62nd SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


___________________

Check Against Delivery
___________________



Statement by
Ambassador Daniel Carmon
Deputy Permanent Representative



Statement in explanation of vote on the institution building package and code of conduct of the Human Rights Council






United Nations, New York
16 November 2007






Mr. Chairman, 

I wish to thank you for allowing my delegation to take the floor in explanation of vote on the institution building package and code of conduct of the Human Rights Council. 

General Assembly resolution A/60/251, which authorized and mandated the creation of a new Human Rights Council, called for it “without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner”. Yet since inception, the Council has proven itself incapable of following its own mandate as reflected in the aforementioned constituent resolution. 

The Council – as is – violates the very foundation and Framework for the Programme of Work which, on paper, it sought to implement. The principles of universality and equality in treatment, impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectiveness, among others, have all been ignored – and worse, at times even violated and flaunted by some members of the Council, thus derailing the Council from its original mandate and significantly tainting its legitimacy and credibility. 

When the majority of real burning human rights situations in our world have not earned the Council’s attention – there is no universality. 

When the Council adopts a separate standing agenda item on Israel – there is no impartiality. 

When some countries on the Council share a political agenda that precludes the State of Israel, and utterly dismiss our inherent right to live in peace and security in our homeland – there is no objectivity. 

When Israel is subjected to 12 discriminatory, one-sided resolutions and three special sessions – there is no non-selectiveness. 

Some countries advocate for so-called universality and non-selectivity in their own backyard but then eliminated without any serious discussion the special mechanisms on Belarus or Cuba, as examples. At the same time, these same countries cynically insist on maintaining special treatment towards one country alone. This is nothing less than the very double standard and hypocrisy they allegedly oppose.  

Mr. Chairman, 

While it is clear that there is no consensus in the room today, my delegation feels – as others do – that consensus on this institution building package really never existed in the first place. In fact, during the final hours of the Human Rights Council’s fifth session in Geneva, an agreement on a package was mysteriously declared when there was none. The questionable manner in which the packaged was pushed through in Geneva did a great disservice to the Council and the very causes it seeks to promote. 

My delegation will vote against the adoption of the institution building package, and wishes to place on record its hope that the Member States of this Assembly consider the profound implications of and moral voice subscribed to their vote. Their votes will determine the future for human rights in this organization, and its legitimacy and reputation in the public eye.  

The victims around the world, oppressed by tyrannical regimes who utterly disregard human rights, deserve and need a real Human Rights Council to protect and promote their interest.  

We call upon the membership of this Committee, all experts in the matter at hand, to take a frank and honest look at the pressing human rights situations around the world, and ask whether or not the institution building mechanism of the Council will really enable it to promote and protect human rights? 

Israel knows that many of your governments share these same sentiments regarding the Council and its continuing performance under the current package. We have decided to reflect this concern by voting against it – “No” – on the institution building package. 

Mr. Chairman,    

It is high time to see moral conviction in the Human Rights Council – so that it becomes a shield to protect victims of human rights and not a weapon for those who abuse them.

Thank You, Mr. Chairman.