The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from the 1977 mandate for independence and sovereignty of the Eezham Tamil nation, to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. Meanwhile, the emerging novel concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
TamilNet Editorial Board
Brutal military victory and inhuman incarceration will make Eezham Tamils to forget their national aspiration is the belief of Colombo and the powers that abetted it in the course of war.
Not that they don’t know that the war and the attitude behind the war have made Eezham Tamils to feel the necessity of their national liberation more than ever now.
But arrogance and greed never see reason.
Some of the powers are very honest in the show. They openly sit on all international intervention. Never hide their greed in grabbing land or resources of Tamils while they are incarcerated and one of them is said to be overtly intimidating Tamil political leaders not to voice political aspirations of their people but to accept formulas dictated by it as solutions.
Then there is another set of powers, which now shed tears for the incarcerated, advice reconciliation for the sake of the unity of the island, urge the diaspora to engage with Colombo government and show semblances of diplomatic and economic pressure just for getting official entry into the scenario.
While the former are not at all recognising their responsibility to the current plight of Tamils, the latter are at least indirectly recognising it, and are demanding for certain immediate humanitarian measures.
However, none of them were so far able to make even little impact in altering the genocidal attitude of Colombo. On the contrary, Colombo is fast institutionalising ethnic totalitarianism in all its forms in the island.
Sense and sensibility would tell anyone that realities in the island demand partition for lasting peace, democratisation, eventual reconciliation and for regional /global cooperation.
But Tamils have to carefully note that none of the powers want to recognise the inevitability and righteousness in the development and demands of Tamil nationalism in the island. Rather they want us to believe that national liberation was only a demand of ‘terrorism’, what exists is only an ordinary ‘minority issue’ and this could be sorted out by reconciliation, development and little international pressure on Colombo to observe human rights.
Everyone knows what is behind this attitude is no sane political ideology but sheer power opportunism.
The powers are fully aware that what they are doing is not going to resolve the conflict in the island. If they are confident in the righteousness of their outlook there is no need for them to worry about an armed struggle erupting in the island again. Their anxiety only reveals that they are wrong in their moves. India’s fear, stemming from its guilt, is very explicit as could be seen from the observations of M K Narayanan recently about the possibilities of Tamil diaspora supporting another armed struggle.
They all come out with a sane advise to Tamils to struggle politically. But what is unholy behind this advice is dictating and coercing Tamils to drop their liberation aspiration even in democratically organised political movements. In short, ‘defeated Tamils’ have no political rights either, even to democratically tell what they want.
This is where Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka and in the diaspora need to take a firm stand and voice it boldly.
When Tamils had the last chance of democratically voicing themselves in 1977, they have given a clear and overwhelming mandate, based on their self-determination, for the creation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in their homeland, i.e., North and East of the island.
The Tamil National Alliance or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from this mandate to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. This is a new reality.
The Eezham Tamil diaspora living as free citizens in liberal democratic countries, outside of the dictates of Colombo and New Delhi, has a bigger responsibility in evolving a political formation to represent the hearts of Tamils.
TamilNet has long been writing on democratically formed transnational governance of Eezham Tamils and as prerequisites re-mandating the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution and forming grass root democratic bodies.
It is with sadness we note that according to BBC report Wednesday, the proposal to form a transnational government by V. Rudrakumaran talks only of homeland and self-determination – a truncation of the vital parts of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution.
Some supporting circles of this move said that the phrase ‘transnational government of Tamil Eelam’ covers the rest of Tamil aspirations. They should realise that the phrase ‘Tamil Nadu’ doesn’t mean anything in India.
Why the hesitation in telling what the Tamils have mandated democratically? Who is blocking?
Transnational government is primarily a symbolic as well as a functioning body that should be formed by the free will of the diaspora Tamils upholding the independence and sovereignty of Eezham Tamils in the island. It is an alternative government to be formed democratically when all governments disregarded them.
The whole concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
Another unsafe move in the announcement for transnational government, in the given hostility of Colombo and some powers, is the call for voter register. All know how totalitarian powers in the past made use of voter register to hunt people. Voter register will make only a faction of core supporters to register and the transnational government will not be truly representative. Attention has to be drawn here how a successful poll was conducted in May this year, among the Tamil diaspora in Norway, without any voter register.
The BBC reporter Wednesday was unkind even to the ‘homeland’ of the proposed transnational government. “The group is clearly still wedded to the idea of a separate homeland, which many observers consider to be defunct after their military defeat,” he said.
This is not a conducive image for the effort when such a government has to be formed with a new and inclusive paradigm. The move for the transnational government has to go beyond the already created image that it is an LTTE project.
According to BBC, the Colombo government has made it clear that it is now hunting for Mr. Rudrakumaran, even though it has no business to interfere into the democratic activities of the free citizens in the diaspora in the liberal democracies.
The best option for a successful transnational government is not making it from the above but evolving it from the grass root. Such a government cannot be intimidated or hijacked by anyone, as it will be prevalent everywhere in the diaspora.
Eezham Tamils in Norway are already discussing the formation of a democratically elected country council, adopting the goal for independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam, which has been mandated by 99 percent of the Norwegian Tamil voters (the voter turn out was 80 percent). If such elected councils in every country could device ways of forming a transnational government, that will be more representative, democratic, secure and forceful.
Re-mandating the main principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution, preceding the formation of the transnational government, is vital for setting the goals of the government democratically and in no uncertain terms, convincing everyone of their validity without doubt or refutation.
Friday, September 18, 2009
UN envoy Lynn Pascoe insists on early release of IDPs
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe who met Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse Friday to present the letter from UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon outlining the concerns of the international community on the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and other related matters, said that he had raised the issue of the early release of the IDPs and their freedom of movement with the President, sources in Colombo said. "It is frustrating to live in such conditions and therefore the people should be allowed to return to their original homes at the earliest. The security concerns of the government are understandable but at the same time the people must also be taken into serious consideration", Mr. Pascoe said.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the United Nations expressed concern Friday about the agreement reached in May between its General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and President Mahinda Rajapakse regarding the resettlement of the IDPs commenting that it did not see any anticipated progress through the agreement.
The visiting UN envoy further said that among the various issues that he discussed with the President the early release of the IDPs and their freedom inside the camp took precedence, the sources added.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the United Nations expressed concern Friday about the agreement reached in May between its General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and President Mahinda Rajapakse regarding the resettlement of the IDPs commenting that it did not see any anticipated progress through the agreement.
The visiting UN envoy further said that among the various issues that he discussed with the President the early release of the IDPs and their freedom inside the camp took precedence, the sources added.
The other matters of importance that Lynn Pascoe was concerned about were the well-being of the two Sri Lankan UN employees now under detention for alleged links with Liberation Tigers and Mr. James Elder, Communications Chief of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Funds (UNICEF), being expelled from Sri Lanka, according to the sources.
=
Lynn Pascoe visits IDP detention camps in Jaffna
Mr. Lynn Pascoe, United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, who was in Jaffna Thursday, visited the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) detention camps in Koapaay and Kaithadi, accompanied by Jaffna Sri Lanka Army (SLA) Commander, Major Gen. Mark and Jaffna Government Agent, K. Ganesh under heavy escort. Non-government organizations in Jaffna expressed concern that independent civil society representatives in the peninsula were not given an opportunity to meet the visiting UN envoy and inform him of the true situation in the peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe was also taken to Maravnpulavu and Thangki’lappu in Thenmaraadchi South where paddy lands occupied by the SLA for the past nine years had been allowed to be cultivated again.
The NGO organizations blamed the government for exploiting the UN envoy’s visit to show that all was well in Jaffna peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe who arrived in Sri Lanka Wednesday night proceeded to Vavuniyaa after his brief visit to Jaffna.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe was also taken to Maravnpulavu and Thangki’lappu in Thenmaraadchi South where paddy lands occupied by the SLA for the past nine years had been allowed to be cultivated again.
The NGO organizations blamed the government for exploiting the UN envoy’s visit to show that all was well in Jaffna peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe who arrived in Sri Lanka Wednesday night proceeded to Vavuniyaa after his brief visit to Jaffna.
Video investigation by Colombo not impartial - Alston
Noting that two of the four experts cited by the government were full-time government employees, another had previously acted on behalf of the government, "and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear," Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday, that studies could not be characterized as impartial. "The only way to do this [authenticate the video] is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place,'' Alston said. The video clip, aired in British Channel-4 TV, allegedly showing Sri Lankan troops executing Tamil prisoners stripped naked and hands tied behind backs, has shocked the world community, and re-ignited calls for investigations of war-crimes against Sri Lanka military.
Alston's rebuke of Sri Lanka's 'independent' experts has effectively negated Colombo's hurried attempts to contain the damaging impact of the video, and thrust the burden back on Colombo to have the forensics carried out by "demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned." Compliance to "United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions," was also noted as necessary.
Alston also noted that no original reports were available from three 'experts,' and the fourth originated as an opinion piece on Island, before declaring that findings cannot be characterized as impartial.
Full text of Alston statement published in UNHCHR (United Nations High Commission on Human Rights) website follows:
Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed "Consolidated Response" issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government's response was summarized in the Minister's statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that "four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake."
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a "thorough, prompt and impartial investigation."* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been "prompt" since it was completed within two weeks of the information becoming available.
I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it was "thorough." I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations. The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the Government's request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes "observations" made by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the "four separate investigations" meet the criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former head of Cisco's global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government on Mr Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity, what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as "impartial".
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would do likewise.
Alston also noted that no original reports were available from three 'experts,' and the fourth originated as an opinion piece on Island, before declaring that findings cannot be characterized as impartial.
Full text of Alston statement published in UNHCHR (United Nations High Commission on Human Rights) website follows:
Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed "Consolidated Response" issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government's response was summarized in the Minister's statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that "four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake."
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a "thorough, prompt and impartial investigation."* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been "prompt" since it was completed within two weeks of the information becoming available.
I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it was "thorough." I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations. The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the Government's request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes "observations" made by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the "four separate investigations" meet the criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former head of Cisco's global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government on Mr Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity, what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as "impartial".
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would do likewise.
Pascoe to deliver Ban Ki-Moon’s letter to Rajapakse Friday
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe is to deliver the letter given by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapakse when meets the latter on Friday. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters in New York Thursday, he has sent a letter to President Mahinda Rajapakse outlining the concerns of the international community on the developments regarding internally displaced persons, the political process and a possible accountability mechanism.
“I have spoken directly with President Mahinda Rajapakse about these pressing matters last Monday. This week, I have sent the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Sri Lanka to follow-up. I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” the UN Chief said.
The UN Secretary-General also said he was also deeply troubled by the continued detention without charge of the two United Nations staff members.
“I have spoken directly with President Mahinda Rajapakse about these pressing matters last Monday. This week, I have sent the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Sri Lanka to follow-up. I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” the UN Chief said.
The UN Secretary-General also said he was also deeply troubled by the continued detention without charge of the two United Nations staff members.
No time frame for resettlement of Vanni IDPs - Media Minister
The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) Thursday said a time frame for the completion or partial completion of resettlement cannot be given despite the assurance given to the UN chief that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year, according to Media Minister and cabinet spokesman, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.
“The resettlement procedure takes a long time, therefore it’s unfeasible to set up a time frame. It depends on how the de-mining process takes place,” he added.
Earlier this year the government assured the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year.
According to the Minister around 250,000 persons are living in camps in Vavuniya.
“The resettlement procedure takes a long time, therefore it’s unfeasible to set up a time frame. It depends on how the de-mining process takes place,” he added.
Earlier this year the government assured the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year.
According to the Minister around 250,000 persons are living in camps in Vavuniya.
Backsliding on Human Rights
NEW YORK — The European leaders gathering at the United Nations for the General Assembly may feel a little smug. For eight years they struggled to persuade George W. Bush that multilateralism mattered. Now Barack Obama has embraced the U.N. enthusiastically.
The United States has finally agreed to pay off $2 billion in outstanding U.N. dues. Later this month, Obama will chair a session of the Security Council on nuclear proliferation — the first American president to do so.
But the last year has seen worrying trends at the U.N. for the U.S. and Europe. Support for their human rights positions continues to slide, poisoning diplomacy in New York and Geneva and even threatening to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid.
Russia and China, having played power politics in the Security Council on issues like Kosovo and Darfur in the last years of the Bush administration, have not backed off.
This year they repeatedly blocked European efforts at the U.N. to put pressure on Sri Lanka to show restraint and allow full humanitarian access to the suffering during its bloody victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution endorsing Sri Lanka’s offensive. Up to 10,000 civilians died.
This tragedy was indicative of a wider erosion of support for Western positions on human rights. Of the U.N.’s 192 members, 117 voted with the European Union less than half the time on human rights issues in the General Assembly over the last year. This is almost twice the number of a decade ago.
This decline has been driven by politics, economics and religion. Developing countries still suspect Western human rights policies are ill-concealed efforts to interfere in their internal affairs. They resent the fact that the big economies are tackling the global recession through the G-20 and G-8 rather than the U.N. Islamic governments exploit U.N. resolutions to assert that religious values trump individual human rights.
Some fear that the United Nations could return to the dark days of the 1970s, when the Security Council was paralyzed by cold war tensions and the General Assembly was a pulpit for anti-Western ideologists. The situation is not that bad yet, but the United States and the European Union cannot ignore how debates over values are weakening them at the U.N.
European diplomats are wary of high-level divisions within the Obama administration between those who favor a firm line on human rights and others who prioritize engaging with China and Russia. But American diplomats have been working hard at reaching out to moderate African and Asian governments on human-rights votes. They grumble that the E.U., focused on internal coordination, does too little outreach.
This isn’t entirely fair. The European Commission is developing new ways to fund human-rights commitments that poorer countries make at the U.N. In the Security Council, France and Britain have blocked efforts to derail the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur.
But the E.U. has suffered setbacks too. It split over whether to attend the U.N.’s Durban Review Conference on racism in April — Italy, Germany and the Netherlands joined the U.S. in boycotting the event on the grounds that it was anti-Israeli.
Given the chance to review China’s human rights record in the Human Rights Council, European countries took wildly differing positions. The British and Czechs said tough things about Tibet. But Hungary announced that “it took pride in being China’s partner in a common, bilateral human-rights dialogue.”
If the Europeans and the Americans want to stop the U.N. becoming a platform for their opponents, they need to improve their coordination. The current disputes over human rights will crystallize over the next two years, as 2011 will see an inter-governmental review of the Human Rights Council. China, Russia and other illiberal powers may try to set further limits on the U.N.’s human rights role.
The European Union, the United States and their remaining allies on human rights (such as the Latin American democracies) should form a high-level working group to prepare for the review. They should also talk directly to Moscow and Beijing about how to stop power politics in the Security Council from undercutting humanitarian aid, as it did over Sri Lanka. There is no point in celebrating America’s return to the U.N. if the U.N. cannot help the vulnerable.
Richard Gowan is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Franziska Brantner is a German member of the European Parliament.
news
The United States has finally agreed to pay off $2 billion in outstanding U.N. dues. Later this month, Obama will chair a session of the Security Council on nuclear proliferation — the first American president to do so.
But the last year has seen worrying trends at the U.N. for the U.S. and Europe. Support for their human rights positions continues to slide, poisoning diplomacy in New York and Geneva and even threatening to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid.
Russia and China, having played power politics in the Security Council on issues like Kosovo and Darfur in the last years of the Bush administration, have not backed off.
This year they repeatedly blocked European efforts at the U.N. to put pressure on Sri Lanka to show restraint and allow full humanitarian access to the suffering during its bloody victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution endorsing Sri Lanka’s offensive. Up to 10,000 civilians died.
This tragedy was indicative of a wider erosion of support for Western positions on human rights. Of the U.N.’s 192 members, 117 voted with the European Union less than half the time on human rights issues in the General Assembly over the last year. This is almost twice the number of a decade ago.
This decline has been driven by politics, economics and religion. Developing countries still suspect Western human rights policies are ill-concealed efforts to interfere in their internal affairs. They resent the fact that the big economies are tackling the global recession through the G-20 and G-8 rather than the U.N. Islamic governments exploit U.N. resolutions to assert that religious values trump individual human rights.
Some fear that the United Nations could return to the dark days of the 1970s, when the Security Council was paralyzed by cold war tensions and the General Assembly was a pulpit for anti-Western ideologists. The situation is not that bad yet, but the United States and the European Union cannot ignore how debates over values are weakening them at the U.N.
European diplomats are wary of high-level divisions within the Obama administration between those who favor a firm line on human rights and others who prioritize engaging with China and Russia. But American diplomats have been working hard at reaching out to moderate African and Asian governments on human-rights votes. They grumble that the E.U., focused on internal coordination, does too little outreach.
This isn’t entirely fair. The European Commission is developing new ways to fund human-rights commitments that poorer countries make at the U.N. In the Security Council, France and Britain have blocked efforts to derail the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur.
But the E.U. has suffered setbacks too. It split over whether to attend the U.N.’s Durban Review Conference on racism in April — Italy, Germany and the Netherlands joined the U.S. in boycotting the event on the grounds that it was anti-Israeli.
Given the chance to review China’s human rights record in the Human Rights Council, European countries took wildly differing positions. The British and Czechs said tough things about Tibet. But Hungary announced that “it took pride in being China’s partner in a common, bilateral human-rights dialogue.”
If the Europeans and the Americans want to stop the U.N. becoming a platform for their opponents, they need to improve their coordination. The current disputes over human rights will crystallize over the next two years, as 2011 will see an inter-governmental review of the Human Rights Council. China, Russia and other illiberal powers may try to set further limits on the U.N.’s human rights role.
The European Union, the United States and their remaining allies on human rights (such as the Latin American democracies) should form a high-level working group to prepare for the review. They should also talk directly to Moscow and Beijing about how to stop power politics in the Security Council from undercutting humanitarian aid, as it did over Sri Lanka. There is no point in celebrating America’s return to the U.N. if the U.N. cannot help the vulnerable.
Richard Gowan is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Franziska Brantner is a German member of the European Parliament.
news
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
