Human Rights and the War on Terror

The UN Dispatch blog has been reacting to the UN Human Rights Council's resolution praising the Sri Lankan government and condemning only the Tamil Tigers for conduct during the Sri Lankan civil war.

Mark Leon Goldberg is hopeful that American participation will improve the Human Rights Council's legitimacy. John Boonstra is skeptical though.

By perversely casting proponents of a commission of inquiry as "trying to undermine Sri Lanka's efforts in countering terrorism," Sri Lanka has created an utterly false dichotomy between combating terrorism and protecting human rights. Its unwillingness to have potential human rights violations investigated only casts doubt on its wartime conduct, rather than exonerating its actions at a stroke, as the government absurdly claims.

For the United States to make a difference in changing this dynamic on the Council, it goes without saying that it will have to accept and embrace what should be an uncontested truism: that effectively countering terrorism not only allows for, but in fact requires, wholehearted defense of human rights. This means, once again, fully renouncing torture and working to undo years of policy and rhetoric that make it little surprise where Sri Lanka's leaders incubated such a supreme self-confidence in their own war on terrorism.

UPDATE: The State Department held a roundtable discussion on strategies for US participation in the Human Rights Council. It was attended by representatives human rights NGOs and US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. Vital Voices has a blog post about it; I'll post more information if I can find any.

"Hidden Massacre"

An investigation by The Times revealed that in the final phases of the Sri Lankan civil war, more than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed. This number is three times the government's official figure and most of these deaths were the result of government shelling. The Times was able to establish this through aerial photographs, official documents, witness accounts and expert testimony.

The Sri Lankan authorities have insisted that their forces stopped using heavy weapons on April 27 and observed the no-fire zone where 100,000 Tamil men, women and children were sheltering. They have blamed all civilian casualties on Tamil Tiger rebels concealed among the civilians.

This makes the UN Human Rights Council unwillingness to investigate the Sri Lankan government even more outrageous.

UN Human Rights Council Praises Sri Lanka, Condemns Tamil Tigers

(UPDATED BELOW)

The UN Human Rights Council held a special session on Sri Lanka, and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an independent investigation into possible war crimes committed by both sides during Sri Lanka's civil war. As Mark Leon Goldberg pointed out on UN Dispatch, "For that to happen, however, a simple majority of the 47 member council would have to approve. Unlike the security council, no country has a veto over this process. There is a lot riding on this vote. Both for the people of Sri Lanka and for the Human Rights Council itself."

So, in all, this meeting is an important test of the Human Rights Council. A few weeks ago it proved able to authorize an investigation of alleged human rights abuses in Gaza committed by Israel and Hamas during Operation Caste Lead. Should the council vote against action on Sri Lanka it opens itself to familiar accusations that there are double standards when it comes to Israel--which is a charge that may become more resonant should member states maintain that the situation in Sri Lanka is a wholly internal matter undeserving of the attention of the Human Rights Council.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Of the 47 members of the council, 29 voted for a resolution that called the conflict a "domestic" matter.

(More on criticism of the UN Human Rights Council.)

UPDATE: The UN Watch blog has a detailed chronology of the session. (The link hasn't been working so I'm posting the whole thing here.)

At the close of today’s special session to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka proposed an updated revised text of its self-congratulatory resolution. Though it incorporated some of the non-contentious proposals of the Swiss-EU draft, the resolution failed on a number of accounts.

The EU responded by proposing amendments that would express grave concern at the situation, call for the respect of international law, call on Sri Lanka to ensure “full, rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance,” and demand accountability and follow-up to the situation in Sri Lanka.

Cuba then took the floor to call for a “No-action” motion to prevent debate on the amendments. This motion is based on rule 117 of the General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which states that “A representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion.”

The ensuing vote on this motion passed with 22 in favor, 17 against, and 7 abstaining (Jordan did not vote). Voting no were the 6 EU members, along with Argentina, Bosnia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland. Abstaining were Azerbaijan, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ukraine, and Zambia.

Switzerland then called for a vote on Sri Lanka’s text, which passed with 29 in favor (including Brazil and Uruguay), 12 against (the EU, Bosnia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Switzerland), and 6 abstaining (Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, South Korea, and Ukraine).

Just before the final vote, Sri Lanka made a shocking dig at the EU. It happened after Germany’s speech on behalf of the European Union when there was a problem with the speaker system. It was soon discovered that Germany had forgotten to turn off its microphone so the President of the Human Rights Council told Germany to do so. When the ambassador of Sri Lanka took the floor, he arrogantly said, “My headphones must have malfunctioned. For a moment I thought I heard the president tell Germany to turn off its megaphone, not its microphone.”

UN Human Rights Council's Special Session on Sri Lanka

Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is calling for an independent investigation into possible war crimes committed by both sides during Sri Lanka's civil war. Her comments came during a special session of UN Human Rights Council.

From the High Commissioner's Website:

“The images of terrified and emaciated women, men and children fleeing the battle zone ought to be etched in our collective memory. They must spur us into action,” Pillay said in an opening address to the special session.

She said there were “strong reasons to believe” that both sides in the long conflict, the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), had “grossly disregarded the fundamental principle of the inviolability of civilians.”

“An independent and credible international investigation into recent events should be dispatched to ascertain the occurrence, nature and scale of violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as specific responsibilities.”

Pillay emphasized that victims and the survivors have a right to justice and remedies, and establishing the facts is crucial to set the record straight regarding the conduct of all parties in the conflict.

Independent human rights monitors and the media should be given “unfettered access to verify reports of serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law which have consequently surfaced in the course of the fighting,” she said.

The Special Procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council also recommended the establishment of “an effective mechanism to impartially inquire into all violations committed” throughout the conflict.

“A true reconciliation process requires an assessment of what has happened and must ensure accountability and an end to impunity,” said Magdalena Sepúlveda, Independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, who delivered a joint statement to the special session on behalf of all Special Procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council.

The High Commissioner also echoed Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call for immediate and unimpeded access to the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. “Unrestricted humanitarian aid will make the difference between life, illness or even death to many, and yet access for the UN and NGOs to the IDP camps continues to be hampered,” she said.

The Secretary-General, who visited Sri Lanka from 22 to 23 May, also underscored that “full transparency and full respect for human rights are essential” to the process of national recovery and reconciliation.

At the opening of the special session, Human Rights Council President Martin Uhomoibhi spoke of the “untold hardships” suffered by millions throughout this conflict and expressed hope that the special session would contribute towards the cause of peace in Sri Lanka.

By convening the session, the Human Rights Council sent “a message of readiness and willingness to work with the Government and people of Sri Lanka towards reconstruction and development,” he said.

The special session took place following a request by Germany on behalf 17 members of the Human Rights Council, including Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Mauritius, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

This is the eleventh special session of the Human Rights Council. Its previous special sessions concerned Lebanon, Darfur, Myanmar, the global food crisis, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the global economic and financial crises.

[Image: AP file photo from Voice of America story]

Ban Ki-Moon in Sri Lanka

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon toured the Sri Lankan war zone today.

In a Sri Lankan military helicopter, Ban flew over the ravaged northeastern coast where the final battles were fought. Buses were overturned, rooftops were blown off and bunkers were dug into the red earth. Debris was strewn across vast stretches of empty villages, which looked like a tornado had hit.

"As I was flying over the war zone, I thought the fighting must have been very severe and inhumane for the people trapped," Ban later said. "Quite a number of people lost their lives during the course of military fighting."

Afterward, Ban meet with Rajapaksa at his presidential home in the spiritual capital of Kandy. The hilly town is the site of a 1998 Tamil Tiger bombing at the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic. Thirty people were killed in the bombing at the historic temple, which is said to contain a tooth allegedly snatched from Buddha's funeral pyre.

Both sides in Sri Lanka's conflict have been accused of war crimes, especially during the past few months, when government troops cornered the Tamil Tigers on a narrow ribbon of land on the northeastern coast. Aid agencies say that the Tigers used terrified civilians, including children, as human shields, and that the government indiscriminately shelled hospitals and areas where civilians huddled in trenches. The government denies that claim.

"I'll convey the concerns and aspirations and expectations of the international community to Sri Lankan leadership," Ban said at the airport on his arrival. "Wherever there are serious violations of human rights as well as international humanitarian law, proper investigation should be instituted."

The UN Human Rights Council will be meeting in Geneva on Tuesday (Based on information from Amnesty International, I originally posted that they would be meeting on Monday). Amnesty International has recommendations for dealing with the humanitarian crisis and for investigating and monitoring human rights abuses.

The Human Rights Council should note that the human rights issues in Sri Lanka go beyond the current humanitarian crisis. They stem from a breakdown in the rule of law and a pervasive climate of impunity which has seen human rights violations by the security forces go unpunished for decades. I should also mention that the Tamil Tigers have over the years been responsible for gross human rights abuses, including deliberate and indiscriminate killings of civilians, torture of prisoners, and the forced recruitment and use of child soldiers.

UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Sri Lanka

On Monday, May 25, the UN Human Rights Council will hold a special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. Amnesty International has some recommendations.

US Elected to the UN Human Rights Council

On Tuesday, the United States won election to the UN Human Rights Council. The Obama Administration ended the US policy of boycotting it. (Previous posts on criticism of the Human rights Council are here and here.)

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Washington still believed the body was flawed, but added: "We are looking forward to working from within with a broad cross-section of member states to strengthen and reform the Human Rights Council."

Hillel Neuer of Geneva-based group UN Watch said the presence of China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on the council would result in "the foxes guarding the chickens." He said the council's credibility was at stake over its failure to hold an emergency session over the bloody fighting in Sri Lanka.

Steve Crawshaw of New York-based Human Rights Watch welcomed U.S. council membership but criticized its uncontested election. "The message that was understood around the world ... (was) that somehow elections without competition make sense," he said.

Event in DC: Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?

"Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?" Friday at 11AM at the Heritage Foundation. It will be webcast on the Heritage Foundation website tomorrow.

More information here.

The Human Rights Council’s first three years have been bitterly disappointing, with the Council continuing the worst practices of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, including stigmatizing Israel and overlooking serious human rights violations by China, Cuba, and other states. These practices led the Bush Administration to distance the U.S. from the Council.

Human rights organizations and nations that support increased U.S. participation with the Council have anticipated that the Obama Administration would reverse the U.S. policy of non-engagement with the Council. On March 31, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fulfilled this expectation by announcing that the U.S. would seek a seat on the HRC in the upcoming May election to “make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights.”

The UN Human Rights Council replaced the UN Commission Human Rights, which was heavily criticized for including member countries that themselves had dubious human rights records and for being overly politicized and therefore ineffective. Unfortunately, the UN Human Rights Council appears to have the same problems. For example, it was recently in the news for passing a non-binding resolution that condemned "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. Nevertheless, the Council has a great deal of potential as its inclusiveness offers tremendous opportunities for engaging member states.

But equally crucial to the Council’s credibility and truly universal human rights progress is the continued inclusion of diverse countries and perspectives. The human rights movement has long been plagued by widespread perception that it consists of Western values being imposed by Western countries. Although some believe that human rights stem from natural law—law that exists as part of nature and requires no codification—the movement is ultimately an ideological struggle that requires sustained diplomatic engagement.

The Council’s innovative Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) process—involving a quadrennial review of every UN member state’s human rights compliance—offers a tremendous opportunity for such engagement. Unlike the reviews performed in other UN bodies, the UPR is a state-driven process. Other relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), play only a limited role.

Although this premise is often cited as an inherent weakness of the UPR, it should instead be viewed as an invaluable opportunity for intergovernmental dialogue and diplomatic pressure where necessary. While independent human rights experts and NGOs are well-suited to providing findings and serving as watchdogs, in the end it is only state and intergovernmental actors who are able to speak from positions of strength.

Because of the membership of egregious human rights offenders and a tone of antisemitism, the US distanced itself from the Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has decided on a strategy of engagement and is seeking election to the Council.

UN Watch/Freedom House Joint Report on Repressive Regimes Running for Election to the UN Human Rights Council

The message from UN Watch:

UN Watch was at U.N. headquarters in New York yesterday to release a joint report with Freedom House opposing repressive regimes running for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council. The luncheon briefing was co-organized by both human rights groups, and attended by diplomats, reporters and human rights activists. UN Watch also brought human rights victims and dissidents from Cuba and Saudi Arabia to personally testify about the gross violations committed by some of the worst abusers who are seeking re-election next week. Click here for new report. The following article on our report was published today in Canada's National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Vanouver Sun, Edmonton Journal, and Calgary Herald.
(The article is here.)