it
en
fr
es
eo
Nl
A Horrifying Message From the U.N.
Tweet
Among those who value liberty and justice, the United Nations' choice of Libya to chair this year's session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has been widely described as a defeat.; By some lights; it's a defeat for the United States-which protested giving this post to an emissary of terrorist-sponsoring tyrant Moammar Gadhaft. By U.S. standards, it's a defeat for the Human Rights. Commission and the entire system of international justice the U.N. pretends to promote. All of which sounds bad; but comfortably abstract; just one more round of folly at the U.N.
It's much worse than that. Putting Libya in a spot to set the U.N. agenda on Human Rights is, not simply a mockery of justice and human dignity. It is a betrayal.
It is.a betrayal of all those brave souls, world-wide, who don't just talk about human rights, but who put their lives on the line to fight for them in countries where the price can be prison, exile or death. It is a -betrayal of, dissident Riad al-Serf; a former parliamentarian in Damascus who dared to stand up for democracy, and has now become one of many people rotting in the dungeons of Syria-a nation that sits' on the 53-member Human Rights Commission that in Monday's secret ballot chose to be led by Gadhafi.
It is a betrayal. of human rights defender Nguyen Khac Toan, a former soldier, teacher and businessman now serving a 12-year sentence in the prisons of Vietnam-also a voting member of the Human Rights Commission.
It is a betrayal of Chinese supporters of freedom such as Wang Youcai and Qin Yongm n, who helped found the opposiDon China 'Democracy Party, and are no* serving long sentences in the laogai, the gulag of China-yet another member of Iffadhaft's constituency at the U.N.
Anointing Libya to;chair the Human Mots Commission is a gesture of contempttoward Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who for the past 15 years has sacrificed her own liberty, and dedicated her life to the struggle for freedom in Burma. It is a note of almost casual scorn toward thousands upon thousands of courageous people in the world's darkest places, unknown soldiers in the long, human struggle for justice, who have chosen to stand tip for principles evidently too demanding for the likes of their erstwhile defenders at the U.N. It is absurd, in fact, to describe the exaltation on Monday of Libya's Ambassgdor Najat al-Hajjaji to head of the Human Rights Commission as the product of a "vote." That implies there was some sort of,democratic process at work.
In the secret balloting among the 53 nations'that currently: sit on the Human Rights Commission, only three-the U.S., Canada and, 'reportedly, Guatemala, voted against Libya. Among the 33 governments that may have seized the chance to vote for Libya were the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home. They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear.
Then there are the 17 nations that abstained from the balloting, including such moral beacons of the European Union as France and Germany. Democratic leaders among this fastidious crew might want to think twice before comforting themselves with the thought that they simply were complying with U.N. bureaucratic etiquette.
When the commission was founded, back in 1947, the U.S. served as chair not only for one year, but for the first six. It has since become custom that the chairmanship of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights rotates yearly among five geographic groups of member nations.
This year was Africa's turn. The African members nominated one candidate, Libya, which has been liberally dispensing funds to curry influence among African rulers. Rather than take a stand' on this outrage, the European Union took a coffee break. Thus did Libya take its seat upon the throne of this erstwhile humanrights outfit, which we might more accurately start describing as the U.N. Commission on Rotating Chairs-a label that would better reflect its priorities.
All this has now created a whole series of awkward moments for the office of the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, where a permanent U.N. staff works with the 53-nation commission to carry out the agenda that will now be guided by Libya. Trying to make the best of what I can only assume is a tough task for any civilized man, me new U.N. High Commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, told me in a telephone interview Monday that he trusts the professionalism of his new Libyan colleague,. Najat al-Hajjaji, and feels that he "must give her more than the benefit of the doubt." Mr. de Mello added that with Ms. Al-Hajjaji's ascension to the chair, she ceases to represent Libya, and now stands for the interests of all citizens of all U.N. member countries.
That's debatable, given that Ms. Al-Hajjaji's origins were clearly the decisive factor that secured her this new job. It's even more debatable given that Ms. Al-Hajjaji's victory is right now being celebrated by Libya's state press agency as a sign of high international regard for the regime of Gadhafi. And there's room to wonder if Ms. Al-Hajjaji really plans to abandon her stock scripts in her past appearances as a Libyan delegate at the U.N., in which a major order of business has been-predictably-condemnation of Israel. 'Here's a sample of Ms. Al-Hajjaji's rhetoric, from a 1999 U.N. press release: "With support and conniving by the United States, Israel continued to commit aggressive and massive human-rights violations, to take everything and give nothing."
Not that the Human Rights Commission is a stranger to the rants and demands of assorted dictatorships. But for a glimpse of the real cost of turning the show over to Libyan leadership, consider the case of a group of opposition politicians from Zimbabwe, who visited New York last fall. They were desperately seeking help for the horrors unfolding in their country under the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, whose government also sits on the U.N. Human Rights Commission (and also quite probably cast its vote for Libya).
These Zimbabweans described the encroaching famine back home, directed by Mr. Mugabe at his opponents. They talked about the confiscations, beatings and torture let loose by Mr. Mugabe on those who stood up for human rights. One member of this group was white. The other threelike most of the millions Mr. Mugabe has sent his mobs to threaten, starve, beat and in some cases murder-were black.
These Zimbabweans said they hoped to get help from the U.N., which they saw as their only possible protector. They were hoping that somehow the U.N. would take the lead in securing free and fair elections for Zimbabwe. I mentioned to them at the time that at the U.N. the fix was already in; and that Libya (as has now happened) would be chairing the Commission on Human Rights.
Their reaction was horror, followed by disgust. One of the Zimbabweans, a young black :politician, blurted out, "It's outrageous,-totally outrageous and revolting." He then ticked off some of Gadhafi's history, including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which he, described as "criminal." He said that if Libya were to be appointed, to the chair, "it's an alarming message which we are receiving in Africa."
That's the truth about Libya's victory at the U.N. It's a horrifying message for all those for who man the front lines in the fight for human rights.
If Ms. Al-Hajjaji is indeed worthy of the trust the U.N. has now placed in her, the first item on her agenda when the commission opens its meetings this March in Geneva should be to call for free and fair elections in Libya itself. If Gadhafi says no, her next order of business should be to resign. That would do more for the global cause of human rights than anything now, on the U.N. agenda.
It's much worse than that. Putting Libya in a spot to set the U.N. agenda on Human Rights is, not simply a mockery of justice and human dignity. It is a betrayal.
It is.a betrayal of all those brave souls, world-wide, who don't just talk about human rights, but who put their lives on the line to fight for them in countries where the price can be prison, exile or death. It is a -betrayal of, dissident Riad al-Serf; a former parliamentarian in Damascus who dared to stand up for democracy, and has now become one of many people rotting in the dungeons of Syria-a nation that sits' on the 53-member Human Rights Commission that in Monday's secret ballot chose to be led by Gadhafi.
It is a betrayal. of human rights defender Nguyen Khac Toan, a former soldier, teacher and businessman now serving a 12-year sentence in the prisons of Vietnam-also a voting member of the Human Rights Commission.
It is a betrayal of Chinese supporters of freedom such as Wang Youcai and Qin Yongm n, who helped found the opposiDon China 'Democracy Party, and are no* serving long sentences in the laogai, the gulag of China-yet another member of Iffadhaft's constituency at the U.N.
Anointing Libya to;chair the Human Mots Commission is a gesture of contempttoward Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who for the past 15 years has sacrificed her own liberty, and dedicated her life to the struggle for freedom in Burma. It is a note of almost casual scorn toward thousands upon thousands of courageous people in the world's darkest places, unknown soldiers in the long, human struggle for justice, who have chosen to stand tip for principles evidently too demanding for the likes of their erstwhile defenders at the U.N. It is absurd, in fact, to describe the exaltation on Monday of Libya's Ambassgdor Najat al-Hajjaji to head of the Human Rights Commission as the product of a "vote." That implies there was some sort of,democratic process at work.
In the secret balloting among the 53 nations'that currently: sit on the Human Rights Commission, only three-the U.S., Canada and, 'reportedly, Guatemala, voted against Libya. Among the 33 governments that may have seized the chance to vote for Libya were the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home. They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear.
Then there are the 17 nations that abstained from the balloting, including such moral beacons of the European Union as France and Germany. Democratic leaders among this fastidious crew might want to think twice before comforting themselves with the thought that they simply were complying with U.N. bureaucratic etiquette.
When the commission was founded, back in 1947, the U.S. served as chair not only for one year, but for the first six. It has since become custom that the chairmanship of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights rotates yearly among five geographic groups of member nations.
This year was Africa's turn. The African members nominated one candidate, Libya, which has been liberally dispensing funds to curry influence among African rulers. Rather than take a stand' on this outrage, the European Union took a coffee break. Thus did Libya take its seat upon the throne of this erstwhile humanrights outfit, which we might more accurately start describing as the U.N. Commission on Rotating Chairs-a label that would better reflect its priorities.
All this has now created a whole series of awkward moments for the office of the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, where a permanent U.N. staff works with the 53-nation commission to carry out the agenda that will now be guided by Libya. Trying to make the best of what I can only assume is a tough task for any civilized man, me new U.N. High Commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, told me in a telephone interview Monday that he trusts the professionalism of his new Libyan colleague,. Najat al-Hajjaji, and feels that he "must give her more than the benefit of the doubt." Mr. de Mello added that with Ms. Al-Hajjaji's ascension to the chair, she ceases to represent Libya, and now stands for the interests of all citizens of all U.N. member countries.
That's debatable, given that Ms. Al-Hajjaji's origins were clearly the decisive factor that secured her this new job. It's even more debatable given that Ms. Al-Hajjaji's victory is right now being celebrated by Libya's state press agency as a sign of high international regard for the regime of Gadhafi. And there's room to wonder if Ms. Al-Hajjaji really plans to abandon her stock scripts in her past appearances as a Libyan delegate at the U.N., in which a major order of business has been-predictably-condemnation of Israel. 'Here's a sample of Ms. Al-Hajjaji's rhetoric, from a 1999 U.N. press release: "With support and conniving by the United States, Israel continued to commit aggressive and massive human-rights violations, to take everything and give nothing."
Not that the Human Rights Commission is a stranger to the rants and demands of assorted dictatorships. But for a glimpse of the real cost of turning the show over to Libyan leadership, consider the case of a group of opposition politicians from Zimbabwe, who visited New York last fall. They were desperately seeking help for the horrors unfolding in their country under the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, whose government also sits on the U.N. Human Rights Commission (and also quite probably cast its vote for Libya).
These Zimbabweans described the encroaching famine back home, directed by Mr. Mugabe at his opponents. They talked about the confiscations, beatings and torture let loose by Mr. Mugabe on those who stood up for human rights. One member of this group was white. The other threelike most of the millions Mr. Mugabe has sent his mobs to threaten, starve, beat and in some cases murder-were black.
These Zimbabweans said they hoped to get help from the U.N., which they saw as their only possible protector. They were hoping that somehow the U.N. would take the lead in securing free and fair elections for Zimbabwe. I mentioned to them at the time that at the U.N. the fix was already in; and that Libya (as has now happened) would be chairing the Commission on Human Rights.
Their reaction was horror, followed by disgust. One of the Zimbabweans, a young black :politician, blurted out, "It's outrageous,-totally outrageous and revolting." He then ticked off some of Gadhafi's history, including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which he, described as "criminal." He said that if Libya were to be appointed, to the chair, "it's an alarming message which we are receiving in Africa."
That's the truth about Libya's victory at the U.N. It's a horrifying message for all those for who man the front lines in the fight for human rights.
If Ms. Al-Hajjaji is indeed worthy of the trust the U.N. has now placed in her, the first item on her agenda when the commission opens its meetings this March in Geneva should be to call for free and fair elections in Libya itself. If Gadhafi says no, her next order of business should be to resign. That would do more for the global cause of human rights than anything now, on the U.N. agenda.
