Don't mention flogging or crucifixion

By Hillel C. Neuer
March 23, 2004
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080015296247&p=1006953079865 

As the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights opened last week in Geneva, with four days of dignitaries' speeches, a sense of diamond jubilee celebration was strikingly absent. No wonder: for most states represented, institutions that empower individuals are seen not as a cause to celebrate, but a threat. 

As for the moral minority, anniversary cheer is difficult as the gathering steadily sinks into its annual abyss of Orwellian doublespeak, moral inversions and calculated scapegoating. 

Still, if democratic nations summon will and initiative ? hitherto wielded by an axis defined by common appearances on Freedom House's Most Repressive Regimes list ? they, together with new personalities at the commission, might begin paving a road to reform. At the commission, now more than ever, it is the inmates who are running the asylum. Consider the past three years. 

First, in 2001, in an unprecedented move, the US was denied a seat at the commission's 53-member table. Hard lobbying by China and Cuba, aimed at muzzling their strongest critic, produced a tacit alliance with Europe, which, long before the row over Iraq, was looking to put Washington in its place. 

Next, in the 2002 session, America's removal led to what government-controlled Iranian TV trumpeted as a very important and decisive development.

After a UN human rights expert reported on the Islamic Republic's chilling practices ? flogging of youths, systematic discrimination against women, public and especially cruel executions, torture and killing of political activists ? members of the commission, driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), voted down any attempt at reproving Teheran. And then they fired the expert.

Finally, in 2003, the veil was gone: Colonel Gadaffi's jamhariyah, the state of the masses whose record of abuse Human Rights Watch described as appalling, was chosen to be chair of the UN's top human rights body. 

Only Canada and Guatamela joined the US in opposition; Europe abstained. Any remaining vestige of the commission's legitimacy evaporated overnight. NOT THAT the prospect of the UN installing Gaddafi upon Geneva's moral throne was a complete surprise. 

Only a year earlier, after all, the Ba'ath regime of Syria ? a repressive autocracy that brutalizes its citizens (as underscored in recent weeks by police crackdowns against peaceful protesters in Damascus, and killings of Kurds in Qamishli), illegally occupies Lebanon and is a certified state sponsor of terror ? was honored, first as member, and then as president, of the Security Council, the very body charged by the UN Charter with maintaining international peace and security. 

That the UN might think it proper and prudent to have foxes guarding the chicken coop was, therefore, known. Nevertheless, Libya's victory was a jolt felt around the world. 

And, sure enough, giving this offender the gavel set the tone for last year's session, where abuse and hypocrisy were rampant: 
A proposal to censure Sudan's barbarism ? the UN rapporteur described Sudanese penal code punishments of amputation, hanging crucifixion, and stoning of women to death for adultery in kangaroo trials ? was defeated after Pakistan, speaking for the OIC, denounced the resolution as an offense to all Muslim countries.
And then they fired the rapporteur. 

Russia's wanton devastation of Chechnya was likewise shielded by Syria and China, which warned against interference in internal affairs. 

Attempts to expose the Zimbabwe regime's destruction of democracy were met with South African objections at naming and shaming, while Libya, rewarding African support, advocated the language of cooperation and dialogue.

A no action motion killed the proposed resolution. Against Israel, however, the sworn opponents of naming and shaming miraculously converted into its greatest practitioners, churning out no fewer than five ritual denunciations of the Jewish state.
The current session, just underway, looks like a repeat. 

Already, Cuba rejected an expert report on its imprisonment of dissidents, barring its author from visiting the Communist island. 

The Palestinians advocated more armed means (read: bus bombings) against Israel. The Pakistanis, acting for the OIC, have just demanded a special sitting to discuss the killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. Their goal: ignore the spreading fires of terror that hit Madrid, Karbala and Ashdod, and condemn the legitimate attempts to put them out.

Amid all the darkness, however, three new stars may shine light on this session, and the commission's future direction. This year's chair is Ambassador Michael Smith of Australia. 

The obstacles are many, but he is sincerely seeking reform. Another luminary is Richard Williamson, head of the US delegation. This Chicago attorney and diplomat is vigorously advancing a vision of freedom as the birthright of all, demanding that states such as Burma, Iran or North Korea put an end to their abusive policies and practices, whether against women's equality, the rights of children or of ethnic and religious minorities. 

Finally, Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, a former international prosecutor, will later this year become high commissioner. Hopes are high that she will emulate the independent-minded Sergio de Mello, murdered last year by terrorists in Iraq.

Ultimately, reform of the commission depends on the will of democracies to form their own alliance. A caucus is materializing in connection with the emerging Community of Democracies. Should the commission's new leading lights wish to adopt a project that stands to make a real difference for human rights victims worldwide, this is the one. 

The writer is director-designate of UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO.