Palais Intrigue

Swiss roll-over

The global 'war' against terrorism launched in the wake of September 11 seems to have engulfed even the traditionally 'neutral' Switzerland. This is evident from an order passed last month by the Swiss Asylum Appeal Commission directing four Sikh activists who have been staying peacefully in Switzerland for eight years to leave the country by 8 May 2003. Jasvir Singh, Karan Singh, Dalip Singh Khalsa and Harminder Singh Khalsa had taken refuge in Switzerland in 1995 after having served their sentences in Pakistan on the charge of hijacking an Indian aircraft in 1984. In their defence, the activists claimed to have engaged in hijacking purely to make a political statement about the Indian authorities' excesses in Punjab. The sudden decision by the Swiss Government to deport them after all these years is surprising especially because it has not been able to come forward with any evidence to support its conclusion that they constitute a threat to national security.

Letting it slip

Diplomats of several countries conferred last week thrice to fine-tune a resolution proposed by Mexico to check the abuse of human rights in the course of the ongoing drive against terrorism. Given the sensitivity of the matter for all the countries concerned, the diplomats have been working on the draft with greater care than usual.  But even after all those consultations, there is one surprising and rather serious omission in both the preamble and operative part of the proposed resolution. While it repeatedly refers to a General Assembly resolution passed in this regard in November 2002 (57/219), the draft makes no mention of the equally significant resolution passed subsequently by the Security Council on the very same subject of human rights and counter terrorism measures. When Human Rights Features brought this omission to the notice of the Mexican delegation, they reacted incredulously and asked for the number of the resolution. So, for the sake of the diplomats who have not done their homework properly, here are the details. The Security Council adopted Resolution 1456 of 20 January 2003 saying: "States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular human rights, refugee and humanitarian law."

No longer too hot to handle?

Judging by the number of mentions made on sexual orientation, this topic does not appear to be a taboo subject any onger. Supporters of a Brazilian draft resolution on 'Human Rights and Sexual Orientation' a first at the Commission can point to the acceptance of the term in last year's resolution on extrajudicial executions (Res 2002/36), sponsored by Sweden. The draft resolution itself calls for all UDHR rights with the exception of the right to marry (Article 16) to be ensured to "everyone without any discrimination as to her or his sexual orientation". Featuring "no new rights" (Brazil), it should in theory be entirely uncontroversial. Things are, of course, never so easy. But the resolution is apparently acceptable to the Holy See, a likely opponent, which worries only about the "risk of fragmentation and weakening of universal categories of discrimination" that could be a consequence of addressing violations against a particular social group.