 |
The B’nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs has a mandate to protest the abuse of human rights throughout the world and advocate on behalf of worldwide Jewish communities in distress. The Institute has a special focus on pro-Israel advocacy and education. |
|
|
Rochelle Wilner |
Frank Dimant |
Amos Sochaczevski |
Ruth Klein |
The Department is well aware of the Commission’s preoccupation with Israel, which on the basis of time and resources alone leads to the inevitable exclusion of more pressing issues relating to the UNCHR members. However, the politicization of the UNCHR goes much further. Its ingrained predisposition to anti-Israel positions and its insistence on appropriating the bulk of the proceedings to repeated pro forma condemnations of Israel, have resulted in the exclusion of many grave issues around the world and virtually ensured protection from scrutiny for the Commission’s member states.
Israel is discussed under multiple Agenda items. Its inclusion under item 5, which deals with “The right of peoples to self determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation” is in itself specious, since the title denotes blanket acceptance of the notion that Israel’s presence in what is termed “Occupied Palestine” is “colonial…alien… or foreign”. How can that terminology be applied to a people who are indigenous to the area? Only the fixed ideology of the anti-Israel lobby at the UNCHR, which views Israel as an alien entity that has no place in the Middle East, could manoeuvre the inclusion of the “Situation in Occupied Palestine” in that particular Agenda item.
As it is, an entire Agenda item — no. 8 — is devoted solely to the “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”. At the same time the entire remainder of the world is covered under just one Agenda item — no. 9.
In fact, notwithstanding the fact that issues relating to Israel have been exhaustively covered under the previous item, the very first country specific resolution covered in Agenda item no. 9 is the “Lebanese detainees in Israel”. Not able to reproduce previous condemnations of the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon following the IDF’s complete withdrawal in May 2000, as confirmed by the United Nations, this item is a ruse to bring up Israel for censure once again.
Any bona fide comment on the fate of detainees in the area would surely have covered the fate of Lebanese citizens opposed to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon who are currently detained in Syria. It should also have covered the fate of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah on October 7, 2002 and now presumed dead, Israeli civilian Elchanan Tanenbaum, who was kidnapped shortly afterwards and is being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Israeli soldiers missing in action, some of whom have been missing — with no definitive word on their fate — for over 20 years.
Agenda item no. 9 then lists proposed discussion of just 12 countries, only four of which are Commission members. This is in spite of the finding by Freedom House that less than half of the Commission member states can be said to truly respect the freedom and rights — whether political, civil or personal — of their citizens.
Five additional countries are discussed in other parts of the Agenda, only one of which — Uganda — is a Commission member. Three of these countries are found under the non-judgmental title of Agenda item 19, “Advisory services and technical co-operation in the field of human rights”. Mention of human rights in the fourth country, Cambodia, comes under Agenda item no. 3 dealing with the business item “Organization of the work of the session”.
The sixth country specific situation — Abduction of children from northern Uganda — comes under Agenda item 13 entitled “Rights of the Child” and involves condemnation of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, rather than any monitoring of the Ugandan regime’s human rights record. As a member of the Commission, Uganda is well positioned to ensure that this important issue relating to children is brought to the attention of the UNCHR. It is also equally well placed to ensure that its own actions never come under the scrutiny of its peers.
Other abuses are never even mentioned. Consider, for example the following case, which gives just a glimpse of the endemic and systematic abuses of the Palestinian Authority against its own people. It lies buried in a 140-page Report on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, submitted to the Commission on February 27, 2002 by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders:
“On 3 September 2001 the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on torture, transmitted an allegation regarding information according to which the Ramallah Police Commander justified the beating of detainees during a discussion on 7 August 2000 with the Director-General of the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and Environment (LAW), Khader Shkirat. When the Director of LAW responded by saying that this violated Palestinian law, the Police Commander allegedly threatened him and told him that he would detain him. He then reportedly asked his guards to take Khader Shkirat out of the police headquarters by force. Later on in August, the Chief of the Palestinian Police Service reportedly issued an order to heads of police districts and detention centres, prohibiting members of LAW from visiting prisons, detention centres, police command centres, and police locations on grounds of Khader Shkirat’s ‘continuous attacks on the Authority’. A High Court petition is said to have been lodged challenging the order.”ii
An “observation” followed in a notation to the report eighteen months later that: “No reply has been received so far”. This complaint is merely the tip of the iceberg according to reports by Palestinian human rights groups, as well as their international colleagues. And yet public discussion of these issues is quashed. Such complaints are apparently never followed up on, or pursued publicly in the open Commission forum.
Agenda item 9, sub section (b) describes a fascinating procedure, established in accordance with Economic and Social Council Resolutions 1503 (XLVIII), for dealing with alleged violations of human rights. Since that resolution was passed in 1970, particular situations have been brought forward relating to 83 different countries. Under established procedure, consideration of these situations takes place behind closed doors and all action under the 1503 procedure remains confidential until such time as the UNCHR may decide to make recommendations to the council (i.e. ECOSOC). All documentation also remains confidential. There is little doubt that 1503 covers up numerous country specific abuses that will never see the light of day.
All this evidence illustrates that the Commission’s pre-arranged agenda is carefully vetted and structured wherever possible to include multiple and highly politicized discussions of Israel’s alleged abuses, while at the same time ensuring that the world’s worst offenders are protected and some of its most serious crises are ignored or marginalized.
It is encouraging that the Department indicates Canada’s intention to address abuse of the Commission’s mandate:
“Canada considers the mandate of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to be the protection and promotion of human rights. Commission members have a responsibility to focus on that task and not on issues outside of the purview of the Commission. We will be working to concentrate the efforts of the Commission to that end.” [our emphasis added]
While Canada has indicated by this statement — and by its vote against the election of Libya to chair the Commission — that it takes the integrity of the Commission seriously, it was not able to count on the support of the very countries with which it has traditionally aligned itself in terms of its voting decisions. If even Western democracies will not stand firm on matters of principle at the Commission, then Canada has a challenging time ahead.
Even when Canada and its allies do stand firm, it seems their influence is limited if the following case is anything to go by. At last year’s Commission, discussion under Agenda item 9, a draft resolution on the “Situation of human rights in Zimbabwe” was introduced by Spain on behalf of the EU. It denounced the absence of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe and requested Special Rapporteurs to carry out missions in Zimbabwe.
What happened next, as recorded by the International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)iii, is instructive. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) introduced a “no motion” action, stating — with incredible irony — that the Commission should not be “political”. China expressed its opposition to the draft resolution and seconded the “no motion” action. Cuba denounced the “imperialist appetites of former colonial powers” and the way elections were held in Florida. Syria, Senegal, Kenya, Libya, Algeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo also expressed their disagreement with the draft resolution.
In an attempt to press for this important focus on Zimbabwe at the UNCHR, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Mexico expressed their opposition to the idea of a “no motion” action, while Spain, speaking on behalf of the EU and associated countries, expressed its “regret” at this blatant attempt to block the resolution. This shabby example of politicization — in which the country currently serving as Commission Chair participated — ended with adoption of the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s action by 26 to 24 with 3 abstentions. The fate of this abortive resolution, which hung in the balance over just three abstentions, illustrates just how damaging abstention can be. All countries — including Canada — should abandon this option in favour of clear indications of their positions. Such an approach will in the long run assist Canada in its stated objective of ensuring that the Commission focus on the priorities within its purview.
¤ Canada should call for a complete overhaul of the UNCHR agenda to ensure that disproportionate amounts of time and resources are not expended in adhering to the dictates of the African/Asian member states
¤ Canada should insist that abuses by Commission members are put on the agenda for discussion at the Commission
¤ Canada should work to ensure that human rights abuses reported to the Commission under Resolution 1503, and all discussions under this in camera mechanism, be made public.
Table Of Contents
| Introduction
| The Need For Reform Of The UNCHR
| The UNCHR Agenda
| The Mandate of The Special Rapporteur
Canada’s Voting Record At The UNCHR
| Positions Of The Department Of Foreign Affairs
| Terrorism
| Racism And Racial Discrimination
Freedom Of Expression
| Conclusion
| Summary Of Recommendations
| Footnotes