Human Rights Council’s report to GA – GA Third Cttee debate (conclusion) – Press release (excerpts)

ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT IN NAME, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, COUNCIL

THE SAME, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD

Council Should Not Shy Away from Responsibilities Because of Politicized Criticism

As the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) concluded its review of the report of the Human Rights Council this morning, hearing from some 20 speakers who were generally optimistic about the new organ, its tools and what real advances it might make, Israel’s representative said that the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the dysfunctional Commission on Human Rights had not become ancient history; and although different in name, that Commission and the Human Rights Council were one and the same.

He said real burning situations were not reflected in Council deliberations which focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to three special sessions and 12 discriminatory resolutions.  He accused the new organ of being blind to the human rights of Israelis and asked where its condemnation was of Palestinian terrorism against Israel?  Moreover, he questioned what had been done in response to calls by Iranian President, Mahmoud Admadinejad, for Israel’s destruction and for his denial of the Holocaust?  His country was not asking for special treatment, but like all other States, it should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis.  Human rights victims mattered; they were names and faces behind the issues, and “they are waiting for us to do the right thing,” he said.

The Observer for Palestine said in 40 years of occupation, the Palestinian people had experienced serious human rights violations, adding that International monitoring of the situation had yet to result in a change of behavior by the occupying Power.  She asked the Committee to imagine what could happen to Palestinians if they were deprived of international involvement.  Also the idea that focusing on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory represented selective treatment was self-contradictory.  That situation did not stand out by choice, but because of its painful reality.  The Council should not shy away from its responsibilities because of politicized criticism.  The situation had become a “test for the West” regarding its commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people, she said.

/…

GROVER JOSEPH REES ( United States) said that the United States was “concerned” that some appeared more determined to use the Human Rights Council to defend abusive Governments than to protect the victims of human rights violations. In particular, the Council’s “relentless” focus on Israel and its elimination of special mandates on Belarus and Cuba drew concern.  His country hoped the Council would focus its efforts promoting and protecting human rights under attack in some areas, including the freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association and freedom of expression.

The Council’s frequent meetings meant it would have to be willing to take on human rights situations as they developed, he said, even if that meant condemning the actions of a fellow Government.  The United States believed that the Universal Periodic Review could be a useful tool, if used correctly.  But he noted that it was not designed to respond to emergencies, which was the job of the Council itself.  Nor would it replace country-specific actions of special mandates, which were the United Nations’ “irreplaceable tool” for shining a light on abusive Governments.  The new body had yet to demonstrate that it could carry out its vital mandate to protect and advance human rights around the world.

/…

DAN GILLERMAN ( Israel) said the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the dysfunctional Commission on Human Rights had not become ancient history; although different in name, the Commission and the Human Rights Council were one and the same.  The real burning situations had not been reflected in the Council’s deliberations.  It had focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to three special sessions and 12 discriminatory, one-sided resolutions.  Myanmar and Darfur had so far been the only other country-specific situations addressed by the Council; in the case of Darfur, it had the audacity to congratulate the Sudan for its cooperation.  The Council had been blind to the human rights of Israelis.  Where was the body’s condemnation of Palestinian terrorism against Israel; what did it have to say last July during the unprovoked bombardments of Israel’s northern border towns; and what had it done in response to calls by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Admadinejad, for Israel’s destruction and for his denial of the Holocaust?

The Council’s membership included some countries whose own human rights fell markedly below the standards of the international community, he said.  According to Freedom House, more than half of its 47 members were “not free” or “partially free.”  Many of those same countries had a political agenda that precluded the State of Israel.  Under the new institution-building package, special rapporteurs on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus had been eliminated, while Israel had become a standing agenda item, as it had been for the Commission on Human Rights.  Other human rights situations from around the world had been crammed into one single agenda item.  Israel was not asking for special treatment but like all other countries, it should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis.  His country would call for a vote on the institution-building package, and also appeal to Member States to consider what message they would be sending with their votes.  Compromise was detrimental to the protection of human rights.  There was a moment to put political expediency and cynicism aside.  Human rights victims mattered; they were names and faces behind the issues, and “they are waiting for us to do the right thing”.

/…

WARIF HALABI ( Syria) said that her delegation welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the violations of human rights in the Syrian Golan and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  She pointed out that Israel had refused to implement all the resolutions of the Security Council.  Addressing ways and means of protecting civilians from Israeli aggression, she welcomed the introduction of a special item on Palestine, aimed at ending the grave violations of human rights.  It was also incumbent to acknowledge the adoption of the institution building package of the Human Rights Council, which took steps to complete the establishment of new structures and institutions.  In order for the Universal Periodic Review to be a cooperative mechanism, and for it to carry out its work in an interactive, constructive and fruitful manner, it would have to ensure equal treatment of all States and urgent human rights situations. 

All human rights were universal and indivisible.  If the international community wanted to treat all human rights in a fair and just manner as well as on an equal footing, it also had to address the code of conduct for mandate holders and acknowledge the fact that it was guided by elected members, who would have to adhere to the highest standards of human rights.  There had to be greater importance accorded to OHCHR, which should be supervised and followed by the Council to avoid duplication.  She emphasized that objective, responsible dialogue based on mutual respect was essential to promote international cooperation in human rights.

/…

FEDA ABDELHADY, Observer for Palestine, said the establishment of the Human Rights Council offered the citizens of the world, particularly the most vulnerable, renewed expectations that it would restore confidence in the value, if not the supremacy of international law.  It also generated optimism that human rights instruments would be applied impartially.  It was Palestine’s hope that the efforts of the Human Rights Council would allow it to uphold the responsibilities entrusted to it on the basis of universal coverage and equal treatment of all States, and put human rights abusers on notice.  The introduction of an item in the institution-building package of the Council on the human rights situation in Palestine was of particular importance to the Palestinian people, she said.

In the 40 years of occupation, the Palestinian people had experienced serious violations of their human rights.  The legal and moral role of the United Nations and the international community in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had to continue receiving special attention until the occupation ended.  International monitoring of the human rights situation in Palestine had yet to result in a change of behaviour by the occupying power, she said, and asked the Committee to imagine what could happen to Palestinians if they were deprived of international involvement.  Also the idea that focusing on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory represented selective treatment was self-contradictory.  That situation did not stand out by choice, but because of its painful reality.  The Council should not shy away from its responsibilities because of politicized criticism.  Finally, quoting the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, she said the situation had become a “test for the West” regarding its commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people.

/…