Volume 4

July - September 2002

It’s about politics, not brotherhood

It’s when Nicaragua points a finger at Cuba, and when the OIC forgets it has brothers outside the Middle East

THE Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in its resolution 2002/18 requested "the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to send a personal representative with a view to bringing about cooperation between her Office and the Government of Cuba for the implementation of the present resolution." About a decade ago, such a resolution would have created ripples. Not any more. 

Sponsored by the proxies of the United States at the CHR, such as Uruguay, Nicaragua , Guatemala and others, the resolution containing four preambular paragraphs and five operative paragraphs sought to strike a balance between Cuba's efforts to provide economic and social rights and the need to make "similar progress" in respect of civil and political rights. It urged Cuba to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IESCR). 

If, as the sponsors evidently believe, it takes a representative of the High Commissioner to ensure that Cuba matches its efforts in the area of social and economic rights with progress on civil and political rights, then what will it take to set the balance right in regimes such as Saudi Arabia - a major ally of the United States - or, for that matter, the rights situation in some of the sponsors’ own countries? 

The politics of human rights monitoring is blatant. Cuba apparently deserves a monitor but Saudi Arabia doesn't. 

The resolution on Cuba appeared to be nothing but a ploy to ridicule the CHR resolution on Palestine adopted in a Special Sitting on Palestine on 5 April 2002. The resolution authorised High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson to "head a visiting mission that would travel immediately" to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and "return expeditiously to submit its findings and recommendations to the current session of the Commission on Human Rights." 

The Israeli delegation, however chose to emulate the petulant obduracy often demonstrated by the Cuban delegation - it said it would not cooperate with the personal representative of the High Commissioner in that regard. 

There was palpable frustration in governmental and non-governmental circles on account of the shadow cast on the CHR by the Israel-Palestine situation. The attention focused on this issue was at the expense of discussions on a host of other human rights situations. With the United States out of the Commission for the first time since 1948, politicisation at the CHR was at its peak. The Western bloc was as much responsible as the Like Minded Group of countries at the 58th session.

One of the victims of the politicking at the CHR was the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Mr Miloon Kothari. At the end of the 58th session, the CHR failed to take any decision relating to the unpublished report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing pursuant to resolution S-5/1 of the Special Session of the CHR on Palestine held on 19 October 2000. The resolution had called on thematic Special Rapporteurs "to carry out immediate missions to the Occupied Territories and to report the findings to the Commission at its fifty seventh session, and on an interim basis, to the General Assembly at its fifty-fifth session." 

Although some thematic rapporteurs visited Occupied Territories in their private capacities, as they did not require prior visas, Mr. Kothari was not able to fulfill his mandate immediately due to the denial of a visa. He is an Indian citizen and requires a visa to visit Israel. 

On 6 December 2000, the Special Rapporteur requested an invitation from the Israeli government. The Israeli government responded that it would "not cooperate in the implementation of the operative part of this resolution." Consequently, the Special Rapporteur could neither undertake the visit nor report to the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights. 

Mr. Kothari authored his report after a visit - made in another capacity - to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in January 2002. 

Some in the Western bloc, at the behest of the United States and Israel, used this procedural issue to block the presentation of the report - submitted to the 58th session instead of the 57th session on account of Israel's lack of cooperation. The Western bloc reportedly sought a legal opinion from New York as to whether a report that was scheduled to be presented at the 57th session could be presented at the 58th session. The legal opinion never arrived. 

As none of the members of the CHR, including the members of the Arab League, raised the issue of the report’s release, it died an unfortunate, natural death. 

Setting another precedent, on 5 April 2002, the CHR held a Special Sitting on Palestine. While the United States took a backseat at the Special Sitting, it was quite clearly the puppeteer for its northern neighbour. Canada invoked the rules of procedures to ensure that the Special Sitting went beyond 6 pm so that the proceedings could not continue without translation, thus preventing a resolution from being adopted. 

In a last-ditch attempt to block action by the CHR, Canada - otherwise silent during the Asian group's attack on NGO participation - became the champion of NGO rights during the plenary. In view of the time constraints, the Pakistani Ambassador requested the suspension of NGO interventions, or, at least the postponement of such interventions, until after the adoption of a resolution. 

As Canada insisted on NGO participation, a vote was sought. The Canadian demand was rejected. Canada also raised an objection under rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure, requiring the circulation of draft resolutions 24 hours in advance unless otherwise decided by the Commission. This too was rejected by a roll call vote. Finally, the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestine Territory (E/CN.4/2002/L.13) was adopted with 44 in favour, two against and seven abstaining. 

Finally, throughout the CHR session, the delegation of Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), emphasised two points: that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the OIC stands solidly behind its Muslim “brothers.” The OIC readily and consistently championed the cause of its Muslim brethren in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

But the 'brotherhood' club is evidently not open to all. Not one Islamic country voted to protect the rights of the Chechens as proposed in Draft Resolution L.29 on the 'Situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation.' 

The draft resolution was a balanced text. It deplored the lack of cooperation of the Russian Federation with the mechanisms of the CHR, while affirming the right of Russia to defend its territorial integrity and welcoming positive developments in the region. The text also highlighted the Russian military's continued use of torture, summary executions, arbitrary detention and forced disappearances against the Chechens. 

The resolution was nevertheless defeated with 15 in favour, 16 against and 22 abstentions. The majority of OIC member delegations abstained, while Indonesia, Nigeria and Syria voted against the resolution. 

The Commission on Human Rights plumbed new depths of hypocrisy at its 58th session. The politicking did not allow enough space for a concerted attempt at standard-setting and monitoring. And certainly not enough to accommodate a pan-Islamic brotherhood.