6 The International Framework
UN Human Rights Council
139. The UN General Assembly established the
new Human Rights Council in March 2006. It succeeded the Commission
for Human Rights, which was abolished. Many Western states and
NGOs had felt the Commission for Human Rights had been too soft
on countries accused of serious human rights violations. In our
2006 Human Rights Report, we welcomed moves to establish the Council.[265]
140. The FCO's report states that "the Human
Rights Council remains a difficult environment within which to
deliver a progressive, active human rights policy". In particular,
it notes that "the perceived clash between freedom of expression
and the desire of certain countries to protect religions from
defamation" is a source of division within the Council.[266]
141. However, the FCO also asserts that "despite
the difficulties we face in the Council, there were positive moves
in 2008". It notes that although in its view the Council
still spends a disproportionate amount of time on the issue of
human rights problems in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,
there was a welcome reduction in the number of special sessions
and resolutions on the subject.[267]
142. The FCO's report contains, for the second
year in succession, a table showing the voting records of each
country in the Council on key resolutions (originally included
in response to a recommendation by the Committee[268]).
In last year's report, the table showed that out of the ten key
resolutions it provided, the Government voted against the resolution
seven times, abstained three times, and did not vote in favour
of any.[269] In this
year's report, the table shows that the balance has shifted towards
greater UK support for draft Council resolutions: out of eight
key resolutions, the Government voted against the resolution twice,
abstained three times, and voted in favour three times.[270]
143. The process of 'Universal Periodic Reviews'
instigated by the Council is now well advanced. This involves
a peer review of all member states of the UN once every four years
on their human rights practices, followed by adoption of a document
by the Council considering to what extent each state is meeting
its obligations under international human rights law and any voluntary
commitments it has made. The UK was the seventh country to have
its human rights records reviewed by the Council. The FCO claims
that "our open and comprehensive approach to the UPR helped
set the tone for the process".[271]
144. A significant development since publication
of the FCO's report has been the election of the United States
to a seat on the Council for the first time. The Obama Administration
has reversed the policy of its predecessor to boycott the Council
(on grounds of its failure to condemn human rights violations
in Darfur, and its alleged anti-Israel bias). In the vote by the
UN General Assembly on 12 May 2009, the US received 167 votes,
considerably more than the 97 needed in the secret ballot. In
March, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had welcomed the announcement
by the US that it would seek a seat on the Council, saying it
embodies the country's commitment to a "new era of engagement."[272]
The US took up its seat for the first time on 19 June 2009.[273]
145. Human rights groups have criticised the
Council for its resolution passed on 27 May 2009, at a special
session convened to discuss the human rights situation in Sri
Lanka following the military defeat of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam). The motion, proposed by the Sri Lankan government,
was supported by 29 countries including China, India, Egypt and
Cuba. It was opposed by 12 countries including the UK. It commends
the Sri Lankan government for its "continued commitment [
]
to the promotion and protection of all human rights", praises
its humanitarian record, condemns human rights abuses by the LTTE,
and reaffirms "the principle of non-interference in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States".[274]
146. A spokesperson for Amnesty International
said: "The vote is extremely disappointing and is a low point
for the Human Rights Council. It abandons hundreds of thousands
of people in Sri Lanka to cynical political considerations."[275]
Tom Porteous, London director of Human Rights Watch, told us that
"the performance of the Human Rights Council this year has
been particularly dismal, particularly over Sri Lanka [
]
The resolution in May was absolutely appalling. It was an opportunity
for the Human Rights Council to do what it is supposed to do,
which is to protect human rights, but it completely failed".[276]
147. We discuss the human rights situation in
Sri Lanka separately in paragraphs 257 to 274 below.
148. A more positive development has been the
vote in the Council on 18 June 2006, albeit by a narrow majority
(20 to 18, with 9 abstentions), to extend the mandate of the UN
Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Sudan, Dr Sima Samar.[277]
This proposal was carried against the wishes of the Sudanese government.
It has been reported that the United States played a significant
part in negotiating the text finally agreed.[278]
We discuss the human rights situation in Sudan in paragraphs 275
to 283 below.
149. Assessing the overall record of the Human
Rights Council, Kate Allen of Amnesty International told us that
the Council "continues to be politicised". However,
she noted "reasons for optimism" about its work, in
particular its promotion of Universal Periodic Reviews.[279]
150. On elections to the Council, Kate Allen
commented:
We are quite disturbed by the lack of competition
for places: this is sort of sewn up ahead of the actual elections,
so that we do not see votes taking place. That practice could
come back to bite the Human Rights Council over time and we could
start to see the likes of Zimbabwe and Sudan back here. But we
also welcome the USA's election to the council. That is a change
in terms of engagement that will, hopefully, start to provide
some real support there.[280]
151. Mr Miliband told us that the result of the
special session on Sri Lanka was "disappointing", and
reflected "deep divisions" within the UN "between
those who hold fast to a view that what goes on in a country is
its own business and does not belong on the international agenda,
and those who believe that it does". However, he defended
UK engagement with the Council and pointed to the Universal Periodic
Review process as a worthwhile achievement.[281]
152. We conclude that the UN
Human Rights Council's May 2009 resolution rejecting calls for
investigation of human rights violations in Sri Lanka is deeply
regrettable, and has damaged the credibility of the Council. We
recommend that the Government continues to promote the view that
significant transgressions of human rights committed by parties
to internal political conflicts should not be regarded as being
solely the "domestic business" of the state concerned.
We conclude that the international community has both a right
and a responsibility to express concern about, and where appropriate
to launch investigations into, situations where major abuses have
been alleged.
153. We conclude that other
aspects of the work of the Human Rights Council are to be applauded,
in particular the developing system of Universal Periodic Reviews,
and the decision to continue the international investigation of
human rights abuses in Sudan. We further conclude that the increase
in 2008 in the number of Council resolutions which the Government
was able to support is to be welcomed, and that it is to be hoped
that the participation of the United States will lead to a strengthening
of the positive work of the Council.
The Durban Review Conference
154. The UN Durban Review Conference, the follow-up
to the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, took place in Geneva in April
2009.
155. The UK agreed to take part in the conference
with reservations, having made clear that "we would not accept
a repeat of the appalling anti-Semitism seen at the first Durban
Conference in 2001". In negotiating in advance an outcome
text, the Government stated that it had
"resisted attempts for language calling for
restrictions to the right of freedom of expression, including
through the concept of 'defamation of religions', [
] secured
language on Holocaust remembrance [
] and the fight against
anti-Semitism, and successfully rebutted attempts to single-out
any country for criticism [
]. We also ensured the text
included references to multiple forms of discrimination - which
we interpret to cover also the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender people - and the importance of the right to freedom
of expression in combating racism.[282]
156. In the event, on the first day of the conference
(20 April), President Ahmadinejad of Iran delivered a speech containing
what the Foreign Secretary described as "offensive, inflammatory
and utterly unacceptable" comments describing Israel as a
"racist government" established on the "pretext
of Jewish suffering". On instructions agreed between several
like-minded countries, the UK delegationalong with a number
of others left the hall in protest. The delegation returned
to the hall once the Iranian President had finished speaking.
The Foreign Secretary justified the UK's decision to continue
to participate on the grounds that
"The fight against racism remains a global struggle.
Victims of racism deserve better than political squabbling and
intolerant polemics. I believe that the Government did the right
thing by remaining in the conference, having our voices heard,
and ensuring an acceptable outcome document." [283]
157. Human Rights Watch commented that it was
"satisfied with the constructive role the UK subsequently
played in [the Durban Review] Conference in obtaining an agreement
that led to a dropping of language on defamation of religion".
It noted that the UK's position was "in notable contrast
to several of its European and other allies who boycotted the
Conference, despite having obtained the language they wished".[284]
Tom Porteous told us that
I don't need to remind you [
] of the importance
of combating racism in all its forms. The Durban review process,
albeit flawed and difficult, is the only process at the international
level that makes that effort to address the problem of racism.
It is an issue that we especially cannot afford to ignore in a
time of global economic recession.[285]
158. Kate Allen told us that
we absolutely reject and condemn what was said by
the President of Iran, but we were pleased that the British Government
were there to argue and face down those kinds of issues and to
engage in discussions about racism and how to tackle it. It was
necessary to stay at the conference and confront those issues,
not ignore them.[286]
159. Mr Miliband said that the Government had
set two "red lines" for the conference: first, that
the resultant text should "brook no doubt about the unique
nature of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and a range of other issues",
and, second, that the UK would not participate if the conference
turned into "a bit of a circus" like the original Durban
conference in 2001. He argued that both red lines had been met.
In particular, he claimed that President Ahmadinejad's "attempt
to steal the show [
] failed: all he did was expose his own
isolation, including within the Islamic world, because one of
the most significant things that happened at the conference was
that important Islamic countries did not side with Iran".[287]
160. We conclude that the UK's
handling of the issue of participation in the "Durban Review
Conference" held in Geneva in April 2009 was well-judged.
The UK delegation left the conference hall in protest at President
Ahmadinejad's offensive and anti-Semitic remarks, but did not
allow his calculated provocation to derail the wider work of the
conference, in which the UK played a full part. We recommend that
the Government continues to support the positive work of the Durban
review process in combating racism worldwide, while at the same
time maintaining the right of freedom of expression in relation
to ideologies and beliefs, and defending the rights of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people.
International criminal law
161. The International Criminal Court (ICC),
based in the Hague, was set up under the "Rome Statute"
in 2002. Proceedings are either active or pending in the ICC in
relation to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in
the Democratic Republic of Congo (the trial of the militia leader
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo began in January 2009), Central African Republic
(Jean-Pierre Bemba , a former Vice-President of the DRC, is in
custody awaiting trial), Uganda (arrest warrants were issued in
2005 for senior leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army) and Darfur
(see next paragraph).[288]
162. In 2007 arrest warrants were issued for
the Sudanese government minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and the
Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb in connection with alleged
crimes in Darfur. These warrants remain outstanding, the Sudanese
government having refused to respect them. On 4 March 2009 a warrant
was issued for the arrest of the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir,
accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity .
Bashir has denied the charges and refused to co-operate with the
court.
163. On 12 June 2009 the Guardian reported that:
Efforts by the International Criminal Court to secure
the arrest of Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for alleged war
crimes in Darfur have stalled and are unlikely to move forward
in the foreseeable future, EU diplomats and Sudanese officials
say.[289]
164. In its report, the FCO notes that:
there has been some criticism directed at the Court
in 2008, accusing it of bias against Africa. We strongly disagree.
Although all four of the situations currently under investigation
are in Africa, three of these were referred to the Court by the
countries themselves. Thirty African states are party to the Rome
Statute - only Europe has a higher rate of ratification.[290]
165. Three of the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council (China, Russia and the US) have been critical
of the Court and are not States Parties to the Rome Statute. The
Obama Administration has not yet formally announced its policy
in regard to the ICC, but Secretary of State Clinton indicated
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we will end
hostility to towards the ICC, and look for opportunities to encourage
effective ICC action in ways that promote US interests by bringing
war criminals to justice."[291]
166. Giving evidence to us, Tom Porteous commented
that:
There is increasing polarisation in the world, particularly
between the west and the south, on the subject of sovereignty.
As we see a redistribution of global power from the west to the
east, the rise of China and the rise and influence of other states
that do not have particularly good human rights records and that
are keen to assert the principle of total sovereignty, we will
see more of this kind of thing.[292]
167. Mr Miliband told us that after 10 years'
existence the ICC has established itself and "there have
been some notable successes", but that, overall, "the
implementation of the Rome statute is clearly not going forward
in the way that we would like". He said that the Government
deplored the Sudanese government's rebuff to the Court over the
prosecution of Omar al-Bashir, which was an important test case
for the future of the ICC.[293]
Asked about the prospects for participation in the ICC by the
United States, Mr Miliband replied that "the new US Administration
is distinctly more multilateralist although I don't think that
the ICC is at the top of their list of multilateral re-engagement".[294]
168. We conclude that there
is mounting hostility to the International Criminal Court in Africa
and elsewhere, manifested most dramatically in Sudan's refusal
to co-operate with the Court. This reflects a deepening division
between Western countries and some other countries, particularly
those from the developing world, over issues of state sovereignty
in relation to human rights - exemplified also in the UN Human
Rights Council's recent rejection of international "interference"
in the investigation of alleged human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
We further conclude that such attitudes, if they continue to spread,
may have the effect of undermining the promotion of universal
human rights worldwide. We recommend that the Government works
to strengthen international support for the ICC, and for the principle
of bringing to justice those who commit war crimes or crimes against
humanity. We further recommend that it encourages the new Administration
in the United States to accede to the Rome Statute of the ICC,
which would mean that a majority of the Permanent Members of the
Security Council would have acceded, marking a significant step
towards the long-term aim of achieving universality of the Rome
Statute.
265 Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session
2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574, February
2006, para 15 Back
266
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2008, Cm 7557, March 2009, p 41 Back
267
Ibid., p41 Back
268
In Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2006-07,
Human Rights Annual Report 2006, HC 269, April 2007, para
19 Back
269
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2007, Cm7340, March 2008, pp 54-55 Back
270
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2008, Cm 7557, March 2009, pp 62-63 Back
271
Ibid., p 41 Back
272
"Ban welcomes US decision to seek seat on UN Human Rights
Council", UN News Centre, 31 March 2009, http://www.un.org/apps/news Back
273
Reuters, "U. S. takes seat at U.N. rights forum, urges unity",
19 June 2009, http://www.reuters.com Back
274
UN Human Rights Council Resolution S-11/1, "Assistance to
Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights",
agreed at Eleventh Special Session, 29 May 2009 Back
275
"UN rejects calls for Sri Lanka war crimes inquiry",
The Guardian, 28 May 2009, www.guardian.co.uk Back
276
Q 62 Back
277
Associated Press, "UN rights body votes to continue Sudan
scrutiny", 18 June 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap Back
278
Reuters, "U. S. takes seat at U.N. rights forum, urges unity",
19 June 2009, http://www.reuters.com Back
279
Q 62 Back
280
Q 62 Back
281
Q 179 Back
282
Written Ministerial Statement, "United Nations Durban Review
Conference", HC Deb, 28 April 2009, cols 41-42WS Back
283
Ibid. Back
284
Ev 103 (para 25) Back
285
Q 65 Back
286
Q 67 Back
287
Q 181 Back
288
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2008, Cm 7557, March 2009, p 47 Back
289
Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, 12 June 2009, "Sudan strengthened
as United Nations members ignore warrant for arrest of Bashir" Back
290
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2008, Cm 7557, March 2009, p 48 Back
291
http://www.amicc.org/docs/KerryClintonQFRs.pdf Back
292
Q 63 Back
293
Q 182 Back
294
Q 182 Back
|