The Russian-chaired U.N. committee in Geneva that is drafting the Durban II declaration today barred noted French author Caroline Fourest and her Arte news crew from filming a debate where Pakistan, Iran, and other countries urged the enactment of international curbs on free speech in the name of Islamic sensitivities. Germany protested and the matter will be further considered.
Less
More
Archive for January, 2009
New Website
The UN today launched its new website on the Durban Review Conference (“Durban II”), in a festive atmosphere, with sandwiches and drinks, following a meeting of the Libyan-chaired Bureau, which oversees planning for the April conference. It was attended mostly by government representatives with few NGOs present.
The meeting was chaired by Ibrahim Salama, who now heads the Human Rights Treaties branch of the OHCHR, and is the official who lead the efforts of the UN Secretariat on Durban II. Mr. Salama was ambassador of Egypt to Portugal, member of the UN Sub-Commission for Human Rights, chair of the Working Group on the Rights to Development and African coordinator at Durban I. (for a more detailed background: http://www.faithinhumanrights.org/read/36/dr_ibrahim_salama)
UN Secretariat Planning for Durban II
Mr. Salama delivered a broad overview of the efforts of the Secretariat so far on Durban II issues:
1) Activities in public information
2) Financial Situation
3) Contribution by the High Commissioner
4) Program of Activities during Durban II
5) NGO participation
On public information, Mr. Salama presented the following activities: a new website launched on that day (available at www.un.org/durbanreview2009, to be also available for Durban II follow-up purposes), a newsletter distributed to all those present, an electronic bulletin and a poster (see above). With all these initiatives, Mr. Salama argued that “only facts can defeat fears.” Another colleague presented the different features of the website, which is directed to a “very broad audience.”
Russia Biggest Funder of Durban II; Palestinians Have Money for UN Resolutions
Russia commented that they were happy to see the results of their ($600,000) contribution. Senegal asked whether any outreach to the private sector or political bodies was envisioned.
Mr. Salama thanked Russia for their financial contribution and commented “This was the good news; the bad news is about the financial situation.” He went on to explain the finances of Durban II. He said that the OHCHR is “extremely committed” to the conference and it is a priority. The problem is the lack of funds. The initial cost estimate was $740,000. The OHCHR has been requested to absorb it from its regular budget. This amount covers the April 20-24 conference itself (conference services, translation, rooms, etc). But, he argued, there are many more costs not included: information, outreach, empowerment and participation of NGOs, website, support for LDCs (Least Developed Countries). If the states ask the OHCHR to “convince, outreach, empower”, then they need to provide extra-budgetary resources.
The amount left over from Durban I, together with the voluntary contributions, so far amounts to $1.4 million, with about half from each source. They have already spent $500,000 for staffing and missions. This bring the total cost to $1.9 million, which means that they have a deficit of $1 million. Mr. Salama asked for more contributions and made the following points: (i) they are doing their best with limited resources, (ii) this deficit will have a negative effect on other activities of the OHCHR, (iii) more demands by states in resolutions will lead to less optimal results overall.
Answering a question by UN Watch, Mr. Salama provided a breakdown of the voluntary contributions so far:
Russia: $600,000
China: $20,000
Palestine: $1,700
Indonesia: $20,000 (pledged)
China: $ 20,000 (pledged)
Morocco: $ 22,000 (pledged)
Role of High Commissioner Navi Pillay
On the issue of the contribution by High Commissioner Navi Pillay to Durban II, Mr. Salama said that the OHCHR was working on that report. They have established a cross-desk task force. Mr. Salama will be meeting with regional coordinators on their expectations. The High Commissioner has her views but wants to hear from others what they think. He invited all parties to contact him if interested.
As far as activities are concerned, Mr. Salama informed us that the OHCHR is in touch with other UN agencies and they work together on issues such as health, development, migration, children, all related to the fight against racism.
NGO Forum Not Ruled Out
Last, on NGO participation, Mr. Salama explained the different ways NGOs can be engaged: (a) OHCHR support through travel subsidies, (b) information/outreach (c) participation with side events and within the conference, and (d) informal contact and lobbying delegates. NGO participation is important because they represent the voices of the victims and can bring a meaningful contribution.
The desired parameters for the side-events are: (a) to promote a victim’s perspective, from grass-roots organizations, offer substance for the final outcome and have north/south balance; (b) events within the scope of the DDPA; (c) focus on implementation.
Ms. June Ray, head of the OHCHR Civil Society Unit, added that there is an OHCHR advisory unit, under the direction of the Deputy High Commissioner. They have drafted guidelines for NGO funding and have formed a committee to review applications. They have already supported NGOs to the regional meetings in Abuja and Brazilia and they have received more than 200 applications for support for April. They want to ensure geographical balance, victim group representation and a transparent process. They are open to meet and brief NGOs and they also want to hear about NGO plans.
At the discussion that followed, Mr. Jan Lonn (a leader of the far-left/anti-Israel coalition planning an “NGO Forum”) deplored the late launch of the outreach campaign and stressed the need to “respond to the negation from some corners.” They want to have a civil society forum, which is an important part in NGO mobilization. There is strong support for it from all the regions, but they have problems of logistics and finance.
Mr. Salama said that their optimal objective is participation. They are sympathetic to the complaint about the lack of time. He concluded by saying “any proposal will be considered.”
• Canada condemned Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israel, saying that they are “the cause of the conflict,” that there have been “hundreds and hundreds of rocket attacks, which deliberately target civilians,” and that “first and foremost these rocket attacks must stop.” Canada expressed its concern about the failure of the resolution to clearly establish responsibility of both sides in the conflict, as well as its use of inflammatory language.
• The EU (Czech Republic) expressed its hope that consensus will be reached, and proposed the necessary amendments to win the resolution its approval. The EU stated that its aim is to create a more balanced text that addresses the responsibilities of both sides, includes a call for an immediate cease-fire, acknowledges the peace process and the suffering on both sides, includes the rocket attacks against Israel in the text, and addresses humanitarian issues and measures to alleviate suffering.
• Switzerland said that this is “a different situation than the one in the past couple of years” and expressed its strong desire to reach a consensus on the resolution, albeit with amendments.
• Egypt condemned Israel’s “deliberate attack” on the UNRWA school, which amounted to the “targeted assassination” of more than 40 Palestinians, including many children. It proposed amendments to further bash Israel, including for the purported destruction of Palestinian cultural sites and the disallowing of journalists to enter Gaza.
• A number of states wanted the language of the resolution to be even more inflammatory and one-sided. Algeria requested an additional paragraph to “express outrage at the killings of women and children carried out in full impunity” and that the word “massive” should be added to “grave violations” of human rights by Israel. South Africa wanted the word “systemic” added to this clause too.
• South Africa condemned Israel for failing to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk (who has compared Israelis to Nazis and has a one-sided mandate to only investigate the abuses committed by Israel). South Africa called for a new, UN fact-finding mission of the special rapporteur with the support of the five UN experts on human rights law to report to the March session of the Human Rights Council. Switzerland supported the proposal for a fact-finding mission, saying that it should particularly focus on the attack on the UNRWA school. Pakistan and Monaco supported this Swiss proposal.
• Cuba condemned Israel’s “large-scale aggression,” as well as the military assistance Israel receives from “international powers.” It said that it found some of the proposals from the EU and Canada to be unacceptable.
• The inclusion of rocket attacks against Israel in the resolution was debated. Although Russia said that the rocket attacks were a “pretext” for the conflict, it also noted that Libya had circulated a document which makes reference to them so it did not see why they could not be included in the resolution, especially as it will help bring about consensus. Egypt and various other countries argued that it is acceptable to include the rocket attacks so long as it is mentioned that more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis killed by rocket attacks, and that Israel’s actions are “disproportionate.” Cuba stated that if rocket attacks against Israel are to be included, so should the “indiscriminate” use of mortar fire and cluster bombs by Israel. The characterization of Israel’s actions as “disproportionate” was repeated by Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Lebanon, Cuba, and a little more surprisingly by Mexico and Brazil.
• Bangladesh stated that “the actions of a few Palestinians cannot be equated with the views of a government,” and condemned the “collective punishment” and “targeting of civilians” by Israel. It criticized the notion that the rocket attacks were the cause of the conflict, arguing that “unless the occupation ends, this situation will continue to happen and we will continue to have special sessions one after another” (thus tacitly justifying Hamas terrorism and ignoring the fact that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005).
• Lebanon made a virulently anti-Israel statement, saying: “The Israeli military machine does not distinguish between the unarmed, the elderly, and the handicap who are alone facing the canons in an uneven fight.”
• The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees spoke about the need for there to be access to asylum for Palestinian refugees from Gaza.
Who really requested tomorrow’s U.N. Human Rights Council emergency session on Gaza? Why were certain country names listed and then removed? So the truth can come out, the U.N. secretariat should make public the original signature forms, as it has always done in the past.
According to a January 6th letter signed by the Ambassadors of Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba, on behalf of the Arab, Islamic and Non-Aligned blocs, as posted on the UN website, 29 HRC member states signed the initial request, including Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cameroon. A subsequent note verbale issued the same day by the UN secretariat (OHCHR) added Russia, bringing the number to 30.
Suddenly, however, in a corrected note verbale, dated January 7, the secretariat lowered the number to 29, mysteriously removing purported signatory Bosnia. The same number was reflected in a UN press release issued that day.
Then, in an email sent today at 11:00 a.m. to all member states, signed by Eric Tistounet, chief of the OHCHR Human Rights Council Branch, Argentina, Brazil and China were added, and the number raised to 31 signatories. But wait: doesn’t 29 + 3 = 32?
Normally, yes. But, mysteriously again, the name of another supposed signatory was removed: Cameroon.
(“To the Permanent Missions to the United Nations Office at Geneva: Further to this afternoon Organizational Meeting, the Secretariat of the Human Rights Council wishes to inform that the request for a Special Session is supported by the following 31 Member States of the Council : Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia.”)
What’s going on?
Were Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cameroon listed without their knowledge or consent on the original letter sent by the ambassadors of Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba?
If so, this diplomatic scandal underscores how the U.N. often works. Powerful bloc “coordinators” make all the decisions, often without even bothering to consult the less influential members of their own group, in whose name they claim to speak.
Normally, the U.N. secretariat releases the actual request forms, showing each ambassador’s signatures. This time, however, the only signature released by the U.N. was that of Russia, which followed after the initial group request.
Is it possible that the two signatures were forged? How many others as well? Or were there never any signatures to begin with, and did the secretariat act hastily, listing Bosnia and Cameroon based only on the letter by Egypt, Cuba, and Pakistan?
The U.N. should immediately release the original request forms.
The UN Human Rights Council held a meeting today in Geneva to plan its emergency session on Gaza scheduled for this Friday. The session, expected to last only one day, will be the fifth aimed at condemning Israel out of the nine special sessions the Council has held since it was launched in 2006.
Over that period, the Council — where a bloc of Islamic states backed by many African countries, Russia, China and Cuba holds an overwhelming majority — has condemned Israel 20 times, or 80 percent of all its resolutions. The only other countries to be strongly criticized have been Myanmar, four times, and North Korea, once. The Council has issued no condemnations of any countries in the majority bloc.
Meeting summary:
• In the explanatory remarks as primary sponsor of the special session, Palestine condemned the “massacre” of Gazans, saying that there were more than 900 civilian targets and more than 600 civilians killed. Palestine highlighted the killing of civilians seeking shelter at an UNRWA school, as well as the targeting of ambulances and several aid workers. The delegate also expressed regret about the deaths on both sides.
• Argentina, Brazil, and China said that they received the green light from their capitals to cosponsor the special session.
• Spain complained that the session was not scheduled to be held in the new art ceiling room, a controversial project that cost $23 million and was paid for by Spanish corporations as well as taxpayers. After the secretariat explained that there were difficulties with holding the session in the room, Spain again argued that the room should be fully operational and every effort should be made to hold the session there. The President agreed.
• Consultations on the resolution will be held tomorrow at 10 am.
As expected, the U.N.’s human rights officials are rushing to slam Israel for defending itself against Hamas rocket attacks (see new release below).
We note:
1. The word Hamas appears nowhere in their statement, and its sole responsibility for the crisis — as acknowledged by the Arab leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority — is nowhere mentioned by the UN experts. Nor is there any mention of the double war crime of Hamas’ targeting of Israeli civilians and then hiding among Palestinian civilians.
2. The majority of the experts who purportedly signed this statement have entirely unrelated mandates — on countries like Somalia, Haiti, Burundi, Cambodia, North Korea, or on issues like toxic waste and transnational corporatoins — and have no legal authority to speak on issues irrelevant to the defined mandates given them by the Human Rights Council. What one expert cannot address on his or her own does not become justiciable simply by joining others. But basic procedures at the Arab-controlled U.N. human rights council and its related entities always seem to fall by the wayside when the target is Israel.
——–
2 January 2009
UN human rights experts call for immediate protection of civilians in Middle East crisis
Asma Jahangir, Chairperson of the coordinating body for independent United Nations human rights experts (known as “Special Procedures”) issued the following statement today:
“The Coordination Committee of Special Procedures is deeply alarmed at the continuing violence in Gaza. We stress that international human rights law continues to apply and that it imposes binding obligations on all parties in situations of armed conflict.
We call on all parties to immediately cease all actions that result in civilian casualties, or put them at great risk. Both air strikes by Israeli Government forces and rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel are resulting in inexcusable loss of life and placing the civilian populations in the affected areas in extreme danger.
The use of disproportionate force by Israel and the lack of regard for the life of civilians on both sides cannot be justified by the actions of the other party. They constitute clear violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law.
We are particularly concerned at the impact of the current violence and destruction of vital infrastructure on the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. We call on all parties to immediately ensure full access to humanitarian actors and supplies and enable them to carry out their work of distributing food, treating the sick and injured, and guaranteeing the provision of essential energy and sanitation.
Independent human rights monitoring, including by the various UN Special Procedures, is particularly crucial in these circumstances which result in an exceptionally broad range of human rights violations.”
ENDS
More information regarding UN Special Procedures is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm
or call + 41.79.506.1088
Recent Comments