Submitted by crinadmin on
Council Should Not Shy Away from Responsibilities Because of Politicized Criticism [NEW YORK, 6 November 2007] - As the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) concluded its review of the report of the Human Rights Council this morning, hearing from some 20 speakers who were generally optimistic about the new organ, its tools and what real advances it might make, Israel’s representative said that the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the dysfunctional Commission on Human Rights had not become ancient history; and although different in name, that Commission and the Human Rights Council were one and the same. He said real burning situations were not reflected in Council deliberations which focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to three special sessions and 12 discriminatory resolutions. He accused the new organ of being blind to the human rights of Israelis and asked where its condemnation was of Palestinian terrorism against Israel? Moreover, he questioned what had been done in response to calls by Iranian President, Mahmoud Admadinejad, for Israel’s destruction and for his denial of the Holocaust? His country was not asking for special treatment, but like all other States, it should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis. Human rights victims mattered; they were names and faces behind the issues, and “they are waiting for us to do the right thing,” he said. The Observer for Palestine said in 40 years of occupation, the Palestinian people had experienced serious human rights violations, adding that International monitoring of the situation had yet to result in a change of behavior by the occupying Power. She asked the Committee to imagine what could happen to Palestinians if they were deprived of international involvement. Also the idea that focusing on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory represented selective treatment was self-contradictory. That situation did not stand out by choice, but because of its painful reality. The Council should not shy away from its responsibilities because of politicized criticism. The situation had become a “test for the West” regarding its commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people, she said. The representative of the United States expressed concern that some appeared more determined to use the Council to defend abusive Governments than to protect the victims of human rights violations. In that light, he cited the Council’s “relentless” focus on Israel and its elimination of special mandates on Belarus and Cuba as worrying issues. Commenting on the Universal Periodic Review, he said it could be a useful tool if used correctly, but it was not designed to respond to emergencies. That was the job of the Council itself -- a new body that had yet to demonstrate that it could carry out its vital mandate to protect and advance human rights around the world. Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, Cuba’s representative said his delegation knew what the United States opposed -- vis-à-vis the Human Rights Council - and it was a more inclusive and active organ than the old Commission, which had permitted silence on issues such as Guantanamo. The United States wanted to return to a situation of dual standards, which had resulted in the abolition of the Commission. In addition, he said nothing Israel said today came as a surprise, since that country was serving the interests of its closest ally. The elements that made up the Council’s institution building package were praised by many, with many delegations agreeing on the principle of working towards the consolidation of the Council as the apex multilateral body dealing with the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide, as advocated by the representative of Sri Lanka. The creation of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism would ensure regular examination of all countries, without prejudice, said the representative of the Netherlands. Sri Lanka’s representative noted, however, that the Review was a cooperative mechanism which emphasized the need for objective and transparent assessment of a country’s human rights situation with the full involvement of that State. Sharing best practices and providing technical assistance and capacity building – with the consent of the country concerned -- were other positive features of that Review. It would have a far better chance of genuinely improving human rights situations than initiatives based on selectivity, partiality, “naming and shaming” and “intrusive monitoring,” she said. The Human Rights Council’s mandate could not be fulfilled with only a thematic approach to issues; what was needed was ongoing debate and action, the representative of France underlined. And if the international community wanted to treat all human rights in a fair and just manner as well as on an equal footing, it also had to address the code of conduct for mandate holders and acknowledge the fact that it was guided by elected members, who would have to adhere to the highest standards of human rights, noted the representative of Syria. Statements were also made today by the representatives of Myanmar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Uganda, United Kingdom, Japan, Poland, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Mexico and Iran. The representatives of the Sudan also spoke in exercise of the right to reply.
Further information