Cebo.org is a collegial approach to information sharing between ethics-based
organizations with NGO status at the United Nations. Please contact member parties regarding the
positions of their respective organizations on matters expressed in this online journal.
Posted 9:47 PM
by Mary
ublished on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 by OneWorld.net
Stiffed by U.S., UN Asks Groups to Report on U.S. Rights Violations
by Niko Kyriakou
SAN FRANCISCO - In an unprecedented move, a UN committee has asked human and civil rights groups to submit reports and testify on U.S. breaches of international law, filling a gap left by the U.S. government's failure to submit its own report.
The 18-member United Nations Human Rights Committee, which reviews nations' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, began reviewing country reports Monday and will complete its session on October 24.
But for the third time since ratifying the treaty in 1992, the United States has failed to submit its five-year report to the committee on U.S. violations of the treaty.
The treaty, which entered into force in 1976 and has been signed by 155 countries, outlaws torture or degrading treatment, protects self-determination, and ensures that all people everywhere are treated within the law.
Without a U.S. report, the committee usually skips over discussions of U.S. compliance.
But anticipating an absent U.S. report, the Human Rights Committee took precautions this year.
Last August, the committee sent a letter to a number of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the World Organization for Human Rights USA, requesting reports on U.S. transgressions of the treaty, to be used in case the U.S. itself failed to report.
Specifically, the committee's letter requested documentation relating to, "the fight against terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001 and notably the implications of the Patriot Act on nationals as well as non-nationals; and problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq, and other places of detention outside the USA."
The move represents a new level of intensity by the United Nations to hold the United States accountable for what is widely seen by rights groups as an increasing disregard of human rights by the U.S. government at the highest level, and at the same time an elevation of the status of NGOs within the UN system.
"It was a very unusual request. As far as I know it's never happened before," the Executive Director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, Morton Sklar, told OneWorld.
"It's highly unusual for them to call a special session without a report having been filed," he said.
Sklar testified at the opening of the committee's 85th session on Monday condemning what he called a "wide-ranging set of policies" set forth by the U.S. government that "authorize the use of torture as a means for obtaining intelligence regarding terrorism, and that ignore and seek to restrict the application of a number of key international standards."
"They have claimed these are the acts of a few devious individuals, when the reality is, they are part of a pattern of policies that the U.S. government has sought to condone and excuse in the war against terror," Sklar told OneWorld.
Sklar's report to the Committee focuses on cases of "extraordinary rendition" in which the U.S. has sent suspected terrorists to nations where they can be interrogated using techniques not permitted in the United States, and on the detainment of "unlawful enemy combatants" for indefinite reasons.
The World Organization report also highlights U.S. failures to notify international authorities of the capture and detention of suspected terrorists, and the use of special tribunals to prosecute detainees and other "enemy combatants."
Sklar asked the international community not only to condemn such acts but urged the committee to hold the U.S. government itself, and its officials at the highest levels, accountable.
The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.
The report included sections on "Excessive Government Secrecy"; "Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities"; "Criminalization of Political Protest"; "Increased Surveillance Powers"; and "Random Searches."
Another group, the Meikeljohn Civil Liberties Institute based in Berkeley, California, submitted a report to the committee on 71 U.S. violations, all documented in a book put out this year by the group called, "Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations since 9/11."
A former circuit county judge representing the group testified before the committee yesterday.
"In our zeal to counter terrorism in the U.S. and abroad, we as a democratic society concerned about our fellow human beings must ensure that our government is not violating the most basic rights of all human beings," the former judge, Claudia Morcom, said in a statement released last week.
The Human Rights Committee's novel request for NGO reports at this October's session was sparked by more than just tardy U.S. reports, says Meiklejohn's executive director, Ann Fagan Ginger.
In fact, the committee's "anger" is part of a wider series of disappointments with the United States throughout the UN system, Ginger told OneWorld.
At the 51-country meeting of the Human Rights Commission last spring, the U.S. behaved "arrogantly," Ginger said, resulting in the Commission's decision to establish a special rapporteur, or advisor to the UN secretary-general, to study human rights violations in the war on terror, specifically in regards to the U.S.
In addition, the UN was dissatisfied with the U.S.'s second report to the United Nations committee reviewing the Convention Against Torture, submitted earlier this year.
While the U.S. report was years overdue, the main complaint was that the document failed to acknowledge any federal violations of the treaty, which prohibits cruel, unusual, or degrading treatment or punishment.
"In the appendix they say we will not discuss Abu Grahib or Guantanamo with you; it's not your business. They said it was not within the purview of that treaty," Ginger said.
Perhaps most infuriating to the international community, Ginger said, was a proposition put forth by John Bolton, the recently appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN, at the UN World Summit in September.
Bolton proposed removing Article II, Clause IV of the UN Charter, which prohibits UN member nations from using force, or the threat of force, in the settlement of disputes. The measure was defeated, she said.
Some observers, however, point to other events as evidence that the U.S. is beginning to back away from its purported violations of international laws.
For example, in cases determining the legal status of Guantanamo Bay detainees Yaser Hamdi and Shafiq Rasul, the Supreme Court recently ruled that U.S. courts could retain jurisdiction to review the status and treatment of such detainees, even though they are held outside the territorial limits of the U.S.
And a Federal Court in Washington D.C. recently found that the U.S. government could be held responsible for the unlawful detention of a suspected terrorist in a foreign nation if it participated in the process.
President Bush has also withdrawn the legal memoranda that many said authorized the use of torture after the Abu Ghraib scandal raised public awareness of how detainees were being treated.
Copyright © 2005 OneWorld.net.
Posted 9:27 PM
by Mary
By Barbara Crossette
The Interdependent, UNA-USA
October 2005
(…)
Granted, the abject failure of nations to agree on how, specifically, to form a new human rights council in place of the discredited Human Rights Commission was one glaring exception to the hope of putting people first. Developing nations themselves killed that hope, fearing too much scrutiny. That's not a good omen.
But member nations did accept — to the surprise of many — a new concept that has been under discussion around the organization since the turn of this millennium: the "responsibility to protect." That provision in the final agreement says unambiguously that when governments fail to take action against enormous crimes within their borders such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity — including incitement to these crimes-the rest of the world must be prepared "to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner."
Only five years ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan drew a storm of protest from developing nations when he talked about the "right to intervene." He jokes now that "responsibility to protect" is more diplomatic. But the point that matters is that in one revolutionary step, the UN membership has tempered the long-held view that national sovereignty is inviolate when a population is abused…
http://www.unausa.org
Posted 8:11 PM
by Mary
1 hour, 6 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a U.N. envoy on Monday from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.
Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General
Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.
"I strongly regret and deplore that Mr. Mendez ... was not authorized to brief the council today as Mr. Kofi Annan had asked," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters outside the council chambers.
But Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be "talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation" in Darfur. He gave no new proposals.
"How many officials from the secretariat does it take to give a briefing?" he said, noting the council had just concluded a briefing on Darfur from Hedi Annabi, the assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations.
Mendez, who visited Darfur for a week in late September, later briefed reporters on his findings. He said Sudanese officials were taking only cosmetic steps to prevent systematic human rights abuses there that might amount to genocide. crimes against humanity or war crimes.
He also accused Khartoum of refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a tribunal strongly opposed by the Bush administration on grounds it might pursue frivolous prosecutions of U.S. soldiers or officials working abroad.
INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE
"We cannot let the government of Sudan get away with that," Mendez told a news conference. "I haven't seen any indication of the international community telling Sudan, 'You don't have a choice, you have to cooperate with the ICC."'
Mendez said the Security Council had to put more pressure on the Sudanese to disarm nomad Arab gangs, known as Janjaweed, responsible for many of the atrocities now escalating in camps housing African tribesmen thrown off their land. So far Sudanese trials of any perpetrators were meaningless, he said.
Secondly, Mendez recommended that the international community make good on its pledges to give aid to the Africa Union, which has monitors and troops in Darfur.
Council diplomats who wanted to hear from Mendez said it was a council tradition to give the envoy a platform when Annan called for a briefing from his adviser on genocide.
They noted Bolton had lined up with the three council members -- Algeria, China and Russia -- which have watered down action against Khartoum.
"He's playing into the hands of people who don't want to do anything," said one council diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to irritate Washington.
Posted 8:21 PM
by Mary
FROM THE UN
September was both a turbulent and an important month at the UN. The US administration's attack against the UN continued, most noticeably by the orchestrated publicity against the Oil For Food Program. In addition, the new ambassador John Bolton's last minute manoeuvers strongly affected the final agreement for the major 60th anniversary summit at the UN. The media coverage of these events was both inadequate and misleading.
The $64 billion Oil For Food Program was extremely complex, one of the largest humanitarian efforts in history. Firstly, and most importantly, did the program accomplish its mission? What has passed unnoticed and unappreciated--the program was very successful. Enough food was imported to adequately feed all 27 million Iraqis. In addition, as a response to the great concern for the effects of the sanctions on children, malnutrition of children under the age of 5 was sharply reduced, dramatically cutting child mortality rates. The program contributed to a national vaccination plan which reduced childhood disease and eradicated polio.
Who was responsible for overseeing the program?It was the UN Security Council, via a Security Council Sanctions Committee composed of diplomats of 15 nations including the US. This committee monitored all contracts. The policing of smuggling was the task of the US navy. By agreement of the Security Council Committee and Iraq, sanctions were lifted for oil shipments to Turkey and Jordan.
Finally, did the UN raise concerns about the pricing of contracts? It did so, twice, during the year 2000. The outline of roles and responsibility between the UN management and the Security Council Committee were not always clear. Kofi Annan has accepted responsibility for some management shortcomings. Benon Savan, the former director of the Iraqi program is alleged to have illegally gained $147,000 over a 4 year period. Also, undoubtedly, Saddam Hussain siphoned off money in the pricing of the contracts.
Given the role of the national interests of the governments in the Sanctions Committee, the enormous size of the $64 billion program, and its success in mitigating the serious plight of Iraqis, particularly children, the price seems worth paying. For more details and answers to questions, see (www.oilforfoodfacts/faq.aspx)
The next major event was the high level 60th anniversary summit. Diplomats struggled for many months to hammer out an agreement on the Millennium Development Goals, and attempts to reform the structure of the UN. However in came John Bolton, US. representative, pressuring for major changes in the document. As a result, in conjunction with other countries who had agreed, although reluctantly, with its commitments, the final document was weakened, and became a disappointment to many, for different reasons.
There was no agreement on the composition of the Security Council to make it more representative. Also missing was a restructuring of the discredited Human Rights Commission. US objection to any mention of the duty of nuclear powers to disarm, prevented any agreement on nuclear proliferation--a big disappointment.
What we found most disturbing was the absence of a clear definition of terrorism, as presented by Kofi Annan, and backed by the Western powers, stating that violence and attacks on civilians for political reasons is totally unacceptable. This definition was blocked by Islamic governments' sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
However, there was some good news among the disappointments. There was a reaffirmation, though weakened, of the Millennium goals on curing disease and halving the incidence of the world's grimmest poverty by 2015.A Peace Commission to help nations emerging from conflict was created. This is new and could be important enough to prevent countries from relapsing into civil war, and the devastating flow of refugees.
Finally and in our view very important---in spite of the regrettable dilution of the language by the US, the international community acknowledged responsibility to protect civilians from genocide and ethnic cleansing. Under international law a country cannot hide behind sovereignty to commit genocide on its citizens. The 1948 Genocide Convention had already agreed to this. It is nevertheless extremely important to reaffirm this basic moral imperative.
Kofi Annan has often stated that in our increasingly interrelated world critical problems have a habit of crossing national boundaries. Solutions need joint action. The ever growing community of non-governmental organizations is promoting this larger vision. Although many nations have a narrow and shortsighted view of their interest, governments are being pushed to form regional as well as international agreements to solve problems. The times demand it.
Phyllis Ehrenfeld, AEU's National Service Conference Representative to the UN,
Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Repreentative to the UN.
