From: MSN NicknameEagle_wng  (Original Message)    Sent: 5/24/2006 3:53 PM
24.5.2006 18:01 MSK
The new UN Council on Human Rights – what can we expect?
The UN has renewed its vision of protecting human rights worldwide with new gusto. The Commission on Human Rights, founded in 1946, is to be replaced by a new Council on Human Rights. During its 59 years of quiet and confident activity, it has become clear that it is ineffective, and discredited by the involvement of countries in its activities who themselves are those infringing human rights. Resolutions condemning human rights abuses were torpedoed by countries including Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

After decades of cold war, the death of millions of people in internal and international conflicts, and the arrest of thousands of human rights activists, the UN has suddenly realised that this cannot continue. The UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, has recently declared that they had come to the critical moment where “member states must honour individual and collective obligations they themselves had passed.”

The new Council on Human Rights was born on 15 March this year. 170 countries had voted in favour, with four voting against. So as to avoid the mistakes committed by the former Commission, two essential changes were made. The number of members was reduced from 53 to 47, and it now has an annual break of not six, but not less than 10 weeks.

The positions on the Council have been divided up according to regions based on unknown principles, but the result is as follows: Africa and Asia have 13 seats, Eastern Europe 6, Central and South America 8, and Western Europe and others 7.

Finally, and most importantly for the hopes of peaceful mankind for future human rights, point 8 in the constituent resolution states: “On choosing members of the Council, member states should take note of the contribution of candidates in assisting and protecting human rights, and their voluntary obligations and promises in this area.”

Easier said than done? The member states took account of the potential members’ voluntary obligations and promises and, meeting in Geneva on 9 May, selected those countries which, in their opinion, had “the highest standards of promoting and protecting human rights”. Further reading is not recommended for those readers with a weak constitution. For the countries selected include none other than: China, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia, Azerbaijan, Cuba, and Pakistan.

Just out of interest: in Algeria, journalists were sentenced to prison terms for reporting on corruption, while in 2001 police opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least 50 people.

In Saudi Arabia, Sharia courts sentence people to flogging for minor offences, amputation of limbs for stealing, and death for “marital betrayal”. In Nigeria, Islamic fundamentalists with the approval of the government massacre Christians. In 2003, Islamists took offence at the Miss World event being staged in Nigeria, and in two days massacred more than 200 people. Nigeria also has Sharia courts. They sentence defendants to partial blinding and stoning. Unmarried women can be sentenced to 100 lashes for entering into sexual relations, while the price for giving birth to an illegitimate child is… death.

In Azerbaijan, dozens of political opponents of the president are sitting in the country’s prisons. Russia saw a sentence of three years’ imprisonment being handed down for displaying an anti-president poster on a road. In Cuba, hundreds of dissidents are in prison for criticising the Socialist state. Pakistan punishes blasphemy with life imprisonment. China imprisons people for publishing material in the internet, and removes organs from those executed for party officials requiring donor organs.

This must be how the UN interprets “high standards in the area of human rights”. The other countries on the Council are the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania, Germany, Canada, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, France, Switzerland, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Japan, The Philippines, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Zambia, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has with inspiration named the transformation in the UN’s human rights activity “a silent revolution”. The United States had voted against the Council and refused to enter it: its ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, noted that instead of a butterfly appearing, there was “only the same caterpillar; just with lipstick”.

China has already announced that the Council should not pass special resolutions relating to “specific countries”. If the other countries agree to such an approach to human rights, then other countries could join. Such as Iran, Turkmenistan, Belarus, or even North Korea. And would they really be any worse than the ones already chosen to be in the Council?

Whether the Council will turn into a brainless moth or remain a slow caterpillar will be revealed very soon. On 16 June, the Commission will be solemnly buried, while after a three day period of mourning, the Council will take up its work. Some 9 million dollars have been budgeted for its work in the 2006-7 financial year.

Alexander PODRABINEK
Translated Michael Garrood
http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2006/5/24/36064.html