PALAIS Intrigue 

Chechnya & Zimbabwe: CHR Perennials 

IT seems that draft resolutions on Chechnya and Zimbabwe have become a fixture at the Commission on Human Rights. And, as usual, neither Russia nor Zimbabwe will be censured officially by this year's Commission. Given the particularly nasty use of a no-action motion by South Africa, one might argue that yet another reminder of the situation of human rights in these countries is in order.

Here's a snapshot of events that have occurred since the beginning of the 59th CHR.In other words, here’s what the esteemed CHR members chose to disregard when they threw out the resolutions on... 

Chechnya 

An official Russian report, describing mass violations of human rights in Chechnya, was leaked to the press during the second week of April 2003. Le Monde referred to it as, "a document that refutes every idea that the situation in Chechnya is normalised." According to the report there were 1,314 assassinations carried out among the civilian population in 2002. The report also describes an abundance of mass graves: in one month (either February 2002 or February 2003, the report is not clear), 2 879 dead bodies were discovered in mass graves in Chechnya. A table analysing "heavy crimes" committed in Chechnya during the period from January to March 2003 documents 70 assassinations, 126 "removals", 19 cases of disappearances, two rapes, and 25 cases of discovering fragments of human corpses during the three-month period. Sergeui Lastrjembski, special spokesman for the Kremlin on Chechnya, merely stated: "We can neither confirm nor deny [the report]. Maybe this report exists. Maybe it was transmitted to the president, but it did not pass by our services".  

Zimbabwe 

On 18 March 2003, The Guardian reported that its investigations had revealed politically motivated rapes against opposition party supporters. According to victims' testimony, members of President Robert Mugabe's ruling party are using rape as a political weapon and are forcing young women to be their concubines.

On 20 March 2003, it was alleged that a Zimbabwean farm-worker was killed and scores of others were seriously injured by army troops who invaded a farm leased by an opposition MP.

Zimbabwe fast bowler Henry Olonga admitted that he might have to go into exile following death threats over email concerning his decision to wear a black armband to "mourn the death of democracy in Zimbabwe." He did not deny that secret police from Zimbabwe had visited South Africa with a warrant for his arrest. "We had no illusions about the kind of consequences and reactions we would get," he stated, "The people we have dealt with in the past have been ruthless. We knew, or at least I knew, that the worst-case scenario was that I might have to go into exile". In three different incidents, four individuals involved in journalism were arrested, in some cases beaten, and released.  In at least one of the cases the arrest was ruled illegal by the high court.

And finally... 

Some members of states' delegations and non-governmental organisations have noticed that the Cuban delegation has acquired a fan club within the NGO gallery. There has been noticeable applause after some of the delegation's more fiery remarks, in particular during the lengthy debate regarding the draft resolutions on Cuba under Agenda Item 9. Clearly, Cuba's scathing references to the "Empire" to the North have struck a common cord.

However, in applauding for Cuba, are NGO representatives also applauding the recent arrest and prosecution of 75 political dissidents accused of "provocations" and "subversive activities"? Or the execution of three men who attempted to hijack a passenger ferry, after a mere nine days of trial? Are they applauding years of redundant and time-consuming draft resolutions submitted to the Commission, and the fact that Cuba has yet to ratify the ICCPR and the ICESCR?            

It is fine to criticise the policy of the United States, but to do so by shooting from the shoulders of a human rights abusing country is a mistake. No doubt the Cuban GONGOs would disagree, but for those who may not want the Commission to think they are being bankrolled by Havana: political neutrality is the hallmark of a credible human rights NGO.