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.
April 30, 2009
Posted 6:19 PM
by Mary
US clash brewing over global Rights of Child pact By DAVID CRARY – 1 day ago NEW YORK (AP) — A global children's rights treaty, ratified by every U.N. member except the United States and Somalia, has so alarmed its American critics that some are now pushing to add a parental rights amendment to the Constitution as a buffer against it. The result is a feisty new twist to a long-running saga over the U.N. Convention on the Rights of The Child. The nearly 20-year-old treaty has ardent supporters and opponents in the United States, and both sides agree that its chances of ratification — while still uncertain — are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past. Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based U.N. committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. Its supporters view the treaty as a valuable guidepost for children's basic rights — including education, health care and protection from abuse — and say its global goals are undermined by the refusal of the world's lone superpower to ratify it. "No U.N. treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country," said Meg Gardinier, chair of a national coalition backing the treaty. "Ratification would boost our credibility globally." Gardinier says her coalition — with scores of partners ranging from Amnesty International to the Girl Scouts of the USA — has learned to be patient, and hopes an all-out push for Senate ratification will be mounted by the third year of Barack Obama's presidency. The treaty's opponents say they will be ready to fight back, and the proposed parental rights amendment is a key part of their strategy. Introduced this spring by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the amendment now has 80 of his fellow Republicans as co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says he plans to introduce it in the Senate. Hoekstra acknowledges that they are far short of the needed two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress to forward the amendment to the states, but says the dynamics could change if the children's rights treaty advances to a Senate vote. "We better lay the groundwork," Hoekstra said in a telephone interview. "The last thing you want to be is unprepared if something pops up on the radar screen." Hoekstra said he and his allies have been concerned by some recent U.S. court rulings that they view as erosions of parental rights, but the U.N. treaty is their paramount concern. His brief amendment opens by declaring: "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right." It says the federal government and the states cannot infringe on that right without clear justification, and then concludes: "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article." Ratification of any international treaty requires two-thirds support in the 100-member Senate, a potentially high hurdle that would — in the chamber's current makeup — require more than a half-dozen Republicans to join majority Democrats. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs a Foreign Relations subcommittee handling human rights issues, has declared her strong support for ratifying the children's rights treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as first lady back in 1995, also advocated on behalf of the treaty, while Obama, during his election campaign, suggested that U.S. failure to ratify was "embarrassing" and promised to review the treaty. But since Obama took office, there has been no public statement from the administration or Democratic leaders in the Senate spelling out a timetable for that review and a possible Senate vote. In the meantime, critics of the treaty hope to intensify public opposition. "If the American public is informed on this, there's no chance it will be ratified," said Michael Farris, a conservative lawyer who founded the Home School Legal Defense Association and helped draft the parental rights amendment. Labels: UDHR, UNCRC
April 27, 2009
Posted 10:04 PM
by Mary
In First 100 Days, Obama Plants Flag at United Nations Huff Steven Schlesinger President Obama has dramatically re-established American relations with the UN in his first 100 days. His acclaimed multilateral outlook on international relations, his willingness to listen to foreign leaders rather than lecture them, his admission of "mistakes" by the US on issues like torture, the economy, the Iraq war, and other global matters, and his general popularity around the world, have created an entirely new atmosphere in the United Nations building. By the seventh week of his administration, he held his first meeting with Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the White House, a cordial and highly supportive event. Then, with several specific steps, Obama made crystal clear his re-engagement with the world body: first, he approved the US joining the newly created Human Rights Council rather than staying outside of it to reorient the body toward enforcing the essential civil rights for citizens in all states; second, he asked Congress to appropriate $836 million to pay up our peacekeeping obligations which we have shamefully refused to pay in the past; third, he made a new commitment to helping with stopping climate change -- a key issue at the UN these days; fourth, he reversed by executive order the Bush policy of denying US funds to family planning programs at the UN's Population Fund; fifth, he renewed and expanded funding to both UNICEF and UNESCO, organizations long neglected by the US in the past; sixth, he publicly endorsed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, among other crucial UN treaties, and pledged to participate vigorously in the UN's upcoming 2010 review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the latter of which the Bushites especially disparaged; seventh, he publicly embraced the Millennium Development goals which the Bush Administration viewed with decided ambivalence. Obama, however, did duck out of the Durban conference on racism and he has so far not said much about the International Criminal Court and has not been heavily pro-active on the Darfur crisis, as of yet. But overall he deserves an A- grade for his first 100 days as regards the UN.
April 25, 2009
Posted 9:50 AM
by Mary
UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers Associated Press Published: Friday April 24, 2009 The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday. Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution. Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was lega Labels: geneva conventions, torture
April 19, 2009
Posted 8:54 PM
by Mary
UN Special Rapporteur: CIA torture exemption 'illegal'
BBC: US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it. Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration. Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims. "The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard. The memos approved techniques including simulated drowning, week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity, and the use of painful positions. Mr Obama on Thursday said he would not prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the 11 September attacks. Mr Nowak - who is due to travel to Washington to meet with officials - said that could be a mitigating factor, but does not absolve those involved. "The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility," he was quoted as saying by AP news agency. Mr Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said US courts could still try those suspected of carrying out torture, as Mr Obama has not sought an amnesty law for affected CIA personnel. He called for an investigation by an independent commission before suspects were tried and said it was important that all victims receive compensation. Human rights groups have criticised President Obama's decision to protect CIA interrogators, saying charges were necessary to prevent future abuses and hold people accountable. President Obama banned the use of the controversial interrogation techniques in his first week in office. Labels: Human Rights, Obama, torture
April 17, 2009
Posted 8:52 PM
by Mary
The Baltimore Sun A Step Toward Ending Israel's Impunity by George Bisharat The appointment of Richard Goldstone to head a United Nations fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip represents an important first step toward ending Israel's impunity from international law. Mr. Goldstone - a former supreme court justice in South Africa and chief prosecutor in the international tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia - and three other esteemed experts will investigate both Israel and Hamas for possible offenses before, during, and after Israel's invasion of Gaza. Evidence, indeed, suggests that Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity before, during, and after its winter assault on the Gaza Strip. Long before the attack, Israel had imposed a ruinous siege on Gaza, collectively punishing its residents for choosing Hamas in democratic elections in January 2006. During the December-January invasion, Israeli troops apparently killed civilians without justification, wantonly destroyed civilian infrastructure and private property, used weapons illegally, and abused Palestinian detainees. Since a January cease-fire, Israel has blocked relief supplies to Gaza, and it continues to attack and kill Palestinians. Individual misconduct does not explain Israel's offenses during the invasion; lax rules of engagement were the root problem. Israeli military lawyers classified any Palestinian who remained in an area after a warning of an impending attack as a "voluntary human shield" and therefore a combatant subject to attack. Warnings were issued via leaflets, cell phone calls, and in some cases, bombing of a building's corners (before the roof was collapsed by additional fire). Yet Gaza Palestinians were barred refuge outside of the tiny strip, and thus were denied effective flight. Israeli jurists also approved the bombing of a police cadet graduation ceremony; in total, some 250 civilian Palestinian policemen lost their lives during the invasion. Military rabbis exacerbated matters, counseling that Israeli soldiers show no mercy to Palestinians. Such elastic definitions of "combatants" defy well-settled international law. Yet Daniel Reisner, the former head of the International Law Division of the Israeli Military Advocate General, recently claimed: "If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries ... International law progresses through violations." Hamas, in its indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, also committed war crimes, and should be held to account. Yet Hamas' violations have no power to alter the terms of international law. Israel, by its capacity to defy the world community - and because its doctrines have been followed by some other nations, including the United States - jeopardizes the status of international law in a way that Hamas cannot. Labels: Gaza, idf, Israel, war crimes
April 8, 2009
Posted 2:19 PM
by Mary
Judge named to lead Gaza inquiry is known for fairness Martial Trezzini / Associated PressReporting from Johannesburg, South Africa, and Jerusalem -- Richard Goldstone, a quiet, self-effacing jurist from South Africa, agonized for days over the job offer: Unravel the accusations and counter-accusations of war crimes related to Israel's winter assault on the Gaza Strip. The inquiry was a hot potato. The United Nations resolution ordering it focused on alleged "grave violations" by Israel, but not on rocket fire by Palestinian militants. Several experts invited to serve on the U.N. Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission had refused because they considered the mandate one-sided, a U.N. official said. Goldstone, a Jew, insisted on a balanced approach. His proposal: Talk to the victims. All the victims... "I decided to accept it because of my deep concern for peace in the Middle East and my deep concern for victims on all sides in the Middle East," he said at a news conference in Geneva. The mission, he and U.N. officials said, would examine abuses on both sides of the 22-day conflict. Goldstone's appointment poses an immediate policy question for Israel's new government. Israel considers the 47-member council incorrigibly biased and has refused to take part in some of its previous inquiries, including one led by Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took office last week, is acutely aware of Israel's isolation over the Gaza conflict and has assured Western leaders that his government, though dominated by right-wing parties, is eager to work with them on peace efforts in the Middle East. Goldstone's international reputation for fairness and balance, more than the fact that he is Jewish, could make it awkward for Israel to shut him out. "He's a person of impeccable integrity," said South African lawyer Mervyn Smith, who has known Goldstone for 25 years and is a former president of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. "The fact that he's Jewish is not going to influence him one way or another." Yuval Shany, director of the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said he was surprised by the appointment. He said the U.N. council, dominated by Arab, African and Asian countries, usually sends outspoken critics of Israel to lead such inquiries. "Clearly this is not the case here, because Richard Goldstone is a fair-minded jurist, and I don't think anyone can say he's hostile to Israel in any way," Shany said. For most of his adult life, Goldstone, 70, has delved into victimhood. Growing up in apartheid South Africa, he did not make black friends until he went to a university. He hated what apartheid did to them, treating them as lesser mortals, forcing them to carry passes and live in segregated townships. Labels: Gaza, war crimes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"War does not determine who is right--only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
| 
