Friends of Israel

Today Venezuela’s UPR report is scheduled to be adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council at 3 pm Geneva time. Each review lasts one hour, during which state representatives have 20 minutes to discuss the report, accept or reject its recommendations, and respond to any questions from the floor.

The other 40 minutes are divided equally between states and NGOs, each getting two minutes to speak. That means a maximum of 10 states and 10 NGOs can take the floor.

As reported, the list of speakers is as follows:

Countries

1. Cuba
2. Nicaragua
3. Vietnam
4. China
5. Uruguay
6. Dominican Republic
7. Iran
8. North Korea
9. Syria
10. Myanmar [List of states to be cut here due to time  limit]
11. Ecuador
12. Laos
13. Philippines
14. Zimbabwe
15. Russia
16. Morocco
17. Sri Lanka
18. U.S.A.
19. India
20. Belarus
21. Paraguay

NGOs

1. Defensora del Pueblo Gabriela Ramirez
2. Indian Council of South America
3. Cuban Women Federation
4. Word Federation of Trade Unions
5. Cuban Association for the United Nations
6. North-South XXI
7. Organización International de aportación de voluntarios para mujeres, educación y desarrollo (VIDES)
8. Association for the Prevention of Torture
9. Human Rights Watch
10. Article 19  [List of states to be cut here due to time  limit]
11. CIVICUS
12. Instituto internacional de Maria Auxiliadora (IIMA)
13. United Nations Watch (UN Watch)
14. Save the Children
15. Amnesty International
16. Encuentro africano por la defensa de los derechos humanos

What is clear from the above is that the Venezuelan government, aided no doubt by the experienced Cuban diplomats,  rallied their close friends — governments and phony NGOs  (known as “GONGOs”, or Government-operated NGOs) — to monopolize the limited time of the debate.

For example, there are several pro-Castro NGOs on the list as well as the North-South XXI group, which was created by the Qaddafi regime. We shall be lucky to hear even six minutes of genuine scrutiny of the Chavez regime’s violations of human rights.

UN Watch Objects in Plenary, Reads Out
Countries’ Shameful Praise of Qaddafi

Council President Overrules Objection, Defends Report

GENEVA, March 14, 2012 –  A U.N. report ridiculed worldwide for lavishing praise on the Qaddafi regime’s human rights record was unanimously adopted today by the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council, with president Laura Dupuy Lasserre overruling the objection made in the plenary by UN Watch. (Click here for video; see text below.)

After it was first exposed by UN Watch last year, the report card giving high marks to Qaddafi was mocked by the New York Times, The Economist and other major media worldwide, causing a red-faced UN to postpone the report’s adoption repeatedly — until today.

Said the Times:

“Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements. Evidently, within the 47-nation council, some pots are loath to call kettles black, at least until events force their hand. Last week Libya was suspended from the body, and the report was shelved.”

Even ardent defenders of the council have recently slammed the report. After UN Watch’s recent protest, Suzanne Nossel, the new head of Amnesty USA, and previously the  Obama Administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, where she was responsible for U.S.  engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council, described the council’s report as “abhorrent” and called for a complete “redo.”

The report does contain some critical recommendations of Libya made by the US and about ten other democracies.  But the vast majority of the report documents praise for the regime.

_____________

Ghost of Qaddafi Continues to Haunt UN Rights Council

Testimony delivered before UN Human Rights Council
by UN Watch director Hillel Neuer, March 14, 2012.

Thank you, Madam President.

In the 16th session last year we outlined our grave concerns with this report, which records this council’s 2010 review of Libya’s human rights record under the rule of Col. Moammar Qaddafi.

We recall that the report before us includes the following:

• “Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s commitment to human rights.”
• “Algeria noted the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote human rights.”
• “The Islamic Republic of Iran noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had implemented a number of international human rights instruments and had cooperated with relevant treaty bodies.”
• “Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms.”
• “Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrolment rate and improvements in the education of women.”
• “The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime.”
• “North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights.”
• “Palestine commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the consultations held with civil society in the preparation of the national report, which demonstrated its commitment to the improved enjoyment of human rights. Palestine praised the country for the Great Green Document on Human Rights.”
• “Brazil noted the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s economic and social progress.”

Madam President,

As delegates here know, for years UN Watch brought victims of Libyan torture to testify before this council, including Bulgarian nurse Kristyana Valchyeva, Ashraf al-Hajouj and the brother of Fathi Eljahmi.  Libyan delegates rudely interrupted them, and called them liars.

In May 2010, we pleaded for Libya not to be elected to this council. Tragically, our voice was ignored; it was elected in great numbers. Not a single country spoke in opposition.

Madam President,

The 2010 review that is before us today does not live up to basic standards. It should be completely redone.

For the victims, is that too much to ask?  Thank you, Madam President.

Council President Laura Dupuy Lasserre (Uruguay)
Overrules UN Watch’s Objection

(Video here at 44:42)

Thank you. Allow me simply to point out that changes of government are normal, and the responsibilities of states continue, and what is important is the commitment undertaken by governments and the implementation thereof. […]

I propose that the council adopt the decision on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Libya, as you currently see it on the screen.

I see no objection to approving this decision, therefore it is hereby adopted. Thank you very much.

We have concluded this segment of the UPR for today. Thank you very much.

Report was ridiculed by New York Times, The Economist, and other media worldwide

Amnesty USA chief says report is “abhorrent,” calls for “redo”

GENEVA, March 14, 2012 — A UN report that has been ridiculed worldwide for lavishing praise on the Qaddafi regime’s human rights was unanimously adopted today by the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council, despite an objection voiced in the plenary by the Geneva-based UN Watch group.

CLICK HERE FOR QUOTES OF REPORT’S PRAISE FOR QADDAFI REGIME

The report, which summarizes the council’s Nov. 9, 2010 review of Libya, sparked outrage among human rights activists from the Geneva-based UN Watch as well as Amnesty USA.

Originally slated for adoption in March 2011, a strong protest by the non-governmental UN Watch monitoring group, which also led last year’s successful NGO Campaign to Remove Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, generated headlines in the New York Times and other media worldwide, causing a red-faced UN to postpone the report’s adoption until today.

The New York Times wrote last year about today’s report: “Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements.”

“The council’s review of the Qaddafi regime was a fraud, and should have been declared a mistrial,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

Similarly, Suzanne Nossel, the head of Amnesty USA and a former senior human rights official in the Obama Administration, recently described the UN report as “abhorrent,” and called for a “redo.”

The report’s main effect, said Neuer today, “was to falsely praise Qaddafi’s oppressive regime, insult his victims, and harm the reputation of the UN.”

“The report completely contradicts the council’s own commission of inquiry, which found evidence of Qaddafi war crimes. The council should have set an example of accountability by acknowledging that its original review was deeply flawed.”

“Although the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism is often described as the council’s saving grace, the vast majority of council members used it to falsely praise the Qaddafi regime for its alleged promotion of human rights,” said Neuer.

The report also includes praise of the old regime’s record expressed by Qaddafi-era diplomats who have since changed sides and now represent the new government.  “With Libya’s own UN diplomats now admitting that the Gaddafi regime was a gross violator of human rights, it is nonsensical for the UN to adopt this false report,” said Neuer.

“We should have scheduled a new session in which council members would tell the truth about the Qaddafi regime’s heinous crimes, which were committed over four decades yet ignored by the UN,” said Neuer. “Libya’s long-suffering victims deserve no less.”

The UN report’s summary notes that delegations “commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” and that they “noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground.”

Chronology: UN Watch’s Campaign to Remove Libya From the UN Human Rights Council

GENEVA, March 14, 2012 — A UN report praising the Qaddafi regime’s human rights record will receive its final plenary hearing today before being formally adopted next week by the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council, sparking outrage among human rights activists from UN Watch as well as Amnesty USA.

CLICK HERE FOR QUOTES OF PRAISE FOR QADDAFI REGIME

Libya was reviewed by the council on November 9, 2010 and the report, replete with praise for the Qaddafi regime, was meant to be adopted in the March 2011 session.

However, a strong protest by the non-governmental UN Watch monitoring group, which also led last year’s successful NGO Campaign to Remove Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, generated headlines in theNew York Times and other media worldwide, causing a red-faced UN to postpone the report’s adoption until now.

“The council’s review of the Qaddafi regime was a fraud, and should be declared a mistrial,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

Similarly, Suzanne Nossel, the head of Amnesty USA and a former senior human rights official in the Obama Administration, recently described the UN report as “abhorrent,” and called for a “redo.”

Despite the council’s own inquiry this year finding evidence of war crimes by the Qaddafi regime, the UN Human Rights Council, will today hold the final hearing of the outcome of Libya’s review, to be formally adopted next week.

The report’s main effect, said Neuer today, “was to falsely praise Qaddafi’s oppressive regime, insult his victims, and harm the reputation of the UN.”

“The report completely contradicts the council’s own commission of inquiry, which found evidence of Qaddafi war crimes. The review should be entirely redone, and the council should set an example of accountability by acknowledging that its original review was deeply flawed.”

“Although the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism is often described as the council’s saving grace, the vast majority of council members used it to falsely praise the Qaddafi regime for its alleged promotion of human rights,” said Neuer.

The report also includes praise of the old regime’s record by Qaddafi-era diplomats who changes sides and now represent the new government.  “With Libya’s own UN diplomats admitting that the Gaddafi regime was a gross violator of human rights, it would be nonsensical for the UN to adopt this false report,” said Neuer.

“We call on the council president to acknowledge that the council’s review of the Qaddafi regime’s record was a fraud, withdraw the report, and schedule a new session in which council members would tell the truth about the Qaddafi regime’s heinous crimes, which were committed over four decades yet ignored by the UN,” said Neuer. “Libya’s long-suffering victims deserve no less.”

The UN report’s summary notes that delegations “commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” and that they “noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground.”

Chronology: UN Watch’s Campaign to Remove Libya From the UN Human Rights Council

Although on this Monday, March 19th, the UN Human Rights Council will already be holding an entire day devoted to Israel’s alleged misdeeds, as it does at every one of its meetings, pursuant to a special agenda item targeting Israel, the Palestinian delegation this week took the floor dramatically (see video here) to demand that the council pause all of its deliberations on world human rights problems in order to hold an “Urgent Debate” this week on Israel’s alleged criminality in Gaza during the recent flare-up.

So far, and this is exceptional if not  unheard of at the UNHRC, the Palestinians seem to have failed to muster support for such an interruption to the session schedule. See the recent HRC bureau minutes below.

Minutes of the (UNHRC) Bureau meeting held on 12 March 2012 The Bureau held a meeting to discuss this afternoon oral statement by Palestine concerning the latest urgent developments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In its statement, Palestine requested that emergency measures be taken as soon as possible by the HRC. At 6.15 p.m., the Bureau had not received a written request from Palestine confirming the oral request made in the room. However the delegation of Palestine informed that such a written request would be sent at a later stage. Nonetheless, the Bureau discussed the procedure to be followed upon receipt of such a written request. Reference was made to the precedents of the urgent debate that was held on the flotilla (June 2010), as well as the one recently held on the Syrian Arab Republic (February 2012). The Secretariat pointed to the fact that the Palestinian request would imply a change in the Programme of Work, which is a living document. From a logistical point of view, the meeting could be held either on Wednesday 14 March or Monday 19 March, lunchtime, since these were the only free slots left. Should an objection be raised and a request for a vote made, then the HRC would have to proceed to a vote regarding the holding of such an urgent debate.  A letter by Israel to the High Commissioner (copied to the HRC President) concerning the situation in Southern Israel was also circulated to all Bureau members. Such a letter will be circulated as an official HRC19 document, upon request by Israel.

Petition was presented now in speech to UN Human Rights Council

Geneva, March 13 - Fifty human rights activists and a former president of the UN General Assembly are calling on Pakistan to free a Christian mother of five from being hanged in Pakistan on the charge of blasphemy.

The petition was presented moments ago in a plenary address to the UN Human Rights Council, delivered by France 24 journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet, the author of Blasphéme, which tells the story of Asia Bibi.

(See petition and signatures below.)

“With Pakistan now running for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the government should make an important gesture by releasing Asia Bibi, and repealing its blasphemy law, which is inconsistent with basic human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group that helped organize the petition.

Ms. Tollet also spoke today about Asia Bibi before 400 activists gathered for the Geneva Summit of Human Rights, organized by UN Watch and 19 other human rights NGOs.

______________

Urge Pakistan: Free Asia Bibi

(Version Francaise: IL FAUT LIBÉRER ASIA BIBI DES GEÔLES PAKISTANAISES !)

Since June 2009, Pakistani citizen Asia Bibi, mother of five little children, has been imprisoned in appalling and intolerable conditions in Sheikhupura prison in Punjab province.

Her crime: being a Christian who drank a glass of water from a well belonging to her Muslim friends.

Sentenced to death for blasphemy, Asia Bibi continues to proclaim her innocence from the bottom of her windowless cell, where she can touch both walls by stretching out her two arms.

Asia Bibi has appealed her death sentence, but her trial will not take place for another two years. We refuse to accept that this mother of five children will continue to languish in her putrid, stifling, freezing cell for so long — especially without the right to see her children.

The blasphemy law in Pakistan is a threat to every Pakistani citizen, irrespective of religion. Muslims are actually its main victims. Under Islamist pressure, the Pakistani authorities have abandoned their efforts to reform this unjust law, and prefer to let Asia Bibi die in her cell.

Only if the international community mobilizes and launches a tenacious, forceful, and determined campaign will the Pakistani authorities be compelled to respect human rights. We do not want to close our eyes and remain silent in the face of Asia Bibi’s plight, while she suffers behind bars and awaits her death by hanging.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to practice one’s religion and to express one’s opinion freely. Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010. An international commitment of this kind is not compatible with the continued criminalization of blasphemy in Pakistani law.

We solemnly call upon the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to free Asia Bibi.

SIGNATURES

Jan Kavan, President of the United Nations General Assembly, 2002-2003, Former Foreign Minister and Deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic

Yang Jianli, Former prisoner of conscience and survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre, President, Initiatives for China

Amina Bouayach, President, Moroccan Organization For Human Rights, Morocco

Alain Jakubowicz, Président de la Licra

Annie Sugier, Présidente de la Ligue du Droit International des Femmes

Dr. Lakhu Luhana, Secretary General, World Sindhi Congress, United Kingdom

Hillel C. Neuer, Executive Director, UN Watch, Switzerland

John Suarez, International Secretary, Directorio Democrático Cubano

Fodé Sylla, Parrain du Collectif Contre le Terrorisme

Lise Haddad, Présidente du Mouvement Pour la Paix et Contre le Terrorisme

Dominique Sopo, Président de SOS Racisme

Dr. Vanee Meisinger, Pan Pacific and Southeast Asia Women’s Association of Thailand

Alex Gladstein, Director of International Affairs, Human Rights Foundation

Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Alain Jakubowicz, Président, Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme, France

Mamady Kaba, President, RADDHO, Guinea

Faisal Fulad, Secretary-General, Gulf European Centre for Human Rights, UK

Ann Buwalda, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign

Phil Harris, Executive Director, Devnet International, Italy

Kabaale G Timothy, African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims, Uganda

Eli Hernandez, Assistant Director for Outreach, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, USA

Hu Ping, Editor in Chief, Beijing Spring, USA

Yang Kuanxing, Yibao, USA

Christina Fu, President, New Hope Foundation, USA/China

Michael Craig, President, China Rights Network, Canada

Alim Seytoff, Esq., President, Uyghur American Association, USA

Nechitailo Galina, Vice-President, Environmental Women’s Assembly, Russia

Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Secretary, Gram Bharati Samiti, India

Dickson Ntwiga, Executive Director, Solidarity House International, Kenya

Bonnie Kiconco K. Mutungi, National Coordinator, Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations

Quentin Kanyatsi, Country Director, Search for Common Ground, Cote d’Ivoire

Roy Brown, International Representative, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Ojetunde Olumide, Country Director, African Views Organization, Nigeria

Andreea Buzec, Partners Foundation For Local Development, Romania

Mama Koité Doumbia, Membre du Conseil Administratif de Femnet, Mali

Wodjo Fini Traore, Club Union Africaine de Côte D’Ivoire

Foromo Frédéric Loua, Président, Les Mêmes Droits pour Tous, Guinée

Jarwlee Tweh Geegbe, Executive Director, Rescue Alternatives Liberia

Djingarey Maiga, Femmes et Droits Humains, Mali

Simão Yakitenge Ngala Lutumba, Président, Collectif Multisectoriel pour le
Développement, Angola

Joy Ngwakwe, African Democracy Forum

Mike Gesa Munabi, President, Students for Global Democracy, Uganda

Philomene Mukendi, Coordonatrice, Anges du Ciel, RDC

Diagne Chanel, Présidente du Comité Soudan

Michèle Vianès, Présidente de Regards de Femmes

Sobhy Gress, Secrétaire Général de Solidarité Copte France

Fazal ur Rehman Afridi, Président de l’Institut de recherche et d’études stratégiques de Khyber

Malka Marcovich, Vice présidente du Comité Laïcité République

Mariam Abdo, Représentante du Rassemblement pour la Démocratie au Liban

Jacky Mamou, Président du Collectif Urgence Darfour

Irène Saya, Présidente de PEREC

Pierre Henry, Directeur Général de France terre d’asile

Séta Papazian, Présidente du Collectif Vigilance Arménienne contre le Négationnisme

Quotes from the UN Human Rights Council’s 2010 report on the Qaddafi regime’s human rights record

Iran noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had implemented a number of international human rights instruments and had cooperated with relevant treaty bodies. It noted with appreciation the establishment of the National Human Rights Committee as an independent national human rights institution, and the provision of an enabling environment for non-governmental organizations.

Algeria noted the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote human rights, which reflected the country’s commitment to complying with Human Rights Council resolutions and cooperating with the international community. Algeria welcomed the national institutional framework that had been set up, in particular the National Human Rights Committee. It noted that the country had made some progress in the area of education, as well as social and economic progress since the lifting of economic sanctions.

Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights. Qatar expressed appreciation for the improvements made in the areas of education and health care, the rights of women, children and the elderly, and the situation of people with special needs.

Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrolment rate and improvements in the education of women.

The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime based on promoting the people’s authority through the holding of public conferences, which enhanced development and respect for human rights, while respecting cultural and religions traditions.

North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights, especially in the field of economic and social rights, including income augmentation, social care, a free education system, increased delivery of health-care services, care for people with disabilities, and efforts to empower women. It noted the functioning of the constitutional and legislative framework and national entities.

Bahrain noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had adopted various policies aimed at improving human rights, in particular the right to education and the rights of persons with disabilities. Bahrain commended the free education system and praised programmes such as electronic examinations and teacher training. It commended the country for its efforts regarding persons with disabilities, particularly all the services and rehabilitation programmes provided.

Palestine commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the consultations held with civil society in the preparation of the national report, which demonstrated its commitment to the improved enjoyment of human rights. Palestine praised the country for the Great Green Document on Human Rights. It noted the establishment of the national independent institution entrusted with promoting and protecting human rights, which had many of the competencies set out in the Paris Principles. It also noted the interaction of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with human rights mechanisms.

Iraq commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being a party to most international and regional human rights instruments, which took precedence over its national legislation. It welcomed the efforts to present a comprehensive overview of the human rights situation in the country based on the unity among democracy, development and human rights. It also commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its cooperation with the international community.

Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights, and for the fact that international treaties took precedence over its national legislation. It noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had become party to many human rights conventions and had equipped itself with a number of institutions, national, governmental and non-governmental, tasked with promoting and protecting human rights.

Tunisia welcomed [Libya’s] national report, as well as the efforts of the National Committee, such as the website created to gather contributions. Tunisia noted progress made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, such as the adoption of the Great Green Charter, which was very comprehensive and enshrined fundamental freedoms and rights as enshrined in international human rights instruments.

Venezuela acknowledged the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote economic, social and cultural rights, especially those of children. It highlighted progress achieved in ensuring free and compulsory education.

Jordan welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights, including the establishment of institutions, particularly in the judiciary system. Jordan praised progress in the fields of health, education and labour, as well as the increased attention to the rights of women. Jordan noted the participation of women in public life, including decision-making, and emphasized the fact that women held one third of all judicial posts.

Cuba commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the progress made in the achievement of one of the Millennium Development Goals, namely, universal primary education. It noted that the country had also made a firm commitment to providing health care.

Oman commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its diligent efforts in the field of human rights and for making them its priority. It referred to the legal framework for the protection of human rights, and its clear commitment in that regard, which was reflected in the ratification of most human rights instruments, and its cooperation with United Nations mechanisms. The country’s report focused on both achievements and challenges, which demonstrated its sincerity in addressing human rights issues.

Egypt commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for progress in building a comprehensive national human rights framework of institutions and in drafting legislation and supporting its human resources in that area. It commended the separation of the Ministries of Justice and the Interior and the development of a new criminal code, and it praised the cooperation with international organizations in combating human trafficking and corruption, and the improvement made in the conditions related to illegal migration.

Malta fully recognized the difficulties faced by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and welcomed the action taken at the national, bilateral and regional levels to suppress the illegal activities that gave rise to migration. Malta welcomed the cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the International Organization for Migration.

Bangladesh referred to the progress made in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, including in the areas of education, health care, poverty reduction and social welfare. Bangladesh noted with appreciation the measures taken to promote transparency.

Malaysia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being party to a significant number of international and regional human rights instruments.

Morocco welcomed the achievements in promoting social protection, especially for women, children and persons with special needs. It welcomed the efforts to protect the rights of children. It welcomed the establishment of a national committee for the protection of persons with special needs. Morocco also praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its promotion of human rights education, particularly for security personnel.

Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for measures taken both in terms of legislation and in practice, noting with appreciation that it was a party to most of the core human rights treaties. Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s commitment to human rights, in particular the right to health, education and food, even when the country had faced sanctions in the 1990s. Pakistan was encouraged by efforts to address the root causes of illegal migration, and noted the good practice of settling political disputes and developing infrastructure in source countries.

Mexico thanked the delegation for the presentation of the national report and the answers that it had provided. It expressed appreciation for the political will of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to address the human rights challenges facing it. Mexico hoped that the universal periodic review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya would make a positive contribution to national efforts to overcome challenges to guaranteeing the full enjoyment of human rights.

Myanmar commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its economic and social progress, and recognized efforts in domestic legislation aimed at guaranteeing equal rights. Myanmar noted that the country had acceded to many international human rights instruments and established a national Human Rights Committee. Myanmar praised efforts to realize basic education for all and a free health-care system.

Viet Nam congratulated the delegation on the quality of the national report. It noted with satisfaction the commitment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the protection and promotion of the human rights of its people, particularly the country’s accession to the main international human rights conventions. It welcomed achievements made in the exercise of human rights.

Thailand welcomed the national report, which presented both progress and challenges. Thailand highlighted efforts made with regard to education, persons with special needs and vulnerable groups.

Brazil noted the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s economic and social progress and acknowledged the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, the free health care and the high enrolment in primary education. Brazil noted the successful cooperation with international organizations in areas such as migrant rights, judicial reform and the fight against corruption.

Kuwait expressed appreciation for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s initiative to improve per capita income and to ensure social justice and the fair distribution of wealth. It praised the measures taken with regard to low-income families. Kuwait called upon the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to continue its efforts to integrate people with disabilities into society while recognizing their positive role.

Despite US-led bid to expel Syria, UNESCO voted 35-8 for watered-down resolution, allowing Syria to stay on human rights panel

GENEVA, March 8 – The UN’s education, science and culture organization has just voted 35 to 8 for a resolution that condemns Assad for abuses, yet — despite vigorous efforts led by the U.S. — keeps the regime on its human rights committee. Click here for resolution; here for U.S. statement.

“For UNESCO to keep President Bashar al-Assad on a human rights committee while his regime mercilessly murders its own people is immoral, indefensible and an insult to Syria’s victims,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the Geneva human rights group that heads a campaign of 55 parliamentarians, human rights and religious groups demanding Syria’s expulsion.

“The world squandered a golden opportunity to expose the Assad regime’s lack of legitimacy. Politics trumped human rights, with too many UNESCO diplomats fearful that if Syria were removed for gross violations, their own regimes would be next.”

“Today’s appalling decision calls into question the credibility of UNESCO’s mission to promote human rights. Syria’s membership is a lingering stain upon the reputation of the UN as a whole,” said Neuer.

After UNESCO elected Syria to its human rights committee in November, UN Watch launched a campaign to reverse the decision, prompting the US and Britain to initiate today’s debate at UNESCO.

“While today’s text rightly condemns Syria’s violations — a welcome first for UNESCO — the promised call to oust the regime from UNESCO’s human rights panel has been completely excised. We’re left with words, but no teeth.”

“By maintaining Assad in a position of global influence on human rights, UNESCO today has sent absolutely the wrong message. It an unconscionable insult to the suffering people of Syria,” said Neuer.

Several weeks ago, UN Watch had received notice from the British Foreign Office that it would seek to cancel Syria’s “abhorrent” membership.

In an email to UN Watch, the UK said it “deplores the continuing membership of Syria on this committee and does not believe that Syria’s presence is conducive to the work of the body or UNESCO’s reputation. We have therefore joined with other countries in putting forward an item for the first meeting of the Executive Board at which we will seek to explicitly address Syria’s membership of the body.”

The UK also expressed hope that other members of the executive board will join London in ending what it called “this abhorrent [and] anomalous situation.”

UN watch applauds the efforts of the US and Britain, but regrets that a moral majority at UNESCO today to remove Syria could simply not be found.

Source: US Mission to UNESCO

Explanation of Vote for Agenda Item 24, Response of UNESCO to the Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic

Statement as delivered by U.S. Permanent Representative to UNESCO, Ambassador David Killion, on 8 March 2012

“Thank you Mr. Chairman,

The United States is profoundly disappointed that this resolution does not call for the outright removal of Syria from the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations – something for which we have repeatedly called for. We agree with Director-General Bokova that, given the actions of the Assad regime, it is not clear how Syria can contribute to the work of the committee. We hope that UNESCO will revisit Syria’s membership following the UNESCO’s Director General’s report on Syria.

Nonetheless, we are pleased to have joined with our Arab League colleagues to decry the abuse and atrocities currently unfolding in Syria. Today, UNESCO becomes the third UN agency – following the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – to successfully address the increasingly dire human rights situation in Syria.

In Commission of Inquiry’s second Report, issued on February 22, the Commission describes the effect of the conflict on the children of Syria. More than 500 children have been killed. Some children have been killed or wounded by snipers and other state forces, including those 10 years old or younger. Others have been arrested, tortured, and sexually abused in detention. Children cannot go to school. The streets are not safe and more than 1000 schools have been vandalized, burned or destroyed.

Syrian villages, towns and cities are facing devastation, and Syria’s rich cultural heritage is imperiled. How many dead and wounded journalists must be carried out of Syria before we recognize that the situation in that country is an affront to the very purposes for which UNESCO was founded?

UNESCO should also respond to the pleas of the Syrian people to the international community for help as part of UNESCO’s essential role in protecting the cultural, historical and natural heritage of humanity, and facilitating the free flow of ideas.

UNESCO must be committed to acting responsibly. Member states must join together in a single voice to say that the suffering and gross violations of human rights happening today in Syria will not be ignored by this Organization. Today, mindful of our obligations under UNESCO’s Constitution, the Executive Board has adopted a clear and robust resolution in response to the situation in Syria. We look forward to further action by this committee to address Syria’s membership on the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.”

WASHINGTON) – U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, commented today after UNESCO’s Executive Board voted to adopt a resolution on Syria that, contrary to initial U.S. efforts, failed to expel Syria from the UNESCO committee dealing with human rights. Earlier this week, the Executive Board reportedly adopted multiple anti-Israel resolutions.

Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:

“This week, UNESCO is sending a clear signal about where its priorities lie. Despite the Assad regime’s murder of thousands of innocent Syrians seeking freedom and human rights, UNESCO’s executive board lacks the will even to kick Syria off of its human rights committee, much less to remove Syria from the board entirely. However, UNESCO’s board did have the will to reportedly adopt one anti-Israel resolution after another.

“It is deeply disappointing that the Obama Administration supports the toothless Syria resolution that the board adopted, instead of standing firm and demanding Syria’s expulsion. It is even worse that the Administration continues to push to gut U.S. law and resume U.S. funding to UNESCO, despite UNESCO’s reckless, anti-peace, anti-Israel decision to admit a non-existent state of ‘Palestine.’

“Given this week’s events, it is crystal clear that UNESCO is increasingly back-sliding to its bad-old-days of politicization and anti-Israel bias. U.S. taxpayer dollars must not continue to subsidize irresponsible UN bodies. UNESCO is the problem, not U.S. law, and until UNESCO rights itself and un-admits ‘Palestine,’ the U.S. funding cutoff must continue.”

NGO urges EU, US, UN rights chief tooppose “fraudulent review” of Qaddafi abuses

GENEVA, February 27, 2012 — The independent UN Watch monitoring group, which initiated last year’s successful NGO Campaign to Remove Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, today called on the US, the EU and UN rights chief Navi Pillay to urge council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre to cancel a planned resolution praising the Qaddafi regime’s human rights record, slated for adoption in the session that opens in Geneva today with foreign ministers attending from around the globe. (See countries’ praise of Qaddafi below.)

Despite the council’s own inquiry this year finding evidence of war crimes by the Qaddafi regime, the UN Human Rights Council, according to the agenda of its current session, is planning to “consider and adopt the final outcome of the review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” which lavishes praise on the disgraced regime.

According to the council’s timetable, the lengthy report hailing Qaddafi’s human rights record will be presented on March 16, and then adopted by the council toward the end of the month. The report, which the UN has listed on the March session’s website, is the outcome of a 2010 session that was meant to review Libya’s human rights record.

The report had been postponed repeatedly since originally scheduled for adoption last year.

Apart from the small minority of genuine criticisms contained in it, the report’s main effect, said executive director Hillel Neuer today, “was to falsely praise Qaddafi’s oppressive regime, insult his victims, and harm the reputation of the UN.”

“The report completely contradicts the council’s own commission of inquiry, which found evidence of Qaddafi war crimes. The review should be entirely redone, and the council should set an example of accountability by acknowledging that its original review was deeply flawed.”

“Although the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism is often described as the council’s saving grace, the vast majority of council members used it to falsely praise the Qaddafi regime for its alleged promotion of human rights,” said Neuer.

The report also includes praise of the old regime’s record by Qaddafi-era diplomats who changes sides and now represent the new government (click here for quotes). “With Libya’s own UN diplomats admitting that the Gaddafi regime was a gross violator of human rights, it would be nonsensical for the UN to adopt this false report,” said Neuer.

“We call on the council president to acknowledge that the council’s review of the Qaddafi regime’s record was a fraud, withdraw the report, and schedule a new session in which council members would tell the truth about the Qaddafi regime’s heinous crimes, which were committed over four decades yet ignored by the UN,” said Neuer. “Libya’s long-suffering victims deserve no less.”

The UN report’s summary notes that delegations “commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” and that they “noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground.”

###

Quotes from UN report on Qaddafi regime’s record:

Iran noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had implemented a number of international human rights instruments and had cooperated with relevant treaty bodies. It noted with appreciation the establishment of the National Human Rights Committee as an independent national human rights institution, and the provision of an enabling environment for non-governmental organizations.

Algeria noted the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote human rights, which reflected the country’s commitment to complying with Human Rights Council resolutions and cooperating with the international community. Algeria welcomed the national institutional framework that had been set up, in particular the National Human Rights Committee. It noted that the country had made some progress in the area of education, as well as social and economic progress since the lifting of economic sanctions.

Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights. Qatar expressed appreciation for the improvements made in the areas of education and health care, the rights of women, children and the elderly, and the situation of people with special needs.

Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrolment rate and improvements in the education of women.

The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime based on promoting the people’s authority through the holding of public conferences, which enhanced development and respect for human rights, while respecting cultural and religions traditions.

North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights, especially in the field of economic and social rights, including income augmentation, social care, a free education system, increased delivery of health-care services, care for people with disabilities, and efforts to empower women. It noted the functioning of the constitutional and legislative framework and national entities.

Bahrain noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had adopted various policies aimed at improving human rights, in particular the right to education and the rights of persons with disabilities. Bahrain commended the free education system and praised programmes such as electronic examinations and teacher training. It commended the country for its efforts regarding persons with disabilities, particularly all the services and rehabilitation programmes provided.

Palestine commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the consultations held with civil society in the preparation of the national report, which demonstrated its commitment to the improved enjoyment of human rights. Palestine praised the country for the Great Green Document on Human Rights. It noted the establishment of the national independent institution entrusted with promoting and protecting human rights, which had many of the competencies set out in the Paris Principles. It also noted the interaction of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with human rights mechanisms.

Iraq commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being a party to most international and regional human rights instruments, which took precedence over its national legislation. It welcomed the efforts to present a comprehensive overview of the human rights situation in the country based on the unity among democracy, development and human rights. It also commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its cooperation with the international community.

Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights, and for the fact that international treaties took precedence over its national legislation. It noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had become party to many human rights conventions and had equipped itself with a number of institutions, national, governmental and non-governmental, tasked with promoting and protecting human rights.

Tunisia welcomed [Libya’s] national report, as well as the efforts of the National Committee, such as the website created to gather contributions. Tunisia noted progress made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, such as the adoption of the Great Green Charter, which was very comprehensive and enshrined fundamental freedoms and rights as enshrined in international human rights instruments.

Venezuela acknowledged the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote economic, social and cultural rights, especially those of children. It highlighted progress achieved in ensuring free and compulsory education.

Jordan welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights, including the establishment of institutions, particularly in the judiciary system. Jordan praised progress in the fields of health, education and labour, as well as the increased attention to the rights of women. Jordan noted the participation of women in public life, including decision-making, and emphasized the fact that women held one third of all judicial posts.

Cuba commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the progress made in the achievement of one of the Millennium Development Goals, namely, universal primary education. It noted that the country had also made a firm commitment to providing health care.

Oman commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its diligent efforts in the field of human rights and for making them its priority. It referred to the legal framework for the protection of human rights, and its clear commitment in that regard, which was reflected in the ratification of most human rights instruments, and its cooperation with United Nations mechanisms. The country’s report focused on both achievements and challenges, which demonstrated its sincerity in addressing human rights issues.

Egypt commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for progress in building a comprehensive national human rights framework of institutions and in drafting legislation and supporting its human resources in that area. It commended the separation of the Ministries of Justice and the Interior and the development of a new criminal code, and it praised the cooperation with international organizations in combating human trafficking and corruption, and the improvement made in the conditions related to illegal migration.

Malta fully recognized the difficulties faced by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and welcomed the action taken at the national, bilateral and regional levels to suppress the illegal activities that gave rise to migration. Malta welcomed the cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the International Organization for Migration.

Bangladesh referred to the progress made in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, including in the areas of education, health care, poverty reduction and social welfare. Bangladesh noted with appreciation the measures taken to promote transparency.

Malaysia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being party to a significant number of international and regional human rights instruments.

Morocco welcomed the achievements in promoting social protection, especially for women, children and persons with special needs. It welcomed the efforts to protect the rights of children. It welcomed the establishment of a national committee for the protection of persons with special needs. Morocco also praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its promotion of human rights education, particularly for security personnel.

Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for measures taken both in terms of legislation and in practice, noting with appreciation that it was a party to most of the core human rights treaties. Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s commitment to human rights, in particular the right to health, education and food, even when the country had faced sanctions in the 1990s. Pakistan was encouraged by efforts to address the root causes of illegal migration, and noted the good practice of settling political disputes and developing infrastructure in source countries.

Mexico thanked the delegation for the presentation of the national report and the answers that it had provided. It expressed appreciation for the political will of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to address the human rights challenges facing it. Mexico hoped that the universal periodic review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya would make a positive contribution to national efforts to overcome challenges to guaranteeing the full enjoyment of human rights.

Myanmar commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its economic and social progress, and recognized efforts in domestic legislation aimed at guaranteeing equal rights. Myanmar noted that the country had acceded to many international human rights instruments and established a national Human Rights Committee. Myanmar praised efforts to realize basic education for all and a free health-care system.

Viet Nam congratulated the delegation on the quality of the national report. It noted with satisfaction the commitment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the protection and promotion of the human rights of its people, particularly the country’s accession to the main international human rights conventions. It welcomed achievements made in the exercise of human rights.

Thailand welcomed the national report, which presented both progress and challenges. Thailand highlighted efforts made with regard to education, persons with special needs and vulnerable groups.

Brazil noted the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s economic and social progress and acknowledged the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, the free health care and the high enrolment in primary education. Brazil noted the successful cooperation with international organizations in areas such as migrant rights, judicial reform and the fight against corruption.

Kuwait expressed appreciation for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s initiative to improve per capita income and to ensure social justice and the fair distribution of wealth. It praised the measures taken with regard to low-income families. Kuwait called upon the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to continue its efforts to integrate people with disabilities into society while recognizing their positive role.

### END ###

Chronology: The NGO Campaign to Remove Libya From the UN Human Rights Council

• May 2010: UN Watch leads 37 NGOs in a protest on the eve of Libya’s election to the UNHRC, with a widely covered media event at UN Headquarters in New York, and a mass email campaign. Countries are urged to oppose Qaddafi’s candidacy. Instead, in a secret ballot, the UN elects Libya by a landslide of 155 out of 192 UNGA votes. UN Watch warns on Swiss TV that Qaddafi’s government is a “murderous and racist regime.” Not a single country speaks out against Libya’s candidacy or election.
• September 2010: Libya takes its seat at the council. UN Watch launches a global campaign, supported by 30 NGOs, and victims of Libyan abuses, to remove the Qaddafi regime. To confront the Libyans in the plenary UN Watch brings Bob Monetti, whose 20-year-old son was murdered in Libya’s 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103; Mohamed Eljahmi, brother of slain dissident Fathi Eljahmi; Kristyana Valcheva, one of the five Bulgarian nurses who were framed, imprisoned and tortured for eight years on false charges of poisoning children with HIV; and Ashraf El-Hajouj, the Palestinian doctor framed and tortured together with the nurses. The Libyans and their allied regimes rudely interrupt the speakers. The incident and the victims’ appeal to remove Libya is widely covered by dedicated stories in Voice of America and Agence France Presse, and by a cover story in Sweden’s Neo magazine. “The HRC grants legitimacy to ‘murderous’ Gadaffi regime,” reported Radio Netherlands on UN Watch’s campaign. Yet the UN council and its member states stay silent.
• November 2010: When Libya’s abysmal human rights record is addressed under the council’s universal review procedure, UN Watch renews its call for the Qaddafi regime to be removed. The appeal is reported by Germany’s DPA, Swissinfo and elsewhere. Yet the UN council and its member states stay silent.
• February 21, 2010: Working closely with Libyan dissident Mohamed Eljahmi — who sounds the alarm on massive atrocities being committed by the Qaddafi regime — UN Watch spearheads an international appeal by 70 human rights groups to remove Libya. The plea for UN action is covered around the world. Three days later, the EU requests a special session of the Human Rights Council, but fails to contest Libya’s council membership.

UN Watch has been the leading voice at the United Nations challenging Libyan human rights abuses for many years. To see videos, click here.

Tomorrow will see Foreign Ministers descend on Geneva for the opening of the first 2012 session of the UN Human Rights Council.

At a recent UN press conference, U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe offered a good review of what’s ahead. Click here for the transcript, and here for the audio. Reuters asked about UN Watch’s protest over Libya’s vehement attack against gays (minute 16:00).

Of note:

• The Syrian envoy to the UN rights council,  Faysal Hamoui, hasn’t been seen in a while, and, alluding to the Libyans’ defection last year, Ambassador Donahoe hinted that he may be planning the same:

Ambassador Donahoe: [A]s a factual matter I have not seen the Syrian Ambassador recently… I haven’t seen him in a long time.

Media: Has he disappeared from Geneva?

Ambassador Donahoe: I can’t confirm or deny that. I personally haven’t seen him. Let me say one other thing which is a year ago when we did the special session on Libya, our relationship with the Libyans was rather strained and yet we were in communication with them. At that time they were trying to decide what their personal stance vis-à-vis the government would be, and by the time we had, the day we called for the special session, between then and the Friday, they had decided that they would disassociate themselves from the government. So I can’t tell you if the Syrian Ambassador is facing the same dilemma.

• The council’s investigative mandate on Iran should be renewed “fairly easily,” and the U.S. hopes to increase pressure on the Iranian regime — through either an increased majority, or other language in the text — to allow the special rapporteur to enter the country. “Whether that happens or not, we think there’s real value in continuing this mandate because it shows the people inside Iran that the international community is paying attention and that the Iranian narrative about how they treat their people is not fooling anyone.”

• There will be a resolution on Syria, expected to extend the current Commission of Inquiry, add further condemnation and include other tools to address the humanitarian situation. The ambassador did not, however, mention the appointment of a special rapporteur, which was supposed to come during this session, but is rumored to be on hold.  (An urgent debate on Syria is now slated for Tuesday.)

• The US is confident of adopting a resolution on Sri Lankas’s 2009 atrocities, whose elements will include “real accountability, real implementation, and real reconciliation.” It will acknowledge alleged good aspects of Sri Lanka’s domestic investigation, while deeming the process inadequate.

Rights groups to oppose bids by Pakistan and Venezuela for UN Human Rights Council

GENEVA, Feb. 22 – The governments of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Pakistan are slated to run unopposed for seats on the UN’s 47-nation Human Rights Council this year, reported the independent monitoring group UN Watch, citing sources close to the UN.

“It’s an outrage,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who announced the formation of an international coalition of parliamentarians and human rights groups to block both candidacies, “due to their poor records on human rights protection at home and on human rights promotion at the UN.”

Last year, UN Watch exposed Syria’s candidacy to the council, and initiated a diplomatic campaign that pressured Damascus to drop its bid at the last minute. The non-governmental watchdog also led a successful campaign of 70 groups to remove Libya’s Qaddafi regime from the council.

Neuer said that Venezuela and Pakistan were among the few states condemned for gross human rights violations at a recent summit of human rights dissidents, organized by UN Watch and 25 other human rights groups. The resolutions adopted on both countries are being circulated to UN diplomats in hopes they will be addressed at the council’s opening 2012 session next week.

• Click here for resolution condemning Pakistani abuses
• Click here for resolution Venezuelan abuses

“These are hypocritical candidacies. Chavez throws judges and critics in jail, bullies young student activists and uses his UN vote to shield the atrocities of others. Venezuela just voted against UN action on the horrific massacres perpetrated by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” said Neuer.

“Pakistan persecutes religious minorities, including Sufis, Shiites, Ahmadis and Christians. Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, is on death row in Pakistan under Pakistan’s medieval blasphemy law. Pakistan’s judicial system punishes women who are victimized by rape instead of the rapists. That Pakistan might judge others on human rights is appalling.”

Regional groups frequently agree on closed slates of candidates, nominating the same number of countries as seats available. “The lack of competition robs the election process of any meaning,” said Neuer, “and helps explain how China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia won their current seats.”

The election of new candidates could take place in May, as in previous years. According to information from sources close to the UN, obtained exclusively by UN Watch, the Latin American group is planning to name Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil to fill its allotted three seats.

For its five seats, Asia is planning to name Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan and the UAE.

“We are urging the Latin American group to choose another candidate, and the Asian group to drop Pakistan, just as they finally dropped Syria last year.”

“Governments engaged in such egregious and ongoing human rights abuses against their own people—grossly violating their basic freedoms of speech, religion and assembly—ought to have no place in the world’s highest human rights chamber.”

“We call on all UN member states to state clearly that Venezuela and Pakistan are not qualified to be members of the Human Rights Council, and to strongly oppose their candidacies.”

Rights group urges Hillary Clinton to speak out

GENEVA, Feb. 17 – A Pakistani spokesman for the UN’s Islamic bloc sparked outrage today after announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The Islamic statement, obtained by the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch and posted on its website, is provoking sharp reactions from human rights activists.

UN Watch director Hillel Neuer today called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom it lauded for her leadership on this issue at the UN, to condemn the “scandalous assault on the right of gays not to be put to death in countries like Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Human rights are universal and there is no religious exemption for barbaric violence against innocent human beings anywhere.”

Diplomatic sources have also reported to UN Watch that the Islamic states are considering a walk-out during the March 7th panel.

The letter by Pakistan’s Geneva envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—comprised of 56 Islamic UN member states and the Palestinian Authority—was sent on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. Click here for letter.

The OIC declared its unequivocal opposition to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion concerning a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The OIC will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The unprecedented panel and report were mandated by the council’s historic June 2011 resolution, which passed by a slim majority of 23 to 19, with 3 abstentions.

The OIC letter said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The OIC warned the debate would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “will shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

“The Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights,” said the OIC.

To justify its position, the OIC cited UN language, seemingly giving exemptions to universal rights laws, that “historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. From this perspective, the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC.”

The OIC letter comes on the heels of Wednesday’s Libyan speech to the UN this week accusing gays of threatening the continuation of the human race.

PDF of original letter

PERMANENT MISSION OF PAKISTAN
TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND
OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

56 me de Moillebeau
1211 Geneva 19
Tel: (4122) 7491930
Fax: (4122) 734 8085
E-mail: mission.vakistan@ties.ita.int.

Ambassador
No. Pol/S0/2012

14 February 2012

H.E. Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre
President of the Human Rights Council
Geneva

My dear President,

I am writing to you in my capacity as Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in Geneva.

2.         I wish to explain the position taken by the Member States of the OIC onResolution 17/19 and the subsequent Panel on “Discrimination and Violence based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” scheduled to be held on 7 March 2012 during the 19′th Session of the Human rights Council.

3.         The OIC States are deeply concerned by the introduction in the Human Rights Council of controversial notions like “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The OIC countries have been consistent in their opposition to the consideration of these controversial notions in the context of human right at international fora.

4.         We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce in the United Nations concepts that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument. The international community only recognizes those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international legal instruments.

5.         We note with concern the attempts to create controversial “new notions” or “new standards” by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and intemational treaties to include such notions that were never articulated or agreed to by the UN membership. These attempts undermine not only the intent of the drafters and signatories to these human rights instruments, but also seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.

6.         We are even more disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their abnormal sexual behaviour, while not focusing on the glaring instances of intolerance and discrimination in various parts of the world, be it on the basis of colour, race, gender or religion, to mention only a few.

7.         It must also be recognized that the international community agreed during the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, that while considering the issue of human rights, national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. From this perspective, the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC.

8.         The OIC Member States are concerned that the Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights. This debate will shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.

9.         For the reasons explained above the Member States of the OIC would like to place on record their opposition to the holding of this panel and will not accept its considerations and recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

Zamir Akram
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights
and Humanitarian Issues

Copy to H.E. Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights

The draft UN General Assembly resolution on Syria is here. The language is watered down to win the support of Russia, China and other countries.

For example, the penultimate preambular paragraph:

Reaffirming that all UN member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,

This is a transparent attack on the legitimacy of the Western-backed intervention in Libya, and more generally on the very principle of Responsibility to Protect.

The EU already slammed this language when Syria and its allies inserted it last year.

Libya’s post-suspension return marked by Islamist policy on gays

GENEVA, Feb. 13 – Gays threaten the continuation of the human race, Libya’s delegate told a planning meeting of the UN Human Rights Council today, reported the Geneva-based UN Watch monitoring group. It was the first appearance in the 47-nation body by the post-Gaddafi government, whose membership was restored in November following Libya’s suspension in March.

Protesting the council’s first panel discussion on discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation, scheduled for March 7th, Libya’s representative told the gathering of ambassadors today that LGBT topics “affect religion and the continuation and reproduction of the human race.” He added that, were it not for their suspension, Libya would have opposed the council’s June 2011 resolution on the topic.

In response, council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre said that “the Human Rights Council is here to defend human rights and prevent discrimination.”

The Libyan outburst prompted questions by human rights activists about Libya’s reinstatement on the council.

“We were happy to see the Gaddafi regime finally suspended last year,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, which in 2010 led a campaign of 70 human rights groups to expel the Libyan dictator.

“Yet today’s shocking homophobic outburst by the new Libyan government, together with the routine abuse of prisoners, underscores the serious questions we have about whether the new regime is genuinely committed to improving on the dark record of its predecessor, or to pandering to some of the hardline Islamists amidst its ranks,” said Neuer.

In November, when the UN General Assembly reinstated Libya on the council, deputy UN envoy Ibrahim Dabbashi said “the new Libya deserves to return to the Human Rights Council to contribute with other members to the promotion of values of human rights.”

“No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,” he vowed.

Despite the pledges, however, Neuer said “the restoration of the new Libyan regime to the council, supported by 123 states including all of the Western democracies, was carried out precipitously and without any record of its commitment to human rights domestically and abroad. The new rulers’ pledges are being broken.”

“Gays are now paying the price, with their right to be free from violent attacks now being undermined at the UN by a country that democratic countries fought to liberate, and by a goverment that our leaders helped install. It’s all very disconcerting.”

Today: Top U.S. Law School to Legitimize UN’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist

By Hillel Neuer

GENEVA – Seventy years ago, President Roosevelt coined a term for the global alliance against Hitlerism, which resonated at once with Churchill: United Nations.

Endorsed by 26 states on January 1, 1942, the Declaration by United Nations made history by elevating human rights and religious freedom as international principles, and pledged a common struggle against “savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world.”

By 1945, as war-making gave way to peace-preserving, the alliance developed into the colossal world instrument we know today.

Seven decades later, how does the UN live up to the vision and resolve of its founders?

An event this evening at Stanford University is a sobering reminder that some of what is said and done today in the name of the UN would cause Roosevelt and Churchill to roll in their graves.

The human rights clinic of the law faculty, headed by Professor James Cavallaro, a former Human Rights Watch activist, has decided to give its platform, in the form of a public lecture and reception, to Richard Falk, a UN expert and former Princeton academic.

While he appears highly qualified and is well versed in the language of human rights, the reality is that Falk’s twisted moral vision negates the UN founders’ dream, recasting tyrants, terrorists and teachers of hatred as heroic victims resisting colonialist oppression.

As the world focuses on the Iranian government’s mad race for a nuclear bomb, and its brutal repression of peaceful student activists, Stanford’s human rights scholars ought to recall that Falk was a key promoter of this regime’s establishment.

Days after Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979, Falk reassured the world, in a New York Times op-ed titled “Trusting Khomeini,” that “the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.”

Khomeini’s entourage, wrote Falk, had “a notable record of concern for human rights.” Indeed, the ayatollah’s “new model of popular revolution” offered the world “a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”

In response, the Times’ Anthony Lewis called Falk’s assurances “outstandingly silly.” Yet folly carries a price, and legions of Iranian men and women—brutalized, tortured and raped by the Islamic Republic—continue to pay it.

Second, Falk is one of the figures responsible for turning the UN Human Rights Council—whose precursor was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt—into a travesty.

In 2008, after Falk claimed Israel was planning a “Palestinian Holocaust,” Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya and other dictatorships installed him as the council’s monitor on Palestine.

His mission is so biased that Falk tries to obscure it. He calls himself, as does the Stanford ad, the Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories,” implying a regional jurisdiction examining all sides. Yet his actual mandate is to investigate “Israel’s violations.” Not Hamas, not Fatah, not Islamic Jihad—only Israel.

Third, Falk uses his UN post to legitimize Hamas, ignoring its brutalization of fellow Palestinians, rocketing of Israeli civilians and incitement to genocidal murder of Jews.

Falk’s reports whitewash Hamas as the “elected government” of Gaza—never mind that it seized power by throwing opponents off rooftops.

His backing of the terrorist group is so extreme that even the Palestinian Authority urged his removal, viewing him as a “partisan of Hamas.”

Fourth, Falk recently published a cartoon showing a dog, with “U.S.A.” written on its body and wearing a Jewish headcover, devouring a bloody skeleton and urinating on a female figure symbolizing justice.

UN rights chief Navi Pillay found the posting “anti-Semitic” and “objectionable.” Falk was condemned by British Prime Minister David Cameron and many others.

Eventually Falk apologized, claiming it was an error, but only after he initially denied doing anything wrong.

Last but not least, Falk is one of the world’s top 9/11 conspiracy theorists, endorsing those who accuse the U.S. government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars.

Falk promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, his disciple and close friend who produced 12 books describing the World Trade Center attack as “an inside job.”

Not only did Falk contribute the Foreword to Griffin’s 2004 “The New Pearl Harbor”—praising the author’s “fortitude,” “courage,” and “intelligence”—but Griffin credits Falk for getting the book published.

Falk has repeatedly appeared on the “TruthJihad.com” show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Holocaust skeptic, endorsing Barrett’s “good work,” and praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Last January, in an unprecedented reprimand, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took the floor of the Human Rights Council to decry Falk’s 9/11 theories as “preposterous” and “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack.”

Likewise, U.S. ambassador Susan Rice has called Falk’s 9/11 remarks “despicable.” His “distasteful sideshow,” she said, harms the cause of human rights.

Falk’s sideshow also harms the cause of the UN. If the world body’s greatest defenders can see that, so should Stanford Law School.

The author is executive director of UN Watch.

Earlier this month, on Jan. 6, the UN chief’s spokesman promised to respond to UN Watch’s question as to why the UN still considers Gaza “occupied” even though Hamas admits it’s not, given that Israel hasn’t been there since 2005.

The UN has now answered:

Spokesperson:  Under resolutions adopted by both the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Middle East peace process, the Gaza Strip continues to be regarded as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  The United Nations will accordingly continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until such time as either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view. Question:  Can I follow up on that?  It is the legal definition of occupation and why is Gaza considered occupied? Spokesperson:  Well, as I have just said, there are Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that cover this.  For example, there was a Security Council resolution adopted on 8 January 2009 — 1860 — and that stressed that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967.  And as you know, Security Council resolutions do have force in international law. Furthermore, there is a resolution from the General Assembly from 20 December 2010, and while it noted the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, it also stressed, in quotes, “the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.  So just to repeat that the United Nations will continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view on the matter.

On Nov. 22, UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova distanced herself from UNESCO’s election of Syria to two human rights committees, with her spokesperson telling UN Watch, “given the developments in Syria, the Director-General does not see how this country can contribute to the work of the Committees.”

However, only three weeks earlier, her approach toward Syria’s role at UNESCO appeared very different. This is from the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), November 1, 2011:

Education Minister Discusses Prospects of Cooperation with UNESCO

PARIS, (SANA)- Syria discussed on Tuesday cooperation with The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the framework of its participation in the UNESCO’s 36th general conference.

Minister of Education Saleh al-Rahed, heading the Syrian delegation, discussed with Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, means of boosting cooperation in all spheres.

The Minister underlined Syria’s support to the reform steps taken by the UNESCO and means of boosting relations with the Organizations and its offices.

“Being a member of UNESCO Executive Council has enabled Syria to participate in setting up the main strategy, plans, and programs of the UNESCO in the framework of seeking to upgrade relation with the organization in order to meet all its goals,” the Minister said.

He pointed out to the joint and vital projects carried out in Syria in cooperation with the UNESCO, expressing desire for further cooperation in the field of providing experts to help implement the activities and programs of the Damascus-based Regional Center for Early Childhood Development.

Al Rashed highlighted the UNESCO’s decision of granting full membership to Palestine, hailing its efforts toward giving the Palestinians their rights.

For her part, UNESCO Director-General underlined the importance of continuing cooperation with Syria in the framework of the Organization’s pursuit to help the member states achieve the activities and programs which are a UNESCO priority, particularly in the field of material and immaterial cultural heritage, education, quality, curricula, early childhood and youth, pointing out that these programs should be based on dialogue.

She said that the decision of granting full membership to the Palestinians has declared the time of real work, as efforts should be combined to achieve the Organization’s goals.