|
#47
may 2001
|
|
|
La Lettre FIDH Newsletter |
|
|
UN: 57th Meeting of the Commission on Human Rights --------------------------------------- |
||||
|
From
19th to 27th April, the 57th Meeting of the Commission on Human Rights
took place in Geneva, and this year, more than ever before, those Human
Rights NGOs that participated in the meeting in Geneva were faced with
the hypocrisy and wickedness of a number of governments which were only
keen to make sure that they did not get sanctioned for their appalling
human rights policies. Whether it is by setting up false NGOs in their
countries - also known as GONGOs ('governmental NGOs' pledged to the ruling
power in their countries) - or by forming coalitions to push for restrictions
on the role of human rights organisations, they have managed to create
a bad climate within the institution. But by increasing these assaults
against human rights defenders, these governments have paradoxically shown
their fear - and through this very behaviour also the importance of this
institution where human rights defenders from all over the world are free
to come together and make their voices heard. In this section we will
present a few of the geographical issues at stake.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
The Commission on Human Rights is the principal field of activity for Human Rights NGOs at international level.
The Commission on Human Rights, which is a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council, is open to NGOs that have consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. Its meeting serves as an opportunity for human rights defenders to condemn human rights violations, wherever in the world they are committed, but also as an opportunity for them to meet together. At the Commission Meeting, NGOs have various formal ways of participating (accreditation, written and verbal interventions) as well as informal ones (e.g. lobbying, organising of fringe meetings alongside the main meeting of the Commission or participating in consultations on resolutions). Since the opening of Consultative Status to national NGOS in 1996, the Commission has attracted increasing numbers of NGOs every year. However, it should be noted that this increased participation is not without problems. The lists of speakers are becoming longer and longer, late-night meetings are on the increase and member states complain about the quality and quantity of interventions by NGOs. Before considering whether those 'accusations' on the part of governments are well-founded, it should be made clear that the decisions on which NGOs should be admitted to the work of the Commission on Human Rights are made by governments. According to resolution 1996/31 (see below), which sets the conditions for the granting of the Consultative Status, it is the Committee of NGOs, a body composed of 19 member states of the United Nations, which decides whether or not an NGO should have consultative status. And it is precisely the inter-governmental composition of this Committee that allows 'governmental' NGOs to participate in the meetings of the Commission on Human Rights.
In addition, the growing number of NGOs applying for consultative status does not allow this body to carry out a true 'quality control' of NGOs which manage to obtain consultative status. The behaviour of governments is all the more paradoxical as they try to put restrictions on the participation of the same NGOs to whom they have granted consultative status. This year, Indonesia, on behalf of the 'like-minded' states (i.e. countries that make every effort to ensure that national sovereignty prevails over the protection of human rights, notably in Algeria, Bangladesh, Butan, Chian, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Phillippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Vietnam) and India, on behalf of the group of Asian countries, have made declarations which questioned the importance of the role of NGOs. There have also been attempts at introducing restrictive amendments to the role of NGOs in the procedural rules, but these attempts have fortunately remained unfruitful. Nevertheless, it appears that those states that would like to see NGO participation in the work of the Commission restricted, will not give up. What's more, the increase in the number of NGOs present and their unequal contributions to the meeting gives arguments to those states that are genuinely concerned about the smooth functioning and streamlining of the work of the Commission. So even they are starting to think about the possibility of a reform of the rules on the participation of NGOs. This reform could go into two directions: whilst taking into account the practical problems, it could either constitute a useful reflexion on the contribution of NGOs to the work of the Commission on Human Rights; or it could be led by governments that use objective problems for restricting the work of those NGOs that criticize them. The second possibility seems very likely to happen. So autonomous NGOs must watch the process and make sure that they get involved in the debate. Has the system reached the point where it has become saturated? What should the new role of NGOs in the Commission of Human Rights consist of? How should groups that discredit the community of NGOs be excluded from the United Nations? Trustworthy and independent NGOs must start to think about proposals. Eleni Petrula, Permanent delegate of the FIDH in Geneva |
|
Tunisia: When Ben Ali's henchmen invite themselves to a meeting |
||
| Any
organisation that has ever organised a public meeting on the human rights
situation in Tunisia will confirm that the danger of a verbal confrontation
with pro-government individuals and/or organisations is today almost the
rule. Ms. Hina Jilani, special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General
on Human Rights Defenders, once again, experienced this when attending a
meeting in Geneva this year. This was a meeting of five national and international
NGOs which was held on the fringe of the Commission meeting on 30 March.
When the meeting started off, everything went smoothly: those who wanted to make contributions made their contributions, with the whole audience paying full attention. Mokhtar Trifi (Human Rights League of Tunisia), Bochra Bel Hadj Hamida (Tunisian Association of Women Democrats), and Sihem Bensedrine (National Council for Liberties in Tunisia) presented their witness statements one by one. Then, Mr. Kamel Jendoubi, who chaired the discussions, opened the discussion to the audience. One man who described himself as a lawyer and member of a Tunisian organisation for children's rights, took the opportunity to speak out. Calmly, at least when he first started, he began to dismantle all the previous statements one by one. 'The situation of women in Tunisia is a model for the Arab-Muslim world' he argued learnedly and then went on to challenge the facts presented by Mr. Mokhtar Triffi, about the trial of the Tunisian Human Rights League (see p. 17). His intervention went on and on and soon turned into an endless repetition of the official Tunisian debate. The assistance was getting more and more angry as he continued to play this little game that he seemed to know by heart, then began to set the tone and some individuals sitting close to the speaker added even more to the confusion. ' Here we have the most typical illustration of the methods used by the Tunisian government that we have to endure everywhere', Antoine Bernard, Director of the FIDH, then said. 'Tunisia is an independent country...There must not be any interventions from outside'. The person who made this statement was then offended about the slightest criticism as far as the situation of the freedom of expression and movement in his 'very beautiful country ' was concerned 'where tourists enjoy the freedom of movement and come back with a nice sun tan (sic)'. He is also a member of the Tunisian Association for the Rights of the Child. This is, in fact, one of the many 'governmental' NGOs (GONGOs) entirely established by the most authoritarian governments in order to defend them at major international meetings. Mokhtar Triffi smiled at this person when he made a deliberately provocative remark, and he responded to this person by 'sharing his joy at being in his company'. That was his way of responding to such a piece of foolishness and unwarranted spitefulness. |
||
| Resolutions
DEADLOCK ON CHINA |
||
|
>> Since 1999, the scenario has held no surprises : the United States lays down a draft resolution on the condition of Human Rights in China ; neither the European Union nor Canada get involved ; China deals with the danger by brandishing a motion of non-action, which the Commission hastens to adopt, with a majority on this occasion, of 6 votes - 23 for, 17 against, 12 abstentions and one absentee. So there is no vote on the resolution. On hearing the results, the large crowd of Chinese delegates scattered throughout the hall show their delight with a round of applause. Once again, the Commission has dodged the basic problem : the Human Rights violations perpetrated by the Chinese government.
Even though the scenario has never been successful, this year the weariness is greater than ever. Some blame the make-up of the Commission, which does not help at all. It is more worrying to point out that year after year, no matter which member states are present, the Commission continues to grant the People`s Republic of China the exclusive opportunity of playing a kind of right of protective veto. This outcome raises many questions. In particular, is it desirable to continue to table resolutions on the state of Human Rights in China? How should one assess the impact of this exercice on the attitude of the Chinese government? Is it sensitive to the situation? The launch of the day by day campaign to fight against the "hardline" crime one week before the vote on the China resolution suggests not. The effect of this campaign has in fact brought about hundreds of trials and more than 350 executions in less than three weeks.(see Fact File). It is true that this year the pressure put on Peking has been minimal. By announcing, at the beginning of the session that it would not be associated with the American resolution, the European Union calmed Chinese fears and provided a convenient let-out for states like Norway or Canada. China briskly led a vigorous campaign against the very principle of a resolution about it - its president Jiang Zemin particularly went to the five Latin- American members of the Commission (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela); South Africa was persuaded to vote in favour of condemning the abstention -. How remote seems the passionate speech of the 1997 South African delegation : "My government reckons that the international community, and more especially the Human Rights Commission, has the power and the duty to denounce the violations which are taking place, as was the case when South Africa was enduring the apartheid regime." By contrast, the United States seemed nonplussed, not knowing whom to turn to. The EU, which had declared that it would "actively" oppose the motion of non-action, did not seem very concerned. So much determination in the face of this disorganised feeble-mindedness got the better of the abortive resolution. One thing is clear : as long as the United States stands alone in supporting a draft resolution on China - essentially for reason of internal politics-, the situation remains in stalemate. Will there be a return to pre-1997, when the resolution on the situation of Human Rights in China was a European initiative? This option would serve to depoliticize the matter, by extracting the resolution on China from the framework of bilateral Sino-American relationships, where it has been confined since 1999. One can only hope that other States would then be more inclined to support this initiative. And, hopefully the pressures imposed then would strengthen and force Beijing to adopt measures likely to respect Human Rights. Since 1997, the European Union has maintained "constructive" talks with China about Human Rights. In January 2001, the Union published the results of an appraisal of this exercise : a strong disillusion is clearly visible in this document, which reaffirms that the talks are only acceptable if they are accompanied by progress in this field. What progress has
the European Union therefore achieved during the past year? More than
a hundred members of the Falungong have died as a result of torture and
maltreatment; the Chinese Democratic Party is without a leader ; persecution
against unofficial Catholic and Protestant churches has intensified ;
recourse to administrative detention has increased, including internal
migrants ; it has been found too that enforced confinement in mental hospitals
at the hands of the police is normal practice.....and to say that the
death penalty will be the subject of the next EU-China technical seminar?
To say the least with these disappointing results, who will benefit from
the dialogue? Certainly not western countries which, having given up resolutions
in favour of dialogue, only attract criticisms. On the other hand, what
a stroke of luck for Beijing, which has used the dialogue as a shield
against every threat of criticism from the United Nations. It is time
for the EU to review its brief. The European Union has let the US get
stuck in the mud for three years in succession. It is up to it to take
the initiative once more, in collaboration with Washington. CONTACT |
||
| CHECHNYA : RUSSIA CONDEMNED | ||
| Considering
the scale and the seriousness of the crimes committed by Russian forces
in Chechnya and the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of these crimes,
the FIDH(International Federation for Human Rights), together with other
international NGO (Non-Governmental Organisations), has once again called
for the setting up of an international Commission of enquiry. This body
would work towards evaluating the situation, identifying those responsible
for the violations and would report its findings to the Commission at the
next session of the General Assembly. This recommendation intervened before
any of the measures of the resolution adopted one year earlier by the Commission
had been implemented.
The Swedish Presidency of the European Union, responsible for the Chechnya file, became involved very early on in a dialogue with the Russian government, in order to obtain a declaration from the President of the Commission, which clearly had to be consensual. The EU wanted above all a text whose clauses the Russians would enforce. After many weeks of lengthy negotiations, both sides formulated a document which, it seems, was acceptable to them and to which the NGO have not had access. However one is led to believe that the tenor of that text was rather weak, considering the gravity of the situation. Deciding that this document was unacceptable, the United States broke the consensus. So, the European Union was obliged to put to the vote the draft resolution which it had proposed ....a draft which was meant to bring pressure. In that text, the Commission strongly condemns the persistence of "disproportionate use" and "indiscriminate" force by the Russian army, by soldiers of the Federation and by the agents of the State, especially attacks against civilians and serious violations of Human Rights. The resolution attacks the violence practised on "a large scale against the civilian population" and in particular forced disappearances, illegal, summary or arbitrary executions,torture, arbitrary detentions, detentions in specific places as well as exactions and acts of harassment carried out at control posts. Through this resolution, carried by 22 votes against 12, with 19 abstensions, the Commission commits the Russian government to fulfil its international obligations with regard to Human Rights and humanitarian law. The Commission condemns in equal measure terrorist attacks and also breaches of international humanitarian law perpetrated by Chechnyan fighters. It highlights the tardiness of the legal system to investigate and prosecute the originators of violations of Human Rights. The Commission requires the Russian Federation to "set up an international commission in order to investigate swiftly allegations instancing Human Rights violations". It earnestly begs the Russian Government to pay, as a priority, sympathetic attention to the requests of the reporters and the special mechanisms of the Commission to carry out without delay the missions in Chechnya. Finally the Commission requires the Government to ensure that international and national organisations defending Human Rights gain free access to Chechnya. While one can claim that the Commission has not arranged the creation of an international Commission of enquiry, the resolution adopted however narrowly does establish a firm condemnation of the international community on the unacceptable behaviour of the Russian forces to Chechnya. The European Union must in future make use of the text of this resolution in each of its bilateral or multilateral diplomatic occasions For more news about Chechnya (Reports, Communiques,...) : http://www.fidh.org/tchetchenie CONTACT RUSSIA : |