 |
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 |
As the above examples illustrate, it is commonly the case that the prejudicial language of the Special Rapporteurs, and the a priori premises of their mandates, find their way into the resolutions of the UNCHR and distort the language and intent of human rights codes and conventions until warped interpretations become accepted in common parlance as “international law”. For this reason, it is incumbent on Canada to be on its guard against supporting these resolutions, and to express its opposition by voting against resolutions, rather than by merely abstaining and explaining its reservations in an Explanation of the Vote.
In terms of public statements at the Commission by regional groups, in 2002, only 15% of statements were made by the Western European and Others Grouping (WEOG), which includes Canada, compared to a total of 53% for the African and Asian blocs combined.ix This is an indication that certain countries are being too passive about voicing opinions and reservations. Since Canada tends to be one of the most vocal members of its regional grouping, this can only mean that it is not being supported by its usual allies.
Canada’s voting record at the UNCHR, which is often synchronized with these allies, is at times less helpful than it could be, since its votes in favour of inflammatory resolutions are not sufficiently distinguishable from its abstentions. The Explanations of the Vote that accompany these Canadian abstentions, even though they contain expressions of disapproval for particular sections of the resolutions, do not convey censure of the inherent anti-Israel agenda. Instead, positive votes and abstentions blend together to give a general impression of endorsement — even if only tacit — that adds momentum to the anti-Israel lobby at the Commission. Canada’s votes on the following six resolutions in 2002, which include three abstentions, illustrate this point.
The Resolution entitled “On the situation in occupied Palestine”,x which was fully supported by Canada, reaffirmed the “right to Palestinian self-determination” and called for its early implementation. The problem with this wording is that it forestalls the outcome of permanent status negotiations without at the same time affirming Israel’s own right to exist in peace and within secure borders.
Canada abstained on the resolution entitled “On Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan”xi, which called upon Israel to comply with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and declared as null and void “all legislative and administrative measures” by Israel that “purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan”. In this case, Canada apparently felt uncomfortable with the resolution’s inherent pre-judgement of the outcome of negotiations on this issue, which creates a disincentive for the Syrians to return to the negotiating table.
Canada supported the resolution entitled “On Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories”.xii The resolution expressed “grave concern” at the “dramatic escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at … continuing Israeli settlement activities … at closures of and within the Palestinian territories, and at the restriction of freedom of movement of Palestinians”. It urges a reversal of Israel’s “settlement policy in the occupied territories” as well as “confiscation of arms and prevention of illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers…”
This resolution has created an additional deterrent for the Palestinians to resume negotiations and abandon violence as a strategy. It fails to condemn outright Palestinian violence and terror aimed at civilians, which is inconsistent with Canadian foreign policy principles. It repeats the offensive label of “settlers”, connoting an alien presence, for Jews who choose to live in areas where there has traditionally been a Jewish presence for millennia. It would see these individuals left completely defenceless against the terror that has been intentionally inflicted on them, whether mothers and children asleep in their homes, families travelling on the roads, youngsters studying in religious seminaries, or schoolchildren playing basketball. By voting in favour of this resolution, Canada has inexplicably lent its support to that frightening notion.
In spite of its position on the latter resolution, Canada voted against the resolution “On the Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”.xiii This resolution affirmed the “legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation” and lays all blame for the current violence on Israel. While the original draft resolution sanctioned the use of “all possible means” of resistance — an open endorsement of terror attacks against Israelis — the final text of the resolution still implicitly provides the moral justification for a campaign of unremitting violence against Israel, a notion that only five Commission (Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Guatemala and the United Kingdom) members felt impelled to oppose.
In an Explanation of the Vote, Marie Gervais-Vidricaire said Canada would vote against this resolution since it “did not provide a balanced assessment of the regional context. The resolution contained numerous examples of inflammatory language. The type of language contained in parts of this resolution did nothing to move towards a situation where human rights were fully respected by all sides. The singling out of one party, especially in the current circumstances, did not contribute to ongoing efforts to bring an end to the conflict nor bring the parties any closer to peace. The failure of the resolution to condemn all acts of terrorism, particularly in the context of recent suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians, was a serious oversight which rendered the resolution fundamentally unacceptable.”
Fully 40 out of 53 Commission members were prepared to support this open endorsement of terrorism, a morally bankrupt action. Some of Canada’s traditional European voting partners at the UN joined the world’s most egregious human rights violators in supporting this pro-terror resolution, including Austria, Belgium, France, Spain and Sweden. The remaining seven states that only felt able to abstain on this occasion illustrated the type of passive acceptance of the power of the majority that pervades the entire Commission process.
Canada reverted to an abstention on a resolution entitled “On the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel”.xiv In its call on the Government of Israel to refrain from “… holding detained Lebanese citizens in its prisons”, and to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all maps of landmines, it completely ignores current realities. Following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on May 24, 2000, Israel handed over to UNIFIL maps of landmine locations in southern Lebanon and the transfer was signed by a senior officer of UNIFIL.
The resolution is simply a gratuitous attempt to invoke further condemnation of Israel, without giving the necessary context, that is, the continuing cross-border attacks by Hezbollah, under the tutelage and patronage of Syria and its accommodating proxy, a Lebanese government that will not fulfil its sovereign responsibilities to secure the border area. The continuing occupation of Lebanon by Syrian troops in contravention of international accords and Syrian commitments is similarly ignored, as is the plight of the hundreds of Lebanese detainees being held in prison in Syria.
The resolution’s reference to detainees omits mention of the three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah on October 7, 2000 from Israel’s side of the UN-recognized border with Lebanon, and ignores the plight of Israeli civilian Elchanan Tanenbaum, who was kidnapped by Hezbollah later that month and is band ignores the plight ofeing held hostage in Lebanon. In addition, there is no mention of the fate of Israeli MIA’s, some taken hostage over 20 years ago. On these grounds alone, Canada’s abstention on this vote is not sufficient. Hostage taking is clearly proscribed by the UN in its International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, which states:
“…any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostage within the meaning of this Convention;”xv
Canada’s abstention on the resolution “On the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory”xvi is also problematic. The thrust of this resolution is to denounce Israel for refusing to submit to what was clearly a biased Commission of Enquiry poised to “investigate” and denounce Israel’s actions in Operation Defensive Shield, particularly in the Jenin refugee camp. This resolution criticizes Israel for responding to the type of relentless terrorism epitomized by the massacre of celebrants at a Passover Seder in Netanya, the terror attack that precipitated Operation Defensive Shield. The resolution contains inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims that were never verified, but were disseminated nonetheless for their propaganda value, even after they had been contradicted by Palestinian sources.
¤ Canada should distance itself from the positions of countries that endorse violence and terrorism against Israel
¤ Canada should oppose resolutions that create the framework for this type of anti-Israel activity
¤ Canada should refrain from the practice of abstaining on inherently biased anti-Israel resolutions that have nothing to do with the promotion of peace, and should instead speak out and vote against them
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