UNHRC: Ignoring human rights abuses (unless they’re Israel’s)

The UN Human Rights Council voted to send the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council for further consideration. Of course they did. The fix has been in since the biased mandate was given last year—the mandate that the news media all pretend was evenhanded.

The resolution – which also condemns recent Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem – endorses the report’s recommendation that both sides in the conflict should show the Security Council within six months that they are carrying out credible investigations into alleged abuses. If they are not, the matter should then be referred to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

Both sides are in violation of… well, something. Both sides must carry out “credible” investigations. And if not, both sides will be referred to the ICC. Shall we start a pool now on how, in six months, Hamas doesn’t even come up in the resolution to refer Israel to the ICC?

But let’s step back a moment and see exactly how the UNHRC works. In particular, let’s take a look at part of the report on the review of the Central African Republic. (For some light background reading, you can read this 23-page report at Human Rights Watch. Or just read the summary here.)

Here are a few choice bits of the draft of the UNHRC report from the current (12th) session:

219. In relation to recommendation 35, the delegation indicated that all press offences had been abolished, while noting that journalists may be guilty of common law offences, such as defamation and press offences defined by the High Communication Council.

221. Regarding recommendations 25 and 33, the delegation underlined that, in accordance with the Constitution, the judiciary was a branch power which independence was guaranteed through a number of management bodies. Despite some problems, such as arbitrary arrests, corruption and other irregularities, several projects were being undertaken, with the financial assistance of the United Nations Development Programme.

223. In relation to recommendations 11, 16-19, 27-29, and 30, the delegation underscored that the Central African Republic had ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Female genital mutilations are not practiced throughout the territory and are prohibited by law. However, cultural beliefs/practices and the interests of practitioners made its full implementation challenging. The Family code was being reviewed to ensure its compliance with international standards, and with a view to either maintaining or abolishing polygamy. The delegation stressed that due to cultural concerns, the Central African Republic was not ready to sign a declaration on discrimination based on sexual orientation, adding that no law prohibited or authorized it.

Let us note that the Central African Republic is shutting down press freedom, making arbitrary arrests, has a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, refuses to end discrimination against homosexuals, and insists that female genital mutilation is not a state problem, but rather a cultural phenomenon. Hold those thoughts, though, because this is my personal favorite part of the report:

224. On the recommendation to remove reference to the crime of witchcraft in the penal code, the delegation indicated that witchcraft was a reality in Central Africa. The Government envisaged training prison wardens who committed violence against women suspected of witchcraft and developing sensitization programmes to modify behaviours of the population and of the justice system.

Now, remember this. The representatives of the CAR told the UNHRC that witchcraft is a reality in Central Africa, and therefore, they will not remove the laws against witches on the books. They might, however, educate prison guards to stop raping women who are in prison for being accused of witchcraft. That is, they “envisage” it. Could happen. Someday.

What was the result of this review of a major human rights offender?

228. The Russian Federation congratulated the Central African Republic for having given its consent to approximately two thirds of the recommendations and for having expressed its willingness to study others. It noted the voluntary commitments taken by the State including the adoption of the national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights and a new criminal code. It wished the Central African Republic maximum success in realizing all accepted commitments and future progress in promoting and protection of human rights.

229. Egypt welcomed the comprehensive presentation by the Central African Republic. It stressed that despite many challenges and constraints, the government had made efforts to promote human rights, which resulted in considerable progress and the attainment of stability since the adoption of the 2004 Constitution. It appreciated the responses given to recommendations and reiterated its call that the State continue its efforts to promote all universally agreed human rights and fundamental freedoms and to resist attempts to enforce any values or standards beyond the universally agreed ones. It also encouraged the State to implement its penal code in conformity with the universally agreed human rights standards, including the application of the death penalty.

230. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya commended the government for its efforts, including regarding poverty reduction, economic reforms, ratification of most human rights international instruments and reforms aimed at guarantying women’s rights. It stressed that support from the international community was important to reach the Millennium Development Goals and to promote human rights. It considered that voluntary commitments made by the State during the presentation of its national report were highly important.

232. The United States welcomed the Central African Republic’s efforts to improve human rights. It remained concerned about the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights abuses in the security forces, including the presidential guard. It strongly supported the recommendations to investigate abuses and hold those responsible of violations accountable, and to incorporate human rights training into the military training. It appreciated the State’s efforts on the issue of child soldiers and to undertake reforms of the justice system, its willingness to work with human rights organizations and encouraged the State to continue allowing special procedures to visit the country. It welcomed the national action plan on gender-based violence.

Compare this to what the same states say about Israel on a regular basis. And then, tell me there is no anti-Israel bias in the United Nations. No, I’m not speaking to my regular readers, who already know that. I’m speaking to the rest of the world. J’accuse.