Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/F828EC23F8E51BD2C12571BF0032FAB3?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/F828EC23F8E51BD2C12571BF0032FAB3?OpenDocument
Date: August 3, 2006

COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DISCUSSES HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN LEBANON
Also Considers Report on Follow-Up Procedures
3 August 2006
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning held a general debate on the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, which was organized in response to concerns voiced by Experts at the first meeting of the Committee’s sixty-ninth session. The Committee also held a discussion on the implementation of the follow-up procedures, and adopted the report presented by the Coordinator on Follow-up, Morten Kjaerum. 

At the outset of the debate, the Chairperson reminded that the debate should respect the mandate of the Committee, which was the consideration of racial discrimination. Several Experts felt that the Committee did not have an obvious mandate on this particular matter, but wished nevertheless to record their condemnation of the killing of civilians and to issue a statement in solidarity with the victims of the conflict. An Expert asked whether Israel would not have reacted with the same violence if there were no racism involved? Another Expert noted that people only gave themselves the right to kill in such a way when they had inferiorized the victims. An Expert recalled that whatever their origin, violent international conflicts imprinted themselves on hearts and minds and that conflicts also contributed to racial discrimination by generating new narratives, new discrimination and new hatreds. 

In concluding remarks the Chairperson noted that it had emerged from the dialogue that, over and above the Committee’s specific mandate, it was felt that the Committee had a broader duty to address situations of grave violations of human rights. He requested the Bureau to consider follow-up modalities to the debate, highlighting the Committee’s solidarity with the statements of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner, and conveying if possible to the High Commissioner and the Human Rights Council the minutes of the present debate.

Following the debate, Morten Kjaerum, Coordinator on Follow-up, introducing his report, said that, of the five countries for which follow-up reports were due on 1 April, two had submitted their reports on time – Australia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic – and, as a result of reminders sent to Azerbaijan, Bahrain and France on 24 May, France's report had been received today. He outlined recommendations for letters to sent to Australia and the Lao People's Democratic Republic and also introduced a report on his follow-up visit to Ireland, which he recommended be forwarded to the Irish Government. The report was adopted by the Committee.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. it is scheduled to take up the fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports of Yemen, submitted in one document (CERD/C/YEM/16).

Humanitarian Crisis in Lebanon

RÉGIS DE GOUTTES, Chairman of the Committee, said that the present debate had been organized following the concerns expressed by a number of Experts about the humanitarian situation in Lebanon and the grave suffering of its people. The Chairman reminded that the debate should respect the mandate of the Committee, which was the consideration of racial discrimination. The humanitarian situation in Lebanon and the armed conflict that it emerged from was within the competence of the Security Council, the Secretary-General, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, all of which had already adopted declarations in that regard; it was also within the competence of the new Human Rights Council. 

NOURREDINE AMIR, Committee Expert, said that the issue that was of grave concern to the Committee – which was in its mandate, but also within the competence of other United Nations bodies – was that the world would not wish to find itself once again in the situation it did during the Second World War. Lessons had been drawn from that war regarding the protection of civilians and of refugees. He saw the Committee as being in a very clear-cut position to deal with humanitarian issues, whereas he agreed that political issues went beyond the mandate of the Committee.

Regarding humanitarian law, Mr. Amir said that the question the Committee was whether in a situation of war there was an obligation to protect non-combatants, namely innocent civilians. In this case the Lebanese population found itself in a situation that it had not chosen. The victims, in particular women and children, could no longer continue to carry the burden of this war. The competence of the Committee was there to determine who was innocent and who was guilty. He urged the Committee to take a decision on non-combatants so that their rights would be respected. 

Mr. Amir said that it was a question of innocence and of guilt. How were the civilian population – children, women and the elderly – to blame? The responsibility fell squarely upon those who undertook to bomb the towns and the countryside where people lived. Civilians had been targeted as military objectives and there was no excuse that could be made for a State that violated all the international conventions, and in particular, the human rights conventions in such a way. He called on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Children’s Fund to join the Committee in condemning those practices.

ALEXEI S. AVTONOMOV, Committee Expert, said that he supported Mr. Amir’s statement on the catastrophic situation in Lebanon, even if it was not a clear case of discrimination. Of course, the people of Lebanon suffered the most, unquestionably, but bombs did not discriminate. The main point was to put an end to hostilities and to begin negotiations, but until the targeting of civilian populations ceased, no such discussion could begin. They could not simply sit back while innocent civilians and children were dying. He was not sure what the Committee could do to put an end to the hostilities, but he felt duty-bound to state his deep personal condemnation of those actions that led to the deaths of innocent civilians, which put the future of a whole generation into question, and turned the whole territory of Lebanon into a combat zone. 

TANG CHENGYUAN, Committee Expert, said that he supported what had been said by both Mr. Amir and Mr. Avtonomov. The targeting by Israel of civilian populations resulting in many deaths was a violation of international humanitarian law. Israel had bombarded peacekeeping forces and killed peacekeepers, including one from China. A member of the United Nations should respect the United Nations Charter. This was also a violation of Lebanon’s national sovereignty. He agreed that the Committee should take a decision condemning this action. At the same time, the Committee should say that to put an end to the war both sides had a responsibility to end the hostilities, and the international community also had a role.

MORTEN KJAERUM, Committee Expert, said that the current situation in Lebanon was of utmost concern to the Committee and to everyone in the international community. The Secretary-General had called for the cessation of hostilities without delay. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had taken up that call and requested international investigations into the human rights violations.

The question for the Committee was the extraterritorial applicability of the Convention. Both Israel and Lebanon had ratified the Convention. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) had held on several occasions that human rights treaties did not cease to apply in times of armed conflict, and had further held that human rights law and international humanitarian law were complementary. The Convention continued to apply within the actions of Israel and Lebanon with respect to activities both inside and in some cases outside their territory, where the State party exercised effective control. The question was whether Israel had effective control in parts of Lebanon and thus had certain rights and obligations under the Convention. In Mr. Kjaerum’s view that could only be determined through a complete investigation, which was not the task of the Committee in the current context. The Committee did not have an obvious mandate on this particular matter, and he requested the Chairman to convey the opinions expressed in the debate to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to address the situation.

JOSE A. LINDGREN-ALVES, Committee Expert, said that he had felt that the case of Lebanon should have been considered under the urgent action procedures of the Committee, in private. Then, if they found that there was or was not racism in the situation they could proceed accordingly. That was not done. That being the case, he still felt that the Committee had the competence to address the situation. If human rights experts were not competent to discuss the most important human rights situations going on in the world, they might all just as well go home. 

Human rights violations had always been wrapped up in the situation in the Middle East, Mr. Lindgren-Alves observed. What was going on was far beyond what reasonable people considered tolerable. Everyone knew that the State of Lebanon was incapable of controlling Hezbollah, in the same way that in his country, Brazil, they were incapable of controlling organized crime. Would the Brazilian State then be justified in bombing certain slums because they knew that that was where the drug lords were living? Regarding the Committee’s competence, he asked whether there was not at least a tinge of racism stimulating the disproportionate response to the kidnapping of one or two soldiers that was supposedly at the origin of Israel’s actions. Would Israel have reacted with the same violence, on the basis of the actions of Hezbollah, which the State could not control, if there were no racism involved? If racism was at the root of that disproportionality, then the Committee had to find a way to send a message about that. If the present case of massacre were not urgent, he did not know what was.

AGHA SHAHI, Committee Expert, said that he felt that Mr. Lindgren had raised a very valid point. Would Israel have resorted to the bombing of civilian infrastructure if it were fighting a non-Arab force? It was a war between different ethnic groups, the Arabs and the Jews. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had given them the lead in talking of war crimes and crimes against humanity and calling for an investigation. He strongly urged the Committee to make a statement of full support for the High Commissioner for Human Rights and call for an immediate ceasefire.

PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had often dealt with serious situations. For example on 10 March 2003 the Committee had issued a statement on the international situation in very broad terms. Regarding the Committee’s mandate, he noted that the current crisis had witnessed an escalation of racial hatred and religious and cultural hatred. That phenomenon was always of concern to the Committee. Indeed, concern over the resurgence of the phenomenon of racial discrimination had been the subject of the Committee’s March 2003 declaration. 

Violent international conflicts imprinted themselves on hearts and minds; events had consequences and those consequences endured, Mr. Thornberry said. The Committee had talked about the effect of impersonal movements such as globalization on racial discrimination. Conflicts also contributed to racial discrimination by generating new narratives, new discrimination and new hatreds. 

PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Committee Expert, said that more than anything the Committee was bound to address the grave violations of human rights of the civilians in Lebanon, regardless what their specific mandate was. She found that the whole concept of “smart bombs” was very problematic with regard to what was going on the region. Those bombs had turned cities into graveyards, and the argument that a ceasefire would be a quick fix that would not resolve the underlying issues, was just a demonstration of the blatant disregard for human life.

Ms. January-Bardill agreed with Mr. Lindgren that there were elements of institutionalized racism at the root of the current violence. People only gave themselves the right to kill in this way when they had “inferiorized” the victims. The United Nations Security Council must accept its responsibilities and condemn Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people and ensure an immediate ceasefire, followed by serious negotiations for a more long-lasting peace. 

MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, Committee Expert, said that he agreed with Ms. January-Bardill that this situation affected them all. With regard to the Committee’s mandate, he wondered how it was possible that the Committee had never applied article 11 (which provides for State parties to call to the Committee’s attention the situation with regard to another State party’s fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention). 

Mr. Yutzis said that as a Committee they would need to do something at least to draw the attention as a treaty body to the events taking place. They should unite their voices to see if they could overcome the narrow margin that separated humanitarian and political issues. That was a difficult task, he knew. 

FATIMATA-BINTA VICTOIRE DAH, Committee Expert, said that the dividing line between political, humanitarian and human rights was unclear and she wondered what Committee Experts could do. She understood the concerns raised by her colleagues this morning and agreed that the Committee had to have its voice heard on this important matter. She regretted that, for the first time, there was no discrimination when bombs were dropped on Lebanon or other places. It would be much more reassuring if bombs could chose between combatants and non-combatants, in particular sparing children. 

Ms. Dah speculated that there could be racial motivations behind the attacks being perpetrated, but observed that at present there was not sufficient proof of that. On the other hand, there were conditions that propagated and exacerbated hatred, and the conflict contained elements that were in themselves of concern to the Committee. In the future, she noted, the Committee should keep that in mind in reviewing the reports of Israel and Lebanon.

KOKOU MAWUENA IKA KANA EWOMSAN, Committee Expert, said that the situation they were witnessing in Lebanon today could not leave members indifferent either as human beings or as human rights experts; they had the duty to act. It was also part of their mandate, in order to ensure that the Committee did not create a pretext that would undermine their impartiality. The Committee had accepted Israel’s request to postpone the presentation of its report. As they had done so, members should keep in mind that they were awaiting that presentation and would then have an opportunity to address these questions. In that way they could rely on more competent authorities to work towards the ceasefire. As a Committee they should not take any decisions that would undermine their impartiality in the future.

MAHMOUD ABOUL-NASR, Committee Expert, said that this Committee could not remain silent on the situation unfolding in Lebanon today and on the serious violations that were taking place there. The Secretary-General had said the acts had to be condemned in the strongest possible terms and that was what the Secretary-General expected of the Committee today. The Committee could not conclude today without a statement of their opinions to be issued in accordance with the Secretary-General’s statement, in addition to an immediate request to all parties concerned to take all necessary measures to stop the fighting. The killing must be stopped.

RALPH BOYD JR., Committee Expert, said that he felt compelled to say something given the gravity of the Lebanese crisis as reflected in the untenable suffering of civilians both in Israel and in Lebanon. However, as he listened attentively to the dialogue he was struggling to discern the nexus between the crisis and the Convention. He noted that the Committee did not have a free-floating mandate; its work, its statements, and its pronouncements had to be tethered to the substantive provisions of the Convention. In other words, the intellectual integrity and credibility of the Committee were rooted in its discipline and faithfulness to the Convention. Therefore, if members wished to comment about the wrenching humanitarian crisis, they should certainly do so, but they should do so as concerned citizens of the world, not as a Committee without first having a firm understanding of the doctrinal and analytical connection between the Convention and the crisis and the threshold factual predicates that underlay that connection.

Mr. Boyd also argued that in order to be fair and credible, and persuasive, any statements members made should reasonably take account of each of three parties whose actions played a direct or contributory role in the crisis, including the non-State organization that was using Lebanese territory to launch attacks and the two State parties that continued to provide the organization and its members with material support and refuge.

RAGHAVAN VASUDEVAN PILLAI, Committee Expert, said that he originally felt he would not take the floor, first, because in the past he had been of the view the Committee should not discuss issues that did not fall specifically within its mandate. But he had been struck by reading that the Prime Minister of Lebanon had said that either way Lebanon was always made to bleed – sometimes less, sometimes more. It was necessary that the international community intervened to make sure the bleeding stopped. He admired the democratic values the society was trying to uphold and the secular community it was trying to build. What they were witnessing was a serious violation of human rights, and it went far beyond the issue of racial discrimination or the remit of the Committee under its Convention. But that should not stop them from voicing their anguish and profound sorrow and to urge the international community to use its will and resources to resolve the conflict.

JOSE FRANCISO CALITZAY, Committee Expert, said that he would just like to point something out from experience. They could go into an in-depth analysis of what did or did not cause a war, but one who had experienced it knew that the outcome left deep scars. Moreover, mass genocide was the highest level of racism that could exist, and they had to prevent that from happening in the present case. He felt that the United Nations should recover that international role, which it had lost.

MAHMOUD ABOUL-NASR, Committee Expert, objected to the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was not a terrorist organization; it was a resistance movement that was fighting foreign occupation, just as there had been during the Second World War.

RÉGIS DE GOUTTES, Chairperson of the Committee, in concluding remarks, said that he drew two lessons from this debate: one was that, as Ms. Dah had mentioned, the dividing line between political, humanitarian law, and human rights was not always possible to distinguish; and that all armed conflicts gave rise to the escalation of racial and cultural hatred, xenophobia and terrorism. The second was that, over and above the Committee’s specific mandate, it was felt that the Committee had a broader duty to address situations of grave violations of human rights. He requested the Bureau to consider follow-up modalities to the debate, highlighting the Committee’s solidarity with the statements of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner, and conveying if possible to the High Commissioner and the Human Rights Council the minutes of the present debate.

Debate on Follow-up Procedures

MORTEN KJAERUM, Coordinator on Follow-up of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, introducing his report on follow-up, said that, of the five countries for which follow-up reports were due on 1 April, two had submitted their reports on time – Australia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic – and, as a result of reminders sent to Azerbaijan, Bahrain and France on 24 May, France's report had been received today. 

Mr. Kjaerum had discussed the reports received from the two countries with their respective country rapporteurs and made recommendations to the Committee. In the case of Australia, he recommended that the Committee draft a letter asking for more information about the changes in the mandate and structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; stress the importance of a continuous dialogue between the Government of Australia and indigenous peoples in the wake of the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; provide further details on the reform of the native title system; and the Chairperson should explain the Committee's view on the concept of informed consent and request that the State party give it due consideration. The letter should simply stress those points, without requesting new information before the presentation of Australia's next periodic report in four years time.

Regarding the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the report recommended writing a letter to the Government to stress three points: first, that the penal code should refer specifically to discrimination on the basis of race, religion or colour, not just ethnicity; a request for greater information on protection for the Hmong people; and further information on the situation of those people in the next periodic report.

Mr. Kjaerum also introduced a report on his follow-up visit to Ireland, which he recommended be forwarded to the Irish Government.

Finally, Mr. Kjaerum observed that the Committee were still awaiting follow-up reports from Bahrain and Azerbaijan from the last period, and expected to receive reports in the period before the next Committee session from Georgia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia and Barbados.

The Committee adopted Mr. Kjaerum’s report on follow-up procedures.