A United Nations committee is expected to block an attempt by the United States and European nations to single out six countries — Iran, North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — for condemnation on human rights abuses. Arguing that Western nations have double standards on human rights, all six countries will be using a procedural device to thwart the adoption of the six resolutions by calling for “no action motions”. (23-NOV-05)
This article, written by Thalif Deen, was first released by Inter Press Service on 16 November. It has been edited for republication here.
The adoption of six no-action motions — under rule 116 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure — will prevent the resolutions being put to a vote at a meeting of the Third Committee later this week. If the motions are approved, they will eventually go before the 191-member General Assembly, the U.N.’s highest policy- making body, for ratification next month. Traditionally, voting in the General Assembly mirrors committee voting.
-This time, the revolt has spread
With heavy canvassing for votes, the survival of the no-action motions would depend on the political clout wielded by each of the six countries. Sudan is believed to have the best chance of survival because African countries have closed ranks in support of a member of the 53-nation African Union (AU). For the first time last year, Belarus, Sudan and Zimbabwe escaped condemnation by the General Assembly by resorting to no-action motions. All three were approved by majority votes in the Third Committee last November. “This time the revolt has spread to other countries as well,” said an Asian diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity, “because the general feeling is that it is unfair to have country-specific resolutions condemning human rights violations when member states such as Israel and the United States get away with murder.”
-No country should be immune
The United States has come under heavy fire for human rights violations, including torture and ill treatment by U.S. forces of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Israel has come under continuous criticism for human rights abuses and heavy-handed treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. But still, there have been no country-specific resolutions either against the United States or Israel. Belarus, which initiated a resolution last year critical of U.S. human rights abuses, withdrew it at the eleventh hour. “The primary reason my delegation introduced the draft (resolution) was to demonstrate to the international community that no country in the world was immune to human rights problems and should, therefore, not be exempt from international scrutiny,” Ambassador Andrei Dapkiunas of Belarus told delegates last year. The draft resolution had achieved that objective, he added, as he withdrew it from consideration by the committee.
-All countries should be considered on its own merits only
In a statement released Wednesday, Amnesty International urged U.N. member states to consider the human rights situation in any country on its merits and to take appropriate action. Amnesty International said it is “deeply concerned” about reports that “no action motions” may be introduced shortly in the Third Committee of the General Assembly to avoid considering the serious human rights situations in Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS that at the recently-concluded U.N. summit, world leaders committed themselves to strengthening the U.N.’s human rights machinery by approving the creation of new Human Rights Council. “The Third Committee — which deals with human rights — must not undermine this commitment by using procedural motions to avoid acting on specific country situations,” she added. Amnesty International appeals to all member states to consider country situations openly and transparently solely on their merits, and, in doing so, treat human rights with the seriousness they deserve.
-No action motions undermine the credibility of the entire UN
No action motions have also helped undermine the credibility of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. “The same must not happen with the General Assembly. Amnesty International opposes all ‘no action motions’ as a matter of principle because they prevent the General Assembly from considering the human rights situations in any country on its merits,” she added. In its statement, Amnesty International also said that no action motions stifle debate, prevent consideration of serious human rights situations and substantively undermine the General Assembly’s ability to assist in the realisation of human rights for all without any distinction, as the U.N. Charter requires.
