[DEBATE] : (Fwd) SA in the UN: anti-Human Rights under guise of anti-West

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On Nov 18, 2007 9:47 AM, Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za> wrote:
> sunday times
> SA now skunk of the world
> ROWAN PHILP: London Published:Nov 18, 2007
>
>
> South Africa's human rights reputation is in tatters after a series of
> "sell-out" votes at the UN on issues ranging from rape and gay rights to
> tyranny.
>
> This week the watchdog UNWatch ranked South Africa last, alongside
> China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, on a human rights list.
>
> Human rights organisations have branded Pretoria "the chief human rights
> villain".
>
> SA is accused of
>
> # shielding Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of
> Congo and Myanmar.
>
> # opposing a resolution on human rights abuses in Darfur in November
> 2006 — choosing instead to praise Sudan's "co-operation";
>
> # opposing a motion for the Security Council to hear a briefing on the
> crisis in Zimbabwe in March this year;
>
> # helping to bar two major gay rights organisations from being
> accredited at the UN in July;
>
> # helping to remove all United Nations scrutiny of human rights abuses
> in Belarus and Cuba — the "worst rights abusers in Europe and the
> Americas" in June; and
>
> # opposing a Security Council briefing on human rights abuses in the DRC
> in June.
>
> Last week, the country led the blocking of a resolution condemning the
> use of rape as a weapon of war, saying it wanted more than just this
> form of rape condemned.
>
> Human Rights Watch's Steve Crawshaw said this was the "last straw".
>
> But Foreign Affai rs Director- General Ayanda Ntsaluba said some
> resolutions were designed to promote Western agendas. "A mockery is made
> of human rights, with the impression created that certain human rights
> violations are tolerable because they are committed in some countries."
>
> South Africa's ambassador to the UN, Dumisani Kumalo, accused the US of
> "whipping up the media, trying to make South Africa look bad".
>
> But UNWatch executive director Hillel Neuer said South Africa and India
> were "the biggest disappointments among free democracies".
>
> "Its [SA's] reputation has gone from pro-human rights to purely
> anti-Western," he said.

I had never heard of UNWatch till I saw this article, so I looked it
up, and look what I found:

<http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3625>
UN Watch

Founded in 1993 in Geneva, Switzerland, to monitor the compliance of
the United Nations with its charter, UN Watch is a zealously
pro-Israel non-governmental organization (NGO) with consultative
status to the UN Economic and Social Council, the UN organ that
"serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and
social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to
Member States and the United Nations system."

Affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, the former publisher of
the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary and founder of the
Transatlantic Institute, UN Watch serves as a quasi-watchdog group
aimed at criticizing the often one-sided, anti-Israel views expressed
by some members of the UN Human Rights Council. However, some
observers argue that the group is itself biased when it comes to the
rights situation in the Middle East. In his Guardian blog, the
commentator Ian Williams argued that UN Watch has been as "guilty of
hypocrisy" as some Human Rights Council members. He wrote: "Anyone
carrying a hypocrisy detector through the UN would be distracted by
its continuous beeping, as one would expect in places filled with
politicians and diplomats. But passing UN Watch's office would set it
beeping as well. If the organization could point to a single occasion
when it had condemned manifest Israeli transgressions of the human
rights of Palestinians, it would give itself a secure platform from
which to criticize the human rights council. UN Watch rightly
criticizes Sudan's refusal to let in a human rights council delegation
into Darfur. But then how, with a straight face, can it avoid
criticizing Israel for refusing to allow in rapporteurs from the same
council?" (April 4, 2007).

UN Watch director Hillel Neuer drew much attention to himself and his
organization in March 2007, when he used his opportunity to give
testimony to rail against the supposedly anti-Semitic council. "In
truth, the despots who run this council," opined Neuer, "couldn't care
less about Palestinians or any human rights. They seek to demonize
Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the
Jewish people. They also seek something else—to distort and pervert
the very language and idea of human rights."

The president of the council at the time, the ambassador from Mexico,
Luis Alfonso De Alba, responded: "For the first time in this session I
will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the
distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke ...
if you'd kindly listen to me, I am sorry but I am not in a position to
thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not
tolerate any similar statements in the council. The way in which the
members of this council are referred to, and indeed the way in which
the council was referred to—all of this is inadmissible. In the memory
of the persons you referred to, founders of the Human Rights
Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any
future statement to observe some minimum proper conduct and language,
otherwise any statement you make in similar tones to those used today
will be taken out of the records" (Testimony at the UN, March 23,
2007).

Commenting on the episode, Williams wrote in his blog: "Last week, the
ill-advised president of the council, Mexican diplomat Luis Alfonso De
Alba, who usually politely and formulaically thanks the 'distinguished
representatives' for their remarks, made a point of saying that he was
not thanking the UN Watch representative, Hillel Neuer—although, to be
fair, he did still call him 'distinguished.' ... Whatever the reason,
De Alba played right into his hands. The martyrdom of Hillel Neuer is
now played up in all the usual suspect neocon places, from the Wall
Street Journal's editorial page to the New York Sun and Canada's
National Post. The video has been circulated widely, with a call for
donations, and the usual cluckings about the UN. UN Watch will not be
getting a cheque from me. Not being thanked is not an attack on human
rights. Being threatened with censorship in the future could be. But
UN Watch refers to this speech as being censored. 'Banned: the speech
the UN refused to hear,' shouts the email that UN Watch sent out.
Which is odd, because the clip it is linking to on YouTube actually
comes from a UNTV webcast, which it acknowledges when it invites
people to download the Realplayer version" (April 4, 2007).

UN Watch has criticized those who have pointed to the one-sided nature
of the "war on terror," in particular Islamic countries that have
complained about how the "war" has been aimed mainly at Muslims. In a
commentary about preparatory meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2007
for a global conference on racism, UN Watch took aim at Pakistan,
which was representing the Organization of the Islamic Conference at
the meetings, for its criticism of "religious hatred, racial profiling
in the fight against terrorism, and the rejection of diversity and
multiculturalism." UN Watch rightly pointed out that in many Muslim
countries there is little acceptance of "diversity," but then went on
to say: "Pakistan—a country wherein gang rape is a court-ordered
punishment for women who commit the crime of speaking to the wrong
tribesman—is, of course, directing this charge [of rejection of
diversity] against Western countries, and them alone. Countries like
the United States, England, Holland—where anyone can pretty much do as
they please—are the ones accused here of 'rejection of diversity and
multiculturalism'" (see "Durban Review: Day Three," UN Watch, August
23, 2006).

Neuer was himself the apparent victim of profiling during a harrowing
experience in late 2007 at a restaurant outside Boston when he was
arrested at gunpoint after employees and customers called police
because they were concerned that Neuer was dangerous. Police had been
looking for a murder suspect in the area, and Neuer's behavior seemed
strange and erratic. Reported the Boston Herald (November 6, 2007):
"Chris Robbins, the restaurant owner, said his employees told him
Neuer asked for a cab five times, changed into a suit and darted out
to next-door CVS pharmacy halfway through his pizza. 'I don't think
there was any fault on our part,' he said. 'He was pacing back and
forth up and down the restaurant at enormous speeds. He was walking in
and out of the restaurant.' One pizza worker said Neuer looked nervous
and was 'constantly fixing himself and looking around,' a police
report states." Charges against Neuer were eventually dropped, and UN
Watch released a statement that said in part: "Mr. Neuer was an
innocent man who went to a restaurant in Needham, and was traumatized
and almost killed as a result" (UN Watch, November 6, 2007).

UN Watch was founded by Morris Abram, a former U.S. permanent
representative to the United Nations who died in 2000. According to
his UN Watch bio, "Ambassador Abram served five American
presidents—John F. Kennedy, as general counsel of the Peace Corps;
Lyndon B. Johnson, as U.S. representative to the UN Commission on
Human Rights and as co-chairman of the planning session of the 1965
White House Conference on Civil Rights; Jimmy Carter, as chairman of
the president's Commission for the Study of the Ethical Problems of
Medicine; Ronald Reagan, as vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights; and George Bush, as U.S. permanent representative to the
United Nations in Geneva."

Like many Israel supporters in and out of the United States, Abram was
particularly concerned about a supposed anti-Israel UN bias. In his
July 14, 1999 testimony to the House Committee on International
Relations, Abram listed a number of UN actions that he claimed pointed
to a pattern of unfair treatment toward Israel. His allegations
included: (1) "Israel is the only state whose alleged violations of
human rights occupy a single agenda item at the annual UN Commission
on Human Rights. The violations that occur in the remaining 184 Member
States are examined collectively under another single agenda item.
Only Israel has its name prominently targeted;" (2) "[Israel] is the
only state whose aggressors in three wars have not been challenged by
the Security Council. It is the only state out of 185 UN Member States
excluded from membership in any regional group, rendering it
ineligible to serve on the Security Council, the UN Commission on
Human Rights, and other important UN decision-making bodies;" and (3)
"It is the only state investigated by a Special Rapporteur with an
open-ended mandate that presupposes Israel's human rights violations.
Special Rapporteurs for all other countries have mandates of limited
duration with objective fact-finding missions."

However, unlike much of the rightist pro-Israel lobby in the United
States, including the neoconservatives, Abram actively promoted
continued U.S. support for the United Nations, arguing in his 1999
House testimony that UN Watch "categorically supports the UN as an
indispensable institution. The United States should pay its past dues
to the UN as a matter of national honor and in recognition of the UN's
importance. In spite of the UN's flaws, it is inconceivable that the
United States withhold support from the only truly global organization
in such an interdependent world." He added: "I recognize and take into
full account the vagaries and contradictions in international
diplomacy. I accept the primacy of realpolitik in international
relations, and that some of the mistreatment of Israel within the UN
may be attributed to such factors. However, the accumulation of
attacks against Israel within the UN, as now occurs against no other
State, cannot be simply dismissed as politics."

In recognition of UN Watch's work, Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote
in a 1997 letter to Abram, quoted on the UN Watch website: "I deeply
appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that
informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations' activities
will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the
needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close
attention to your observations and view in the years ahead."

Under Neuer, UN Watch seems to have increasingly taken on the mantle
of many hardline critics of the international body. In a September 29,
2006 press release, the group argued: "This afternoon in Geneva the UN
Human Rights Council will return to condemnations of Israel, with the
presentation of new reports as mandated by prior resolutions that were
criticized as one-sided by Western democracies and human rights
groups. 'Sadly, the constructive part of this Council session—reports
by the Council's 40 independent monitors on human rights situations
around the world—is now over,' said Hillel Neuer, executive director
of UN Watch. ... 'Anyone observing the Council's agenda over the next
week might easily mistake it for a meeting of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference.'"

In a 2006 "Take Action" posting on its website, UN Watch asked its
readers to sign on to an e-mail petition urging the ouster of Iran
from the United Nations. Suggested content for the e-mail was: "It's
time to tell Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his promotion
of hatred and destruction—his repeated denial of the Holocaust, his
explicit incitement to eliminate Israel, his mad pursuit of nuclear
weapons in defiance of the international community—carries a price. A
government that systematically denies one genocide while actively
seeking another stands in contempt of the principles of the United
Nations."

Although largely focused on issues in the Middle East and anti-Israel
bias in the United Nations, UN Watch also addresses other
international topics. It has posted reports about human rights in
Cuba, promoted stronger UN action in Darfur, and critiqued the
formulation of the new UN Human Rights Council, which according to
Neuer has proven to be a "profound disappointment." In a September 7,
2006 editorial for the International Herald Tribune, Neuer argued that
among the new council's many failures is that it has "provided further
encouragement to Islamic extremists by adopting a resolution against
'defamation of religions'—a thinly veiled endorsement of the fury of
violence that followed the Danish cartoon controversy and an attempt
to silence Middle East dissidents by equating democracy with
blasphemy" (International Herald Tribune, September 7, 2006).

Although it advocates a "just application of UN Charter principles,"
UN Watch's preoccupation with Middle East affairs is almost
exclusively focused on anti-Semitism and violations committed by
Islamic extremists. On November 1, 2007, UN Watch published "United
Nations and Anti-Semitism: 2004-2007 Report Card."

Among the 13 joint letters and statements posted on its website
between April 2004 and September 2006, nearly half were concerned with
issues of anti-Semitism and threats to Israel. Not one mentioned
alleged abuses of Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories.
Why this selectivity? Because according to UN Watch "the
disproportionate attention and unfair treatment applied by the UN
toward Israel over the years offers an object lesson (though not the
only one) in how due process, equal treatment, and other fundamental
principles of the UN Charter are often ignored or selectively upheld."
	

Contact Information

UN Watch
Case Postale 191
1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Tel: +41-22-734-1472
Fax: +41-22-734-1613

International Board Members

    * Per Ahlmark
    * Irwin Cotler
    * David A. Harris
    * Jeane Kirkpatrick
    * Alfred H. Moses
    * Ruth Wedgwood

Sources

Ian Williams, "Casting the First Stone," Guardian "Comment is Free"
blog, April 4, 2007,
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_williams/2007/04/it_was_a_makemyday_event.html
.

UN Watch, Testimony of Hillel Neuer, March 23, 2007, "Human Rights
Nightmare," http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367
.

"Durban Review: Day Three," UN Watch, August 23, 2006.

UN Watch, "UN Watch Director 'Victimized' on Massachusetts Visit,"
Press Release, November 6, 2007.

Jessica Fargen, "Judge Dismisses Charge against Man Caught during
Needham Frenzy," Boston Herald , November 6, 2007.

UN Watch, http://www.unwatch.org.

UN Economic and Social Council: Background,
http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/ecosoc_background.html.

Morris B. Abram, "The Treatment of Israel by the United Nations,"
Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on International Relations,
July 14, 1999, http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1330827/apps/nl/content2.asp?
content _id={4FB03412-DE83-4276-9400-5DEC91380194}&notoc=1.

UN Watch press release, "UN Human Rights Council Returns to Slamming
Israel," September 29, 2006.

UN Watch, "Take Action: Tell the UN: Expel Ahmadinejad's Iran,"
http://www.unwatch.org/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1288071/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?aid=7521.

Hillel Neuer, "So Far, a Profound Disappointment," International
Herald Tribune, September 7, 2006.

-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>