He further continued, speaking on the recent Supreme Court ruling on electoral bonds wherein the electoral bonds were declared as unconstitutional, “It is particularly important in a pre-electoral context to ensure an open space that respects the meaningful participation of everyone. I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision last month on campaign finance schemes, upholding the right to information and transparency.”

The Indian government has in turn called the concerns raised over India’s electoral process are “unwarranted.” In response, while addressing the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Ambassador Arindam Bagchi said “We thank the High Commissioner for his global update. We have noted his comments about our forthcoming general elections. However, his concerns in this regard are unwarranted and do not reflect the reality of the largest democracy in the world. We have no doubt that as in numerous occasions in the past, the Indian people will freely exercise their vote to choose a government that they believe can best give voice and flight to their aspirations.”

The latter response by the Indian government is being hailed in several sections of the Indian media as a strong and bold response by the government.

On February 8, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that the BJP led Indian government  is deploying the use of ‘abusive’ foreign funding laws in the country and making unfounded financial investigations, and using various tactics to conduct unjustified targeting of civil society organisations. In the statement the HRW argues that there has been an arbitrary application of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) against non-profit entities which is ‘politically motivated’. The statement argues that such instances and abuse of laws can undermine India’s democracy.

Related:

 Subversion of Parliamentary Democracy: Concerned Citizens Groups release a “charge sheet” against the government of India

“Mockery of democracy”: Supreme Court on Chandigarh Mayoral Election misconduct

Unveiling hidden divides: caste, gender and the myth of Indian growth 

The post UN High Commissioner of Human Rights raises concerns about minorities in India, government calls them ‘unwarranted’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The press release highlighted Grover’s expertise stating that she is a practicing advocate in India and has more than 34 years of experience in constitutional law, criminal law, and human rights. “A practicing advocate in India, Grover has more than 34 years of experience in constitutional law, criminal law and human rights. She has appeared as counsel in landmark cases before the Trial Courts, High Courts and the Supreme Court of India as well as before commissions of inquiry and quasi-judicial authorities,” the Council said in its press release.

The Council highlighted the tireless contributions that Advocate Grover has made in the courts, by defending victims and survivors of sexual assault, torture, extrajudicial killings, communal massacres, enforced disappearances, and mob lynching’s. It was further provided that she has also defended journalists, human rights advocates, and death row inmates.

The UN Human Rights Council established the three-person Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine on March 4, 2022, with the task of investigating all the alleged human rights abuses, breaches of international humanitarian law, and related crimes in relation to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

On April 4, 2023, the Council had renewed the aforementioned mandate of the Commission for a further period of one year.

Advocate Grover will be joining Erik Møse (Norway) and Pablo de Greiff (Colombia), who have been serving as Chair and Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry since March 2022. Notably, the Commission is scheduled to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its fifty-fourth session, which is in September 2023, and later submit a report to the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session, in October 2023. A comprehensive report will then be submitted to the Human Rights Council at its fifty-fifth session, to be held in March 2024.

Related:

Freedom of Expression: Driver for All other Human Rights

US religious freedom chief asks Biden govt to condemn Modi for human rights ‘violations’

Address reprisals against activists in India: International Human Rights groups to EU

Human Rights organisations issue statements of support for Teesta Setalvad

HRW World Report 2022 showcases India’s worsening Human Rights situation

The post Adv. Vrinda Grover appointed as the member of UN Human Rights Council’s Ukraine Commission of Inquiry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas was adopted in September 2018 by the UN Human Rights Council. India became a member of the Human Rights Council, a month later, in October 2018. When the Declaration was put for voting in the UN General Assembly in December 2018, India voted in favour thus ratifying it.

However, in the light of the three farm bills passed by the Parliament, it appears that India has acted in contravention to this Declaration whereby it had affirmed some important and pertinent farmers rights. 

The Declaration (UNDRPOWRA) recognises the contributions of peasants to development and to conserving and improving biodiversity, and raises concerns that farmers suffer disproportionately from poverty, hunger and malnutrition. It also raises alarm over the increasing number of farmers forcibly evicted or displaced every year and the increase in farmers suicides across the world. The Declaration also recognises that several factors make it difficult for peasants to make their voices heard, to defend their human rights.

India is, at present, in the midst of an agrarian crisis within which the controversial passage of laws perceived to be anti-farmer have caused anger and protest.

The Indian Parliament, in one of its most controversial sessions of late (Monsoon Session, 2020), has passed three bills that affect farmers and their rights, without giving the Opposition an opportunity to debate and discuss on the same. 

Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, are three bills that are set to become laws as they have been passed by both houses of the Parliament where the ruling party, BJP, has a sizeable majority. Despite the massive uproar of the opposition, sustained attempts at dialogue and debate were turned away, democratic attempts to send the controversial laws to a Select Committee of Parliament, were denied. Flouting all rules and norms, the bills were pushed through. These actions have led to widespread farmers protests across the country while bringing in focus the question, do farmers have rights?

Farmers Rights Protected in the UNHRC Resolution

Article 2(3) of the Declaration (UNDRPOWRA) speaks about an inclusive process of decision making by engaging in a dialogues with farmers and their representative institutions to ensure informed participation and to ensure that the interests of farmers are better served. The Article 2(3) states as follows:

3. Without disregarding specific legislation on indigenous peoples, before adopting and implementing legislation and policies, international agreements and other decision-making processes that may affect the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with peasants and other people working in rural areas through their own representative institutions, engaging with and seeking the support of peasants and other people working in rural areas who could be affected by decisions before those decisions are made, and responding to their contributions, taking into consideration existing power imbalances between different parties and ensuring active, free, effective, meaningful and informed participation of individuals and groups in associated decision-making processes.

Article 2(5) of the Declaration speaks about ensuring that private enterprises and corporates act in a manner that does not impede upon the interest of farmers and rather strengthen their rights. It reads as follows:

5. States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that non-State actors that they are in a position to regulate, such as private individuals and organizations, and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, respect and strengthen the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas.

Article 3 stresses upon ensuring that farmers enjoy all human rights including fundamental freedoms recognised in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other international human rights instruments, free from any kind of discrimination in the exercise of their rights.

Article 3(2) speaks about farmers’ right to development as well as their right to determine strategies on how to achieve their right to development. It reads as follows:

2. Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies to exercise their right to development.

Article 6 seeks to protect farmers from arbitrary arrest or detention, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 8 stresses upon farmers’ right to assert their rights and express them through peaceful means.

Article 10 outlines the farmers’ right to actively participate in formulating policies and laws that may affect their lives, land and livelihoods. Article 10 (2) reads as follows:

2. States shall promote the participation, directly and/or through their representative organizations, of peasants and other people working in rural areas in decision-making processes that may affect their lives, land and livelihoods; this includes respecting the establishment and growth of strong and independent organizations of peasants and other people working in rural areas and promoting their participation in the preparation and implementation of food safety, labour and environmental standards that may affect them.

Article 12 (1) elaborates on the farmers’ right to effective and non-discriminatory access to justice and reads as follows:

1. Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to effective and non-discriminatory access to justice, including access to fair procedures for the resolution of disputes and to effective remedies for all infringements of their human rights. Such decisions shall give due consideration to their customs, traditions, rules and legal systems in conformity with relevant obligations under international human rights law.

Article 16 (2) of the Declaration states that the States are obliged to take measures to favour peasants for selling their products in markets. It reads as follows:

2. States shall take appropriate measures to favour the access of peasants and other people working in rural areas to the means of transportation, and processing, drying and storage facilities necessary for selling their products on local, national and regional markets at prices that guarantee them a decent income and livelihood.

3. States shall take appropriate measures to strengthen and support local, national and regional markets in ways that facilitate, and ensure that peasants and other people working in rural areas have full and equitable access and participation in these markets to sell their products at prices that allow them and their families to attain an adequate standard of living.

Apart from the above-mentioned provisions, the Declaration also specifies rights of farmers against displacement, their right to seeds, right to further traditional knowledge, right to standards of physical and mental health, right to adequate housing, right to social security, right to protect and conserve the environment and so on.

These are now among the enumerated Rights that have become the International Standards for the Protection of Farmers Rights, to which India is not a signatory. Notably, all the rights mentioned enumerated by UNDRPOWRA in detail, are the ones that stand to be violated with the passage of three bills that have been hastily passed by the Parliament. The passage of these Bills through Parliament were not preceded by any democratic dialogue with Farmers or Farmer Organisations, violating their right to be heard and be involved in the making of a policy that affects their sustenance and livelihood.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Area may be read here.

Related:

MSP for farmers: Exposing the lies of the Modi government
Live Updates on All India Protests against Farm Bills, 2020
Amendments to agricultural laws, dangerous for farmers: National Unions

The post India ratifies, but doesn’t adopt UN Resolution on farmers’ rights? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Distressed over the plight of India’s internal migrants: UN Human Rights chief appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s civilian leader and de facto president, is under fire from all sides. Domestically, she is facing growing criticism for stalled economic and political reforms, glacial progress on policy and service improvements, and the suppression of freedom of expression and press freedom.
 

Aung Sun Suu Kyi is now seen as an enabler of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Mick Tsikas/AAP

But it is her international reputation that is most in tatters.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, imprisoned for 15 years over a 21-year period in her struggle for human rights and democracy, has suffered a swift and dramatic fall from grace as a global icon. She is now widely seen as an enabler of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

In just the last few days, Canada stripped Suu Kyi of her honorary citizenship and the Malaysian prime minister stated publicly that she has lost his support.

As the Brussels-based International Crisis Group put it recently:
 

Rarely has the reputation of a leader fallen so far, so fast.

Failures of Suu Kyi’s government

Suu Kyi has been the subject of much criticism since taking power 2½ years ago, but the most recent and vociferous condemnation has centred on two events: the jailing of two Reuters journalists who exposed a massacre of Rohingya civilians by the military, and her government’s failure to respond to international investigations into allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

In September, the two Reuters journalists were convicted of possessing official secrets, despite testimony by a policeman that they had been entrapped.

The journalists had reported on a 2017 massacre of Rohingya Muslims by security forces, which resulted in the eventual conviction of seven soldiers for murder

It is notable that it was Suu Kyi’s civilian government that prosecuted the journalists, not the military. Suu Kyi could have ordered the charges dropped, as she did for student protesters during her early days in office. Instead, before the trial was over, she commented that the reporters were guilty of violating the Official Secrets Act, and once even allegedly referred to them as “traitors”.

Reuters journalists Wa Lone (center) and Kyaw Soe Oo (top left) are escorted by police after their first trial in January. Lynn Bo Bo/EPA

The second great disappointment has been the government’s response to the UN Human Rights Council’s report into the violence that drove almost 700,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee to Bangladesh last year.

The report, released in full in September, found conclusive evidence that security forces had indeed engaged in mass killings and gang rapes of Rohingya, with genocidal intent. It went on to accuse Suu Kyi and her government of contributing to the atrocities through “acts and omissions”.

The HRC recommended the UN Security Council refer the Myanmar commander-in-chief and five generals to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The UN Human Rights Council also set up a body to prepare evidence for trials.

Rather than pledge to cooperate with the investigation, however, Suu Kyi has consistently defended the military action against the Rohingya and repeatedly pointed to a lack of understanding of the complexities of the situation.

Her only concession to the increasing international condemnation of her government has been this muted statement:
 

There are, of course, ways in which, with hindsight, we might think that the situation could have been handled better.

Limitations on Suu Kyi’s power

The military remains a very powerful force in Myanmar. It has the power to appoint its own personnel to a quarter of the seats in parliament and oversees the three powerful ministries of Home Affairs, Defence and Border Affairs.

The government has no power to hold the military accountable for actions against the Rohingya. Suu Kyi is therefore in a very weak position.

She has nonetheless gone out of her way to not just defend the military, but praise it. In Singapore last month, she made headlines when she declared that the three generals in her cabinet were “rather sweet”.

Suu Kyi has stressed that her government’s aim of removing the military from politics would eventually be achieved through negotiation, keeping in mind the need for national reconciliation. However, her dream of constitutional reform depends entirely on military approval.

This would appear to inhibit any ability for her to censure the military. She also has no means to compel the military to cooperate with international investigators.

Around 700,000 Rohingya refugees have fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh since last year. Nyein Chan Naing/EPA
 

A path to redemption

Suu Kyi still has considerable moral authority within Myanmar, and the military is still widely unpopular. Thus, despite the severe limitations on her power, she does have other options to lead effectively on issues like human rights, the Rohingya and press freedom.

Suu Kyi and her government should start by recommitting themselves to a belief in universal human rights. She should also express empathy with the victims of the atrocities in Rakhine state, which may begin to shift popular opinion against the actions of the military and engender more public sympathy for the Rohingya.

Further, Suu Kyi needs to pledge full cooperation with the ICC investigation into the serious allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide, and call for a genuinely independent domestic inquiry to pave the way towards true reconciliation.

Suu Kyi may not be able to compel military cooperation with the ICC investigation, or even unfettered access to the country for investigators. But drawing on her moral authority could go a long way to help. She could pave the way for visas and travel approval, for instance, both of which were denied to investigators by her government.

Finally, the government must develop robust, urgent repatriation plans for the Rohingya – in cooperation with Bangladesh and the UN – that guarantee their security, human rights, a pathway to full citizenship and an end to segregation in Rakhine. They need a plan for inclusive development policies in the state, and to restore both media freedoms and humanitarian access to the region.

The opportunity for such moral leadership is quickly evaporating.

Suu Kyi and her government were elected by a landslide in 2015, winning about 80% of seats up for election. Polling released last week showed that only about half those surveyed believe the rights of people have improved in the 2½ years that she has been in power and less than half the population feel there has been any political or economic improvement.

There have also been increasing complaints about the performance of the government.

With her support eroding both home and abroad, Suu Kyi appears to have a limited window to adequately address the Rohingya crisis and regain her moral authority. Otherwise, Myanmar risks slipping back into isolation and again becoming a pariah state.
 

Anthony Ware, Senior Lecturer in International & Community Development, Deakin University and Costas Laoutides, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Aung San Suu Kyi’s extraordinary fall from grace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have announced the US was withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council (“HRC”).

In doing so, they claimed the council was a roadblock to genuine global human rights protection. This move by the Trump administration has been anticipated for some time. In a sense, the elephant has left the room. But in doing so, the elephant has belled the cat on a number of serious issues regarding the HRC.

Is the United States’ decision sound in terms of international human rights protection? Is it one that Australia, an HRC member from 2018-2020, should follow?

What is the Human Rights Council?

The UN Human Rights Council was established in 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights, which ran from 1947 to 2006. By the time of its demise, the commission was criticised from all sides for being overly politicised.

The HRC’s 47 seats are divided between the five official UN regions in the following way: Africa (13); Asia (13); Latin America and the Caribbean (8); Western Europe and Other (7); Eastern Europe (6). The US (and Australia) is in the Western Europe and Other Group, known as WEOG.

One-third of the council is elected each year by the UN General Assembly, and members serve three-year terms. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms. A member can also be suspended from the council in a vote of two-thirds of the UN General Assembly: Libya was suspended in 2011 after Muammar Gaddafi’s crackdown on Arab Spring protesters and armed dissidents. No other member has been suspended.

The HRC meets three times a year for a total of around ten weeks. Its 38th session has just begun. It also meets for one-day special sessions at the initiative of one-third of its members. It has so far held 28 special sessions.

The HRC’s functions include the drafting and adoption of new human rights standards, as arose in its first year with the adoption of new treaties dealing with the rights of people with a disability and the scourge of enforced disappearances, as well as the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

The HRC also authorises independent investigations into particular human rights issues, either thematic (dealing with a human rights issue such as torture or LGBTI rights) or, more controversially, focused on a particular state. At the time of writing, there are 46 thematic mandates and 12 country mandates for these “special rapporteurs”.

It has one major new function compared to its predecessor, the Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”), whereby the human rights record of every UN member is reviewed by the HRC (as well as all other “observer” nations) every five years.

The US’ grievances against the HRC arise with regard to the human rights records of its members, and its politicised character. Its key red line concern seems to be the HRC’s “unconscionable” and “chronic bias” against Israel (to quote from this morning’s press conference). These issues are examined in turn below.
 

HRC membership

Membership criteria as they stand are very soft: candidates commit to the highest standards of human rights, and states should take into account a nominee’s human rights record when voting. Both of these rules are basically unenforceable.

Human rights criteria were mooted as prerequisites for membership when the HRC was created. However, the UN’s nearly 200 members could not agree on substantive criteria, as they have very different views on human rights. The US, for example, wanted only “democratic nations” to be eligible. Such a criterion would have led to debates over the meaning of “democracy”, and would seem to prioritise civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural ones. A focus on the implementation of economic and social rights might have led to the exclusion from eligibility of the US itself.

In any case, the “measurement” and respective ranking of human rights records across states is contentious. While comparisons between two states may lead to easy conclusions over which one is better or worse, it is a fraught exercise across the entirety of the UN membership.

Procedural criteria, such as a nation’s record on ratification of human rights treaties, would be more objective. However, such criteria might have led to the exclusion of the two most powerful countries in the world – the US and China, which have both failed to ratify crucial treaties. Realpolitik indicates that such an outcome is very unlikely.

In the press conference, Haley and Pompeo decried the presence of human rights abusers on the council, including China, Cuba, Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Consternation has also commonly been expressed over the common presence of Saudi Arabia and Russia on the HRC. Certainly, none of those states is remotely close to upholding the highest standards of human rights. Haley and Pompeo went further, claiming that these states manipulate the HRC to shield abusers and target blameless states in its resolutions.

So how bad is the HRC membership? Freedom House is a non-government organisation (NGO) that rates states as “free”, “partly free”, or “not free”, according to certain civil and political rights criteria, such as press freedom. While Freedom House’s methodology is assailable, I will use its rankings in assessing the current HRC, as the US itself historically uses them in making certain policy choices.

According to its 2018 rankings, the HRC of 2018 contains 21 “free” states, 12 “partly free”, and 14 “non-free”.

2018 is in fact one of the worst years in terms of the numbers of non-free HRC members. Nevertheless, free states always outnumber unfree states on the HRC, and can easily pass or block any resolution with the cooperation of just a few partly free states, if they vote together.

Any problem with “bad” resolutions on the HRC arises not from a preponderance of bad states, but from bloc voting within regions, like-minded groups and alliances.
 

The phenomenon of clean slates

Nevertheless, one can still fairly criticise the HRC for containing 14 non-free states. How do such states get elected?

A major problem for HRC elections is the issue of “clean slates”, whereby the number of candidates presented by a UN region correlates exactly to the number of seats it is scheduled to have elected at any particular time. For example, a region might put forward only two candidates for two seats. In such circumstances, the various candidates’ election seems to be a fait accompli. This phenomenon of clean slates was what Pompeo was referring to when he said that some states were elected by a rigged, collusive process.

Yet clean slates are a problem with all of the UN regions. The US itself was initially elected to the HRC on a clean slate in 2009. Australia was elected to the HRC on a WEOG clean slate in 2017, due to France’s belated withdrawal of its candidature.

Genuine elections do occur when open slates are presented by regions. This is how Russia was rejected in 2016, an unprecedented and humiliating blow that probably led to Russia’s failure to even stand for election in 2017. Other serious human rights abusers, such as Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka and Belarus, have failed to gain seats in similar circumstances.

Although states are elected on a regional basis, each member must still attain the majority of votes in the general assembly in order to be elected. There remains a possibility that an unacceptable candidate will simply not reach that threshold, even in the case of a clean slate.

That possibility has in the past led to the late replacement of controversial candidates, such as Syria’s replacement by Kuwait in 2011. This author eagerly awaits the day when the General Assembly finally flexes its muscle by refusing to elect an entire clean slate, thus depriving a region of a seat for a year. Such an outcome, in the absence of a relevant reform, is one way to dissuade future clean slates.

Finally, while states – particularly WEOG countries – might rail against the awful records of other members, those sentiments might not be reflected in their actual voting. After all, voting is by secret ballot. For example, given that Saudi Arabia is a key US geopolitical ally, it seems likely that the US (and even Australia) has voted for it on occasion. Certainly, the UK seems to have done so.

The US is correct that membership criteria should be revisited. Certain obstacles could be put in the way of the worst abusers, such as compulsory open slates, public voting (which might help prevent UK votes for Saudi Arabia), and a requirement that an eligible state must allow visits by all special rapporteurs.
 

Politicisation of the HRC

As the HRC’s members are representatives of their governments, the HRC is a highly politicised body, like its predecessor. State governments are political constructs, so any institution made up of government representatives is inevitably political too.

Unfortunately, states will generally vote in favour of their national interests rather than human rights interests if the two should clash. Pompeo inadvertently admitted that this morning, when he praised Haley by saying that she always put “American interests first”.

Politicisation inevitably leads to the manifestation of political biases. The most notorious HRC bias concerns Israel. It seems that the US’ biggest complaint over the HRC, and the “red line” that has led to its withdrawal, is the HRC’s treatment of Israel.
 

Israel and the HRC

The HRC is biased against Israel. It has aimed a disproportionate number of resolutions against that country. The HRC’s regular agenda of ten items contains only one item that focuses on a particular state, that state being Israel.

Its special rapporteur mandate stands until the occupation is over, so its renewal is automatic rather than the subject of periodic debate, as is the case with other mandates. The mandate-holder investigates its actions rather than those of the Palestinian authorities, whose abuses are largely ignored.

Israel has been the subject of more special sessions than any other state (more than a quarter of the 28 sessions). Having said that, it was the subject of the first three special sessions in 2006, and four of the first six, so the “hit rate” of 4 out of 22 is less stark since then.

Why is the HRC preoccupied with Israel? For a start, Israel has committed serious human rights abuses that are worthy of the HRC’s condemnation. It is absurd for Pompeo to have implicitly suggested that Israel has “committed no offence”. Any HRC bias does not mean that the substance of its criticisms is wrong. The recent killings of Palestinian protesters, targeted killings, illegal settlements, forced evictions, war crimes, the Gaza blockade and, most fundamentally, an ongoing occupation of Palestine that has lasted for more than 50 years, will cause critics to proliferate.

Nevertheless, that does not explain the HRC’s disproportionate attention to one country, given the scale of human rights abuses by other states that receive far less attention.

Ardent supporters of Israel often contend that the bias is driven by anti-Semitism. While such a motivation cannot be dismissed, there are other reasons that seem likely to be driving this phenomenon. The equation of “anti-Israel” with “anti-Semitic” is simplistic.

Israel has many enemies among UN states. Some have never accepted Israel’s right to exist, believing that it was established illegitimately on Arab (Palestinian) land. Indeed, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was set up in 1969 to unite Muslim states after the 1967 war in which Israel seized the occupied territories, so opposition to Israel has been an article of faith since its inception. The OIC routinely brings as much diplomatic pressure to bear on Israel as possible. As OIC states straddle the two biggest UN groupings, Africa and Asia, they can rely on significant bloc solidarity for support in their initiatives.

The racial element, whereby the Jewish State of Israel illegally occupies lands populated by Arabs in the occupied territories, attracts the ire of developing states, which have historical grievances regarding racial oppression. Yet other instances of racial tension – such as the oppression of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the West Papuans, the Tamils or the Chechens – fail to attract the same HRC scrutiny.

One difference is that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories is not recognised as legitimate by any other state, unlike for example China’s sovereignty over Tibet or Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua.

Indeed, increasing numbers of states have diplomatically recognised the occupied territories as the State of Palestine, and the UN General Assembly voted in 2012 to recognise Palestine as a non-member state.

Occupation also allows states to feel safe in attacking Israel without being too hypocritical. While human rights abuses are sadly common, the status of “occupier” is rare. Indeed, Israel is sometimes seen as a remnant of colonialism, and its actions certainly breach the right of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter.

However, Israel is not the only occupier. Morocco has long annexed the [Western Sahara], yet the global silence on that situation is deafening in comparison.

Israel is also seen as a surrogate for the West, particularly the US. Given that Israel is almost always defended within the UN by the US, and is often defended by much of WEOG, the question of “Israel-bashing” has become part of a greater North/South divide in the UN. Anti-American states such as Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Russia see Israel as a US surrogate in the Middle East, and exploit the issue accordingly.

Bias against Israel is matched by biased displays of support for Israel by its allies, such as the US and Australia. For example, the US instinctively presumed that the recent border killings were justified. Past bombings of Gaza (in 2009 and 2012) have been blithely dismissed by Australia as an exercise of Israel’s right to self-defence. But a legitimate case of self-defence can still result in an illegal use of excessive, indiscriminate or unnecessary force.

Regardless of its causes, the HRC’s perceived bias against Israel is counterproductive. It provides Israel with a ready-made argument to reject even legitimate condemnation, thus providing cover for human rights abuses. Indeed, claims of bias (within and outside the UN) have become a dominant part of the Middle East narrative on both sides, detracting from a focus on the actions of the actual protagonists. It has facilitated Israel’s progressive disillusionment with and disengagement from the UN, and now, the disengagement of the US. It reduces the HRC’s credibility and opens it up to charges of hypocrisy. None of these outcomes is useful for those who sincerely wish for improvements in human rights for all in Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories.

Finally, the biggest problem with the focus on Israel is the corresponding lack of focus on other serious human rights situations. While it is impossible to demand or expect that a political body, or even an apolitical one, should achieve perfect balance in its human rights focuses, it is fair to expect that such focuses not be way out of balance.
 

The US and human rights

Haley and Pompeo reassured us that the US will continue to play a leadership role in human rights, despite its withdrawal from the HRC. And certainly, the US’ role on the HRC was in many ways positive. For example, it took the lead in addressing impunity in Sri Lanka. The WEOG group suffers from some dysfunctionality on the part of EU states, which generally seek a common position. Strong non-EU voices are important in this regard.

Yet the US is as political as other players on the HRC. Just as some states instinctively oppose Israel, the US instinctively supports it. Neither position is principled. The US has also protected other allies, such as Bahrain.

Outside the HRC, US President Donald Trump is not a credible leader on human rights. He seems to have an affinity with leaders with horrible records, such as the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte. Most recently, he responded to comments about North Korea’s human rights record, which is possibly the worst in the world, by praising the “talented” Kim Jong-un.

And of course, the US has long had its own serious human rights problems, which are too numerous to mention, but which include torture and the highest proportion of incarceration in the world. Its recent decision to separate migrant children from their parents and intern them reflects its status as the only country in the world that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Furthermore, it is nonsense for Pompeo to suggest that the HRC had sought to infringe on US sovereignty. This betrays a serious misunderstanding of the concept of sovereignty, indicating that it dictates immunity from criticism. It does not.
 

Is the council salvageable?

The US is correct to note there are major deficiencies in the current HRC. Is its response therefore the correct one? If so, that would seem to indicate that Australia should also quit the HRC. It is very unlikely that Australia will do so.

The HRC is the peak global intergovernmental human rights body, which may represent the world of today, warts and all. The battle for universal human rights observance will not be won by adopting an “us and them” mentality, which excludes significant numbers of countries in the world from “the human rights club”. Such a solution is more likely to lead to balkanised human rights discussions, and possible competing institutions inside and outside the UN. 

The HRC must remain a forum where non-like-minded states, and civil society, can talk to each other, and occasionally cross divides to make important human rights decisions.

Furthermore, the HRC is meant to be a political body. Other parts of the UN human rights machinery are made up of independent human rights experts, and accordingly take a more impartial approach than the HRC. While their human rights findings are more credible, it also seems that states generally take their findings less seriously.

States tend to care more about what their peers think than what human rights experts might think. Hence, human rights would suffer in the absence of a relevant intergovernmental global body.

Despite its flaws, the HRC does make decisions that benefit human rights, even in the face of political lobbying by members with scurrilous motives. For example, a special rapporteur was appointed to investigate Iran (after the application of US pressure), and it remains in place, despite that influential country’s forceful efforts to dismantle the mandate. A special rapporteur on LGBTI rights was appointed in 2016, despite fierce opposition from the OIC and homophobic states, due to an alliance of developed and developing states, and civil society.

The HRC will continue to be an imperfect institution for as long as the UN is made up of states with imperfect human rights records. However, the council still can and must be improved.
But the worst way to achieve that goal is by just walking away.
 

Sarah Joseph, Professor, Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post As the US leaves the UN Human Rights Council, it may leave more damage in its wake appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Saudi Arabia, a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), continues its crackdown on human rights.
 

Bandar bin Mohammed Alaiban, President of the Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission at the 34th Session of the Human Rights Council on 28 February 2017. Photo Credit: United Nations Photo by Jean-Marc Ferré (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The HRC, consisting of 47 Member States elected by a majority of the members of the United Nations General Assembly by direct and secret ballot, is the highest international body dealing with human rights issues around the globe.

The General Assembly is supposed to consider candidate Member States’ contributions to the protection of human rights, as well as voluntary pledges and commitments when applying for council membership. But Saudi Arabia was elected twice in succession despite its well-documented and ongoing human rights violations.

In October 2016, Saudi Arabia was elected as an HRC member for the second successive time, despite a lack of elections or secret ballot nor an assessment of the nation’s human rights record. The council distributes seats geographically and the Asia-Pacific States, with four out of 13 seats vacant, presented Saudi Arabia as one of its four candidates. Therefore, Saudi Arabia was able to keep its seat until the end of 2019 without having to undergo due process and faced zero accountability for its human rights violations to date.

The international human rights community reacted with disappointment and condemnation to Saudi Arabia’s re-election to the HRC due to its role in the war in Yemen. Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading a coalition war against Houthis rebels in Yemen. The coalition’s airstrikes have killed and injured thousands of civilians, including children.

In addition to its violations in Yemen, Saudi Arabia continues to target human rights defenders inside the country. In fact, the rights situation in the kingdom, an absolute monarchy, has markedly deteriorated with a renewed crackdown against human rights defenders since the accession of Mohammad bin Salman as Crown Prince in June 2017. The environment for human rights defenders has become increasingly dangerous as authorities systematically target them on a daily basis.

Writers, academics, online activists and clerics have been among those arrested in recent months. In one week alone in September 2017, more than 20 prominent human rights defenders were detained following a wave of house raids and arrests.
 

Human rights organisations targeted

Human rights defenders Mohammed Al-Otaibi and  Abdulla Al-Attawi – The GCHR Archives
 

On 25 January, the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) in the capital city of Riyadh sentenced rights defenders Mohammed Abdullah Al-Otaibi and Abdullah Madhi Al-Attawi to 14 and seven years in prison respectively, over rights-related activities. Al-Otaibi and Al-Attawi are founding members of the Union for Human Rights which monitors and advocates for the respect of human rights in Saudi Arabia.

In 2013, they were summoned with two other founding members of the organisation by the public prosecutor in Riyadh and ordered to freeze their activities. Due to serious threats from authorities, Al-Otaibi and Al-Attawi agreed to fully close their organisation but were still referred to the SCC and continued to work as human rights defenders in their personal capacities.

The two were charged with a number of accusations including setting up a human rights organisation prior to obtaining an official permit and spreading petitions deemed harmful to ”the reputation of the Kingdom and its justice and security institutions” on the internet.
The Association for Civil and Political Rights in Saudi Arabia (ACPRA) was also targeted by authorities. All its founding members were arrested and tried on a range of fabricated charges. Mohammed Al-Qahtani, who is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence, was convicted in March 2013 on a number of charges including membership in an unlicensed organisation (the ACPRA), incitement against the kingdom, as well as cooperation with the HRC as stated in the indictment.
 

Women rights activists targeted

Internet Activist Noha Al-Balawi – The GCHR Archives
 

Saudi Arabia prohibited women from driving until recently when a royal decree issued in September 2017 permitted women to drive starting in June of 2018. Despite the conservative kingdom’s pledges to reform, discriminatory rules against women still exist. For example, the male guardianship system requires women to have the consent of a male relative guardian to travel outside the country, apply for a passport, get married or to even rent their own places.

Women who call for reform and campaign to end the guardianship system are silenced and often face interrogations and arrests for engaging in online advocacy work. On the day of the royal decree announcement to repeal the ban on women driving, authorities phoned several prominent women’s rights defenders to warn them against making comments on the decision or they would face legal consequences.

Activist Noha Al-Balawi, a college student from the city of Tabuk in northwestern Saudi Arabia, was arrested on 23 January for speaking out online on Saudi Arabian politics as well as supporting women’s rights. On 5 February, Al-Balawi’s detention was extended another month.

According to some reports, Al-Balawi was arrested for publishing a YouTube video in which she criticised Saudi Arabia’s relations with Israel. However, the International Federation for Human Rights reported that she was questioned about her rights activism:
 

The authorities questioned her on tweets and videos she had posted, including on a video in which she supports the driving campaign for women and shows solidarity with the prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia. She was also questioned about her connections with the successful campaign on women’s right to drive, and with the women’s rights and human rights movement in Saudi Arabia generally.

On 22 February 2018, reliable sources confirmed to the GCHR that Al-Balawi has been released after 29 days of arbitrary detention.

First Published on https://globalvoices.org
 

The post Saudi Arabia, a United Nations Human Rights Council Member, Continues Rights Crackdown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A total of 73 recommendations were made on child rights by different countries on a range of issues. Of these,Government of India (GOI) has accepted 59 and noted 14.

If one were to compare the status of the recommendations with the UPR II cycle, it is encouraging to see the increase of interest on issues concerning children.  During the second Universal Periodic Review in May 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council, India had received 50 recommendations.

It is interesting to see this new usage of the term NOTED as in UPR I and UPR II, GOI would either say ACCEPTED or NOT ACCEPTED. What is the significance of NOTED? Does it mean GOI will take action or consider taking action? Or does it mean Noted but no action!

There does not seem to be a pattern that GOI has followed while deciding whether or not to accept a recommendation on an issue.  The GOI has given different response for the same recommendation floated by different countries on the same issue. For example, Recommendation No 161.14 by Ireland on Ratification of ILO convention 138 and 182 was ‘Noted’ while the same recommendation from Slovania and Uruguay (161.38 and 161.40) was ‘Accepted’. Similarly, while some recommendations by some countries pertaining to honour crimes are ‘Accepted’, the same in the case of other countries are ‘Noted’.

The government has very clearly decided not to accept the recommendations related to repealing of the proviso that allows children to work in family based occupations in the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.

GOI has accepted all recommendations received on Education, except the one on inclusion of Human Rights Education in the education policy (recommendation from Zambia) although it has accepted the recommendation to include the same in the curriculum (recommendation from Slovakia).

While GOI has stated its acceptance to take steps to ‘combat child marriage’ it is not yet ready to Endharmful practices such as child, early and forced marriage.

Similarly the non –acceptance of the need  address “honour killings”, selective abortion on thebasis of the foetus’ sex, the Sati, Devadasi, early and enforced marriage,foeticide and infanticide is also a matter of concern. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the recommendation includes marital rape and the government has a strong opinion on that already.

We are sure that the GOI has its own logic and reasons for deciding what it has ACCEPTED and what it has NOTED, but it is not always clear from the reading of it. Perhaps it is do with the combination of recommendations from a country in one statement, rather than the individual elements in them is the reasoning behind why it is either accepted or noted. 

 
Following is the detailed table of recommendations and status of acceptance by the GOI.

The post Child Rights at India’s Third Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council appeared first on SabrangIndia.