 2001 Durban declaration. Egypt on behalf of the African group proposed that the Working Group take up new issues such as remedies for victims of racism, incitement to hatred and racial profiling. The IGWG will meet for a second week sometime in 2008 and discuss issues delegated to it by the April Durban prep-com.
  • Egypt on behalf of the African group said they will table a comprehensive resolution on Durban follow-up at the Human Rights Council’s March 2008 session, which will likely include many contentious issues.