---------------
http://www.nation.lk/2008/06/01/special6.htm
UN member states recognise de-facto and independent states
(ÔThe NationÕ on Sunday – 01 June 2008)
By S.V. Kirubaharan
* * * * * * *
UN member states recognise de-facto and independent states
By S. V. Kirubaharan
General Secretary – Tamil Centre for Human Rights, France
World Wars-I and II (1914-1918 and 1939-1945) propelled the need and sowed the seeds for a world body, the United Nations - UN. But before the formation of the UN, soon after World War I, the League of Nations - LON was established under the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The International Labour Organisation – ILO was also created as an affiliated organisation of the LON.
By the mid-1930s, after some years of existence, it became evident that the LON was unable to exert pressure to halt the rise of fascism and Nazism in Italy and Germany. In 1935 when Italy attacked Ethiopia with mustard gas, the LON could neither stop nor penalise Italy. With the beginning of World War II the LON ceased to function, but existed officially until the United Nations started its formal functions in 1945.
Prior to the formation of the LON and the UN, however, there were three international institutions established to coordinate affairs connected to international politics and communication.
On 17 May 1865, the International Telegraph Union – ITU, was founded in Paris and established its headquarters in Bern, Switzerland in 1868. The Universal Postal Union – UPU (International Postal Union), was established in 1874 with its headquarters in Bern, to coordinate and exchange mail globally by sea and air. Even though these organisations were established long before the birth of the LON and UN, they have both been incorporated today into the wider UN system and remain as specialised agencies.
Then in 1889, two Parliamentarians from the United Kingdom and France established the "Inter-Parliamentary Union – IPU" as an International organisation to deal with multilateral political affairs of Parliaments of sovereign States. The IPU consists of Members of Parliaments from around the World, and still remains, with its unique identity, supporting the task of the United Nations.
Birth of United Nations
Immediately after the catastrophic damage inflicted on world peace and security by World War II, today's super-powers or the Permanent members of the UN, (except the PeopleÕs Republic of China), accelerated their initiatives and established the United Nations in October 1945. At the same time, the UN Charter, which could be considered as a set of possible guidelines to maintain law and order among the member states, came into force, initially with 51 states. By the time it started its actual business in 1948, it had been endorsed by 58 States.
In 1949, after very long and exhausting discussions in the UN, Israel was granted membership. During that period, among the UN member states, there were few states of the current, 'Organisation of Islamic Conference - OIC': Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Indonesia. This brought good fortune for Israel. In fact, the OIC was established only on 25 September 1969, upon a decision in a summit that took place in Morocco.
Sri LankaÕs application for UN membership vetoed by USSR
By 1955, the number of UN member states had increased to 76, of which Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was one. It is to be noted CeylonÕs application for UN membership was vetoed four times by the USSR – on 18 August 1948, 15 December 1948, 13 September 1949 and 13 December 1955. During that period, this was the highest number of vetoes used against an independent state, seeking UN membership. The USSR used the veto because of the Ceylon-British defence agreement, under which Britain had control of the Airport and the Naval base in Trincomalee in Ceylon. Therefore, The USSR insisted that Ceylon was not an independent nation state. However, Ceylon was granted membership as part of a Òpackage dealÓ, on 14 December 1955.
After exactly ten years, the number of UN member states had increased to 117 and by 1974 it had risen to 138, including the admission of Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau. Today with the entry of Eritrea, Timor-Leste/East-Timor and Montenegro it has increased to 192 states, including new states from USSR and Eastern Europe. On 25 August 1972, an initiative made by the USSR and India for the UN membership of Bangladesh had been vetoed by the PeopleÕs Republic of China – PRC. Bangladesh was however granted membership three years after its independence. The World Press never failed to highlight the hypocrisy of the PRC - Óhow could a country (PRC) which itself had been kept out of the UN for a long time, deny the right of admission to another independence state?Ó
Confusion over Chinese membership
In 1945, China had been one of the key countries which had established the United Nations. At that time the 'Chinese Revolution' was at the peak of success or in the final stage. Endorsement by the Chinese to the UN Charter, was obviously by the Chiang Kai-ShekÕs Kuomintang (KMT) regime which was known as the Republic of China - ROC. It is well known that this regime was later over-thrown by the People's Liberation Army, under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung, in October 1949. The defeated 'Chiang Kai-Shek, his supporters and a section of the National Army moved from the mainland PRC, into the island of Taiwan and proclaimed the island as Republic of China - ROC.
Since the victory of the Chinese revolution, the PeopleÕs Republic of China - PRC, has maintained a policy that the ROC is part of the PRC. Both China(s) refused to recognise each other. There are 24 states which have official diplomatic relationship with the ROC – Belize, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Burkina Faso, Gambia, S‹o TomŽ and Pr’ncipe, Swaziland, Vatican City, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. The PRC does not maintain any diplomatic relationship with countries which have recognised the ROC. Bhutan has no diplomatic relations with either China(s), but in 1971 voted in favour of the PRC's entry into the UN.
On 23 November 1971 the ROC was replaced by the PRC in the UN Security Council. Thus, ÕVetoÕ power was obviously granted to the PRC. However the UN offered the ROC the possibility of remaining in the UN as a member in the General Assembly. Then ROC President Chiang Kai-shek refused to accept the offer, saying that the ROC would not remain in the UN, if the PRC was allowed membership. Since 1991 the ROCÕs application for full membership and its request for non-member observer status with the UN have been consistently denied. Anyhow the ROC continues to be an economically viable state in South East Asia. Due to significant economic growth of the ROC, today it has become one of the Four Asian Tigers / East Asian Tigers. The others are - Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
The ROC is a good example of the fact that UN membership is not a pre-requisite for the existence and economic vibrancy of a state.
Recognition of new and de-facto states
When we consider examples of recognition of other new states and de-facto states, we see that:- the state of Israel does not have official relations with nearly thirty UN member states; Cyprus is not recognised by Turkey; North and South Korea have not recognised each other and Palestinian independence in 1988 was not recognised by some countries. In the meantime – Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic - SADR (Western Saharan/Polisario) declared independence (27 February 1976 - 266,000 km² / 102,703 sq miles) from Morocco and formed a government in exile in Algeria. Western SaharaÕs independence was recognised by more than forty-five UN membersÕ states and since 1984, the country has been granted full membership in the regional body, the African Union – AU, formerly known as the Organisation of African Unity - OAU. As a consequence Morocco left the AU, and is no more a member of that body.
When analysing further realities of the emerging independence of new states and de-facto states, more examples abound. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Turkish Cypriots) declared independence in 1983. It is recognised by the UN member state Turkey, and since 1979 has been granted observer status with the OIC. There are a few other de-facto states waiting for recognition: - the Republic of South Assetia (28 November 1991 - 3,900 km² / 1,506 sq miles) and the Republic of Abhazia (23 July 1992 – 8,432 km² / 3,256 sq miles) in Georgia and Nagorno Karabakh (6 January 1992 - 11,458.38 km² / 4,424.10 sq miles) in the Republic of Azerbajan. The Republic of Somaliland asserted its independence (18 May 1991 - 176,210 km² / 68,035 sq miles), without any international recognition but it has political relationships with many Western countries including with the AU and the EU. Not to be forgotten is the fact that the Transnistria Maldown Republic in the Republic of Moldeva declared independence (July 1992 - 4,163 km² / 1,607 sq miles), and so is yet another case. It is needless to say that many of those involved in independence movements were branded as terrorists by the concerned States.
It is clear that the existence, recognition and independence of viable states, do not depend necessarily on membership in the UN. The most recent example of independence is that of Kosovo, which declared independence from a UN member state, Serbia. It is to be noted that KosovoÕs independence was recognised by three permanent members of the UN Security Council and by many other Western countries, signalling more hope and encouragement to people who are struggling for freedom on the basis of their right to self-determination, an important legal principle supported by the UN Charter and as such, articulated in the first article of the two major covenants of the UN – the ICCPR and ICESCR and many other human rights instruments.
Encouragement to other de-facto states
De-facto States in various countries, waiting for recognition by UN member states, like Kosovo and the economically viable states like ROC, encourage other de-facto states to be more positive about their independence, recognition, stability and cooperation with states of their choice. UN membership is not an exclusive factor for independence, as has been seen. As far as countries in Europe are concerned, ÕThe land of the AlpsÕ, Switzerland is another good example regarding the question of UN membership. Switzerland chose to become a member of the UN only in 2002. During the same period newly born Timor-Leste/East-Timor also became a member. Until then Switzerland had remained only as an Observer in the UN.
Tamil Eelam as most vibrant de-facto state
Among all these de-facto states, Tamil Eelam (19,509 km²) is one of the most vibrant, compared even with many independent UN member states. Tamil Eelam is in the island of Sri Lanka, situated between Sri Lanka and India. It has all the infra-structure (Law and order, Social, Economic, Education, etc) that other states possess and also has all four forces – Army, Navy, Air-force and Police, which in fact many of the UN member states do not have. Tamil Eelam has a long history, its unique language, culture, well marked frontiers, etc. In the 1960s, an anomaly in Sri Lanka which elicited much mirth was that Sri Lanka had an Air Force without a plane but Tamil Eelam has everything but has not yet declared independence. Presently Tamil Eelam is lacking in only three things. One, it has not declared its independence; secondly, it is waiting recognition and thirdly, even though it has its own financial institutions, it is using the Sri Lankan currency in place of its own. Therefore it is the right time for Tamil Eelam to think of introducing its own currency and to work hard for its international recognition.
S. V. Kirubaharan
General Secretary
Tamil Centre for Human Rights, France
22 May 2008
------------
Can Sri Lanka place its candidate for the post of
UN Secretary General?
By S. V. Kirubaharan
Further to my article, “Pre-condition needed for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations” (http://www.tamilinfoservice.com/exclusive/art/2004/jan5.htm) of 29 December 2003, I write now with the latest information.
In my article I mentioned that the United Nations should establish pre-conditions for candidates who wish to contest for the post of Secretary General. It is obvious that the candidates should come from a member country. Also the country should have respect for human rights – not only on paper but also as demonstrated by their actions. I mentioned that the Rome statute of the International Criminal court could be a yard stick for this screening.
So far the UN has seen seven Secretary Generals. Kofi Annan was the first UN staff member to reach this position.
When one looks at the mechanisms of the UN, there are several Conventions, Covenants and Declarations promoting peace, security and human rights. Unfortunately many international laws are seriously violated by several states, even after they become party to the same. Some states have no interest in becoming party to certain Conventions and Covenants. Furthermore some states have signed them with reservations to particular articles.
States which have no respect either for the United Nations or for international law are yearning for the post of Secretary General. These countries are serious violators of human rights, where racial riots, ethnic conflict, armed conflict and bloody conflicts are taking place. Obviously those countries seek the post of Secretary General for their own benefit, rather than for universal peace, security and promotion and protection of human rights.
I wrote in my previous article that anyone who associates with states
which have no respect for human rights, supports of aggressive states,
advocates violence and inhumanity should be kept well away from the post
of Secretary General.
In Mr Kofi Annan’s speech on 7 April 2005, to the 61st session of
the Commission on Human Rights – CHR in Geneva, he proposed a reform
agenda for the CHR. Kofi Annan said, "….. Unless we re-make
our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence
in the United Nations itself.
"……….. I turn now to the most dramatic of my proposals. As you know, I have recommended that Member States replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller Human Rights Council.
"……… The new Human Rights Council must be a society of the committed. It must be more accountable and more representative. That is why I have suggested that members be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, and that those elected should have a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards. Being elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly should help make members more accountable, and the body as a whole more representative. "
Kofi Annan's proposal is for discussion and possible amendment. However, suppose it were to be taken as the yardstick for the membership of the CHR, obviously many of the present fifty three members would be removed from this august forum. It is disappointing that countries which are not even qualified to be a member in the Commission on Human Rights are yearning for the world top position.
It is said that the present Secretary General's term ends in December 2006 and it is believed that on the principal of geographical rotation, the next Secretary General could be from the Asian group.
If we consider commitment to the highest human rights standards in Kofi Annan's proposed reform agenda for the CHR, and ratification of the Rome statute of the International Criminal court as the pre-conditions for the candidature to the post of Secretary General - out of nearly fifty member states from the Asian group - there would be only twelve countries qualified to place their candidates for the post of Secretary General as of 12 May 2005.
From the Asian group Fiji was the first country to become party to the Rome Statute followed by the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Cyprus, Cambodia, Mongolia, Jordan, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Samoa, Republic of Korea and Afghanistan. The other countries in Asia have not even considered becoming a party to it.
One wonders why UN member countries are reluctant to sign the Rome Statute. Could it be that there are individuals in their countries who were/are involved in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes?
The official website of the Government of Sri Lanka announced last December that, "Peace Secretariat Chief Jayantha Dhanapala is Sri Lanka’s nominee for the top UN post. The announcement was made by Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in Parliament.” (December 6, 2004)
In Sri Lanka, there is an Ethnic conflict which has resulted in twenty years of bloody war. Over 79,000 people have been killed or “disappeared”; more than 12,500 women raped and killed; more than two thousand five hundred buildings of religious places of worship have been destroyed in aerial bombings and artillery shelling and billions worth of material damaged in aerial bombing and shelling. As a result of ethnic cleansing, nearly 800,000 people were internally displaced and more than 500,000 people have sought political asylum in Europe and other countries. During the last three years of cease-fire, the victims have not found either redress or remedies.
In recent years, Sri Lanka was declared to be the country with the second highest number of Disappearances in the world, by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. So far no proper remedies have been found for these disappearances.
More than twenty-eight years of Emergency rule combined with twenty-four years of draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), allow the security forces in the Island to violate human rights with impunity.
In the recent past, Sri Lanka’s attitude towards the United Nations, its Secretary Generals and some International NGOs has been disturbing. I would like to quote a few incidents here which cannot easily be brushed under the carpet in a civilised world.
1 - After the bombing of a church on 9 July 1995, in which 165 people were massacred, the ICRC which had personnel on the spot issued a news release deploring the loss of life. The Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the ICRC chief and warned him not to interfere.
2 - In September 1995, “Medecins sans Frontieres - MSF”, the international NGO which works with the war-injured, issued a press release on a bombing which killed 71 children and injured 100. When UNESCO took up this matter with the government based on MSF reporting, Sri Lanka castigated UNESCO.
3 - In November 1995, when the UN Secretary General at that time, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, called for aid on a significant scale to help 800,000 Tamil refugees, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Kadirgamar discredited Boutros Ghali saying that the Secretary General did not know the facts, and that there were only 100,000 refugees - as if even those 100,000 refugees did not deserve help.
4 - In September 1999 criticism and denigration were heaped upon the United Nations for condemning the killing of civilians. The BBC reported:
"Mr Kadirgamar was quoted by the state-run Daily News as saying the UN should be concerned with malaria and mosquitoes and should not try to expand its mandate.
"…… Mr Kadirgamar told the Daily News he would not tolerate UN officials commenting on domestic issues. Mr Kadirgamar, who is in New York attending the UN General Assembly meetings, said if he had been in Colombo he would have given the organisation a dressing down.
"He said that apart from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN agency's mandate only allowed them to be involved in the social and economic development.
"He also criticised the International Committee of the Red Cross for its statement on what it called the alarming increase in the number of civilian casualties". (Excerpts - BBC News - Monday, September 27, 1999 )
5 - On 7th January this year, Kofi Annan made a humanitarian visit to Sri Lanka - a country severely affected by the devastating Tsunami on 26 December 2004. Kofi Annan requested to visit the North East, the areas in the island most affected by the tsunami. The Sri Lankan authorities prevented the UN Secretary General from making a humanitarian visit. This is a serious violation of the UN Charter, Chapter XV Article 100.
On Saturday 8 January 2005, Kofi Annan told Reuters in Sri Lanka that, "I am here on a humanitarian mission. I would like to visit all the areas, but as you know I am here as a guest of the government and they set the itinerary." Reuters also quoted UN officials who said, "it is a relief visit, not a political one. The secretary general wanted to go, but it just didn't happen," said one official on condition of anonymity.
The Sri Lankan Minister of Foreign affairs attempted to justify this on 22 March 2005 in his interview with Zeinab Badawi in the HARDtalk programme of the BBC world service.
Mr. Kadirgamar, addressing the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, on 15 March 2005, spoke with lack of factual accuracy regarding recent incidents which have taken place in the Island. He also said "……….. Sri Lanka today is well on its way to achieving the Millennium Development Goals,……."! This was said three months after the Tsunami had badly hit the island.
It is not unusual for certain government dignitaries and representatives to say things which lack factual accuracy, in the Commission on Human Rights. Participants of the UN CHR know that, if everything is going smoothly in a particular country, it is not necessary for a dignitary from that country to travel to Geneva to address the forum. Also participants are aware that state representatives will not say to the CHR, “sorry we are violating human rights in our country”.
In fact, those who speak during “High level segment” in the UN Commission belong to two categories. One addresses this forum in the interest of promoting and protecting human rights and the second addresses the forum to defend what they are doing in their country. Sri Lanka belongs to the second category.
During the last Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the Sri Lanka representative Sarala Fernando quoted UNICEF and UNHCR in order to reply to accusations of discrimination in Tsunami relief distribution. A veteran member of civil society from Sri Lanka said, "the professional liars who were based in Geneva are back in Colombo and sending their usual lies to the CHR. UNICEF, UNCHR and other institutions should take pre-cautions regarding this underhand business by Sri Lanka.”
A few days after Kofi Annan made his speech to the CHR, on 12 April, the Commission held a special information session to discuss the Secretary General's reform proposals. In this session, Sarala Fernando said, "………the Secretary-General had proposed that members of the Human Rights Council should have a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards. What could be the possible benchmarks in that regard? Should those benchmarks include action by States to become parties to all major human rights treaties? Sri Lanka, as a country, which had demonstrated commitment to openness and accountability,……"
Yet in fact, this is a country which does not match the said proposals by Kofi Annan.
It is true that Sri Lanka has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - ICCPR and its (first) optional protocol. However, it has not ratified the second Optional Protocol, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Generally the happenings in Sri Lanka contradict what they have signed and what they are saying in the UN. If there is a genuine commitment to human rights, could the government advocate for the reintroduction of "Capital punishment"?
BBC Sinhala news of 22 November 2004 reported, “…..Joining international human rights organisations in opposing the move Amnesty International wrote to the president in April 1999 saying that resumption of executions after 23 years of being a de facto abolitionist country would be blight on Sri Lanka's reputation and seriously undermine international confidence in the government's commitment to human rights and reform". …………… Nimal Punchihewa said the human race now call themselves "civilised" as they have got rid of inhuman methods such as capital punishment. "If we are going back to it, that means we are going against the civilisation." (Excerpt)
One of the reasons given for the re-introduction of the death penalty in Sri Lanka was that the crime rate is rising. Recent statistics have shown that, wherever capital punishment is in operation, the crime rate has not fallen. Therefore the reintroduction of the death penalty to prevent crime is not acceptable and furthermore it is a violation of international law.
With all this, the government, which talks about its territorial integrity and sovereignty, is still not ready to proceed with peace negotiations. During the tsunami natural disaster, the government reaction was the same as in war time. Relief work done by the government was not carried out equally to all the tsunami affected areas and food and rehabilitation was not equally distributed to all affected areas. But Kadirgamar gave an entirely different picture to the Commission. Now, five months have passed, the "joint mechanism" between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for aid distribution, rehabilitation and reconstruction in the North East has not even been finalised yet.
Instead of finding a way to achieve a political solution to the island’s long standing conflict, the government looks for cunning methods to suppress the opponent. Can a country which is suppressing and causing so much human suffering to another nation or ethnic group, contest for the world’s top neutral post?
It is the right time to analyse the requirements laid out by the European Union for Turkey to join the EU.
Who is Jayantha Dhanapala?
Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala is a senior and talented Sri Lankan diplomat. He was former UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs from 1998-2003. Since 1 June 2004, he has been heading the Peace Secretariat of Sri Lanka and has been advisor to the Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga. In other words, Dhanapala has become associated closely with a government which is responsible for killing, disappearances, torturing, raping and ethnic cleansing.
Since Dhanapala became the head of the Peace secretariat, it has not moved even an inch in promoting either peace or negotiations.
Members of civil society, especially in Western countries are well aware that Sri Lankan representatives menace NGOs who highlight the violations in Sri Lanka, in international forums. But what the NGOs do not realise is that this is done with ulterior motives. Elaborate stories and lies are the main tools used for this purpose.
Three years ago, a Geneva based NGO was menaced by the Sri Lankan representatives in Geneva and New York in this way. They even threatened this NGO with the deprivation of their Ecosoc status. A few months after this incident, Jayantha Dhanapala became the Honorary President of this organisation which since then has completely turned a blind eye to the happenings in the North East. It is believed that influential circles in New York have been heavily lobbied on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. As far as Sri Lankan diplomats are concerned, what is happening in Sri Lanka is a terrorist problem and Tamils are the cause of twenty years of bloody war.
I would like to mention here an incident when Sri Lanka used the UN forum for their propaganda by planting their people in the UN system.
In 1998, Mr. Rajendra Kalidas Wimala Goonesekere and his alternate Ms Deepika Udagama from Sri Lanka were elected as members – “independent experts" - to the then UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Since 1999 this body has been known as the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
When the Sub-Commission began its 50th session in 1998 in Geneva, on the very first day, the Sri Lankan mission in Geneva organised a party for all the members of the Sub-Commission. Out of twenty six experts only a few attended this party. In fact, it was considered by non attendees to be a government lobby exercise by R.K.W. Gunesakara and his alternate Deepika Udagama. Those who attended the Sub-Commission between 1998 and 2001 knew how R.K.W. Gunesakara and his alternative were using the Sub-Commission to justify the government position on its bloody war – arrests, torture, killings, disappearances, rape, displacement, ethnic cleansing and economic embargo.
A government which has no respect for the United Nations has its own agenda in placing its candidate for the post of the Secretary General.
Being a person born in this island, I would be proud to see Jayantha Dhanapala not only as a candidate but also as the Secretary General of the United Nations. Unfortunately in the present circumstances neither Sri Lanka nor Dhanapala deserve this post.
Accepting a candidate from Sri Lanka with all the above given factors, would be seen as reward for all their violations of international law and the discredit and insults that they have thrown upon the Secretary Generals and the United Nations.
As said before, the peace secretariat headed by Dhanapala has not moved an inch towards peace negotiations since he was assigned as the head. In such a critical situation, can anyone expect world peace to move in the right direction under the leadership of Jayantha Dhanapala?
Surely this world is not short of personalities and can search for a genuine Civil Servant for the UN, rather than falling into the trap of appointing someone, who will use the world body for their own purpose.
The United Nations needs a Secretary General from a country which has a clean record on human rights and respect for the political rights of others - not a Secretary General who will be guided by a government which has skeletons in its cupboard.
S. V. Kirubaharan
General Secretary
Tamil Centre for Human Rights – (TCHR)
France.
30 May 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human rights and UN mechanism
(S. V. Kirubaharan, General Secretary, Tamil Centre for Human Rights – TCHR, France)
”Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”. – Article 2 of the UDHR
Some trace the origin of the concept of human rights to ancient Greece and Rome. However, the “Cyrus Charter of Human Rights” was discovered in 1878 in excavation of the site of Babylon. Many historians have considered this as the first declaration of human rights.
On 4 October 539 BC, Iranian (Persian) soldiers entered Babylon then the capital of Iraq (Babylonia). It was said that this bloodless war freed all the captive nationalities held as slaves for generations in Babylon. On 9 November Cyrus of Iran (Persia) visited Babylon and issued a declaration, inscribed on a baked clay barrel (cylinder) which was known as “the Cyrus Charter of Human Rights”. The Cylinder is in the British Museum in London and this will be lent to the National Museum of Iran for two years from 2006.
However the concept and mechanisms of human rights were institutionalised and internationalised only after the birth of the United Nations. Human Rights are based on freedom, dignity, equality and justice. These are interdependent.
Human Rights cannot be achieved if someone considers that his/her rights are more important than those of others or that certain rights are more important compared to other rights. Generally, Human Rights guarantee freedom, dignity, equality and justice for everyone irrespective of age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality and any regional differences.
The United Nations Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by 50 countries in a UN conference in San Francisco. But the United Nations officially came into existence only on 24 October 1945 when all five major powers - France, UK, USA, USSR and China ratified the Charter. To commemorate this occasion, 24 October is United Nations Day.
The Economic and Social Council (UN Charter article 60/61), composed of 54 member states elected by the General Assembly (GA), reviews reports and resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and transmits them with amendments to the GA. It also makes recommendations to the GA on human rights issues. Further more works closely with agencies of the United Nations system which have a specialised interest in human rights.
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on 16 February 1946, in accordance with article 68 of the UN Charter,.
The CHR is the main policy-making body dealing with human rights. It is composed of 53 member states elected by the ECOSOC. The CHR prepares studies, makes recommendations and drafts international human rights conventions and declarations. It also investigates allegations of human rights violations. This body passes resolutions condemning states which have the worst records on human rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
At its first session, the CHR was given a mandate to draft a declaration on human rights. In January 1947, an eight-member drafting committee was formed which included prominent figures like Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt of USA, Mr. René Cassin of France, Mr. Charles Malik of Lebanon and Mr. Peng-chun Chuang of China. This committee was chaired by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on 10th December 1948 in the United Nations General Assembly at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. This day is celebrated all over the world as “International Human Rights Day”.
In 1948 there were only fifty eight member states in the United Nations. The UDHR was adopted with forty eight votes in favour, eight abstentions and two absentees.
There are thirty articles set forth in the UDHR – article 1 (one) lays down the philosophical claim upon which the UDHR is based, article 2 (two) emphasises that human beings are born free in equal dignity and are entitled to all rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR without any kind of discrimination such as on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, social, political or other opinion. The following nineteen articles, articles 3 to 21 deal with Civil and Political rights to which all human beings are entitled. The next six articles, articles 22 to 27 deal with Economic, social and cultural rights and the concluding articles, article 28 and 29 recognise that everyone is entitled to social and international order in which human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised, stressing the duties and responsibility which the individual owes in a democratic society. The final article 30 – gives cautionary notice that nothing in the UDHR may be interpreted as implying that any group or person has any right to do anything aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR.
Even though the UDHR is not legally binding on member states, it is considered as having the value of customary international law since the main principles of UDHR are highly respected by all States. Also it is used for measuring the respect that states have for human rights. Now a days universally accepted standards of human rights often refer to the UDHR.
In July 1997 when the fiftieth anniversary of UDHR was about to be celebrated, one of the UN member states Malaysia, called for a review of the UDHR, claiming that the document was outdated. Malaysia further stated that when the UDHR was adopted by the UN, there were only 58 members states and this figure had since tripled. Later this claim for review was endorsed by the Foreign Ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China.
While UDHR was in progress, the CHR was drafting two legally-binding covenants on human rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These two covenants were eventually adopted by the General Assembly in December 1966. Almost ten years later both Covenants came into effect. These Covenants incorporated the rights set out in the UDHR. The ICCPR and ICESCR are legally binding on member states who are signatories. Some states have ratified these Covenants with reservations to certain articles.
The UDHR is part of the International Bill of Human rights (IBHR). This consists of the UDHR, both Covenants the ICCPR, ICESCR and the two Optional Protocols of the ICCPR.
The CHR also drafts other conventions and protocols. Many International NGOs lobby for the implementation of conventions and protocols because INGOs are sure that certain states will fund the promotion of their favourite conventions and protocols.
Normally the conventions which give a hard time to, interfere with the revenue of states, get the least funding and those conventions are not very popular among the money making INGOs. The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Optional protocol to the CRC on the sale of Children, child prostitution and child pornography are very good examples. Even though there are 191 member states in the UN, as of 3 May 2004, only 94 countries have ratified the Rome Statute (ICC) and as of 14 November 2003 only 67 countries have ratified the Optional protocol of the CRC on the sale of Children, child prostitution and child pornography.
The monitoring mechanisms on human rights of the United Nations vary. The states which have signed and ratified the conventions are monitored through the Treaty bodies : Human Rights Committee-ICCPR; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – ICESCR; Committee on the Rights of the Child – CRC; Committee Against Torture - CAT; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - CERD; Committee on the Elimination Discrimination against Woman-CEDAW and Committee on Migrant workers – ICPRMW……. This monitoring is done through scrutinizing periodical reports submitted by the states. There are states which prepare exaggerated reports regarding their human rights track record. The experts of the Treaty bodies grill the representatives of states to obtain the facts and the NGOs play their part by submitting counter reports to the Treaty bodies.
These Treaty bodies function under the supervision of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). The post of High Commissioner for Human Rights was established in December 1993 and functions under the Secretary General of the United Nations. The High Commissioner co-ordinates his/her task with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN General assembly.
The human rights records of all the member states are also monitored through the CHR using Working Groups, Special rapporteurs, Country rapporteurs, Special representatives and Independent experts. The Working Groups (eg. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Communication procedure – 1503, etc), Special rapporteurs (Thematic – eg. Extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, Freedom of opinion and expression, Freedom of religion or belief, Independence of judges and lawyers, Torture and other cruel, inhuman treatment, Violence against women, Right Food, Right to Education, Adequate housing, etc ) and Country rapporteurs (Burundi, Cuba, Myanmar, etc) operate under the guidance of the CHR. The CHR works closely with the OHCHR.
In addition, Technical co-operation is given to some member states. This includes training, advisory services, promotional activities on free and fair elections, legislative reform, National and regional human rights institutions, internal conflict resolution, etc.
In 1947, the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was established by the CHR. In 1999 it was renamed as the Sub-commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This body does not monitor human rights in any country. It undertakes studies and make recommendations to the CHR. It is composed of 26 experts who are elected by the CHR. They set up working groups and appoint Special rapporteurs to assist them in their tasks. Presently, the existence of this forum in future is under question.
Now a days the countries which have the worst records on human rights seek membership in the CHR. This is mainly to protect their country from any UN scrutiny and to defend their record on human rights in the CHR. Such states also aim to insert their favourable candidate as an expert to the Sub-commission on Human rights. Through this initiative the Sub-Commission has been contaminated with politicisation.
Politicisation of the CHR
There is an accusation that the CHR is politicised, is it true?
Governments other than the Monarchy, military and dictatorship are elected from political parties. Whether a government is formed by a President/Prime Minister or Monarchy or a Military Leader, they appoint their favourable candidates as Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Representatives to their respective embassies and consulates in foreign countries including to the United Nations. These people are known to the world as Diplomats. There are career Diplomats as well as political appointees. Now a days even the career Diplomats from developing countries are using their political influence to get their promotions and appointments to better places.
These Diplomats become the Spokespeople for their governments policy and carry out the orders given by their political leaders through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other Ministries.
When these people are involved in UN Affairs, obviously the UN bodies also become politicised. The CHR is one of the well known political bodies. Obviously any members elected through this body to other UN bodies are contaminated with politics.
Now a days, the regional amity among the states, the club mentality among governments which have the worst record on human rights, the fact that many countries oppose UN scrutiny under the pretext of fighting terrorism make the UN human rights mechanism unmoveable. Since 11 September 2001, the states have found the easiest method of covering their bad record on human rights.
In the CHR, the powerful states use their political influence and support to avoid the examination of human rights violations in their countries and also to protect the countries which have bilateral links with them. Some states even insist that they are exempt from UN scrutiny because what takes place in their countries is an “internal affair”.
In the recent past, the world has experienced the politicisation of the CHR. In the year 2002, when one of the powerful states lost its membership in the CHR, the whole work of the CHR was paralysed, some say it was sabotaged.
Every year the appointment of the Chair to the CHR on basis of geographical rotation by continent is uncontested. The usual practice of acclamation of the Chair was brought abruptly to an end when the USA requested a vote, after the African countries proposed the Libyan Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji as their candidate for the 59th session in 2003. Eventually Ambassador Al-Hajjaji was elected by a secret ballot - 33 votes in favour, 3 states opposed and 17 abstained.
Oppression against the struggles in exercise of the right to self-determination is one of the main root causes for the horrendous human rights violations around the world.
Article 1 (one) of both the ICCPR and ICESCR states that “all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
Gradually this article has lost it weight because all five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China have their own problem concerning this article. In USA the people of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are struggling for self-determination, in UK the Northern Island crisis is still not resolved. In France the people of Corsica and Bretagne are demanding their political rights, in Russia and China – people of Chechnya and Tibet are struggling for their self-determination. On such situations regarding the question of right to self-determination, International law appears to be powerless. Some years back it was a different story.
With all these hurdles, the NGOs have been successful to a certain extent in their human rights advocacy, “Naming and shaming” the states which are violating human rights. This is one of the reasons, why the worst violating countries hate NGOs participating in international forums. Some states misuse the UN procedures and have their own NGOs who are known as GONGOs (Government NGOs) in UN circles. These GONGOs not only advocate government policy, they also counter the accusations made by the genuine NGOs against the states. The representatives of GONGOs appears as members of organisations working on religion, education, research, etc. GONGOs are indirectly funded by the governments and they are to some extent members of the espionage.
A few states in the CHR have regular debates about their border disputes and other matters. This dominates the working hours of the CHR. It is not a healthy approach. Countries like India and Pakistan, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, USA and Cuba are a few examples.
The same states which advocate the fight against terrorism, indirectly encourage violence in another country. Presently, what we see in the Ivory Coast, Sudan and Kashmir are typical examples of this.
UN reform is the only way which will stop politicisation of the human rights body and other bodies. This should be done at the earliest to prevent the world’s citizens losing their confidence in the UN Human Rights mechanisms.
(S. V. Kirubaharan, General Secretary, Tamil Centre for Human Rights – TCHR, France)
PRE-CONDITION NEEDED FOR THE POST OF
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
by S. V. Kirubaharan
Today's world has seen two World Wars, many frontier disputes, many ethnic, racial and religious wars and others. These horrible bloody conflicts made world leaders realize the importance and necessity of a new world body.
The United Nations (UN), the Commonwealth, regional bodies like the European
Union (EU), Council of Europe (CoE), Organization of American States (OAS),
Organization of African Unity (OAU), South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC), Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and many
other bodies, were established, amongst other purposes, to maintain peace and
security through promotion and protection of human rights. These international
bodies started with clear motives to serve the world citizen regardless of
racial, ethnic, color differences.
When we look back at the history of the United Nations, so far there have been
seven Secretary Generals including the present one. The first two Secretary
Generals, Mr. Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjold came from Norway and Sweden
respectively. Mr. Dag Hammarskjold died in an unfortunate plane accident in
1961. Mr. U. Thant of Burma, who was at the time holding the position of the Deputy
Secretary General, became the Secretary General (1961-1971). He was the first
Asian to be the Secretary General of the United Nations. Mr. U. Thant was a
career diplomat and at that time Burma (Mynamaar) was not facing serious
political problems.
Soon after Mr. U.Thant’s period was over, Mr. Kurt Waldheim of Austria
(1972-1981) became the Secretary General. When he finished his term of service
with the United Nations, he became the President of Austria. Mr. Waldheim, also
a career diplomat, became absorbed himself in politics at a later stage. Mr.
Perez de Cuellar of Peru who was a career diplomat became Secretary General in
1982 and served until 1991. In 1992 Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt became
the Secretary General. He served the shortest period (until 1996) as Secretary
General of the United Nations. Soon after Boutros-Ghali, the present Secretary
General Mr. Kofi Anann of Ghana was elected, who has been serving until today.
Mr. Kofi Annan was the first UN staff member to reach the UN top position.
As a part of evolution things are changing in every aspect in today’s
world. In the world today politics plays a major role within international
institutions and the top positions within these world bodies are about to fall
into the hands of the wrong politicians.
When one looks at the mechanisms of the United Nations, there are hundreds of
UN Conventions in the system to protect the human rights of the people of the
World. These conventions are for the member states of the UN to sign and
ratify. Unfortunately there are member countries that do not care either to
sign or ratify the UN conventions. But there are politicians from those
countries yearning for the top positions in the United Nations. In brief, a
person who cannot lobby his own country to sign the UN conventions is eager to
be in the top position of the UN! There are personalities, from countries where
racial riots, ethnic conflict, armed conflict and bloody conflicts are taking
place, who are also interested in the UN top position! Obviously these
personalities look for these posts for the benefit of only their own country
and their prestige rather than for the benefit of the United Nations.
The post of the Commonwealth General Secretary in recent elections, escaped
falling into the hands of the former Foreign minister of Sri Lanka who
consistently defended the human rights violators in his own country and
justified a draconian economic embargo on an ethnic population.
When one looks at the task of the United Nations, the following, in brief,
could be seen as the achievements of the United Nations:
Maintaining peace and security by deploying peace-keeping forces and observer
missions in conflicting countries; making peace through meaningful credited
negotiations and bringing many peaceful settlements to end regional conflicts;
promoting self-determination by playing a greater role in bringing about
independence for nations which later became member countries; promoting
democracy by enabling people in many countries to participate in free and fair
elections; promoting human rights by investigating complaints of human rights
abuses in the Human Rights Commission, which has focused world attention on
cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated
international pressure on governments to improve their human rights records;
protecting the environment! ; preventing nuclear proliferation; strengthening
international law; handing down judicial settlements of major international
disputes; providing humanitarian aid to victims of conflict and refugees;
alleviating chronic hunger and rural poverty in developing countries; promoting
women's rights and improving literacy for women; clearing land mines;
empowering the voiceless; improving education; preserving cultural property and
many other tasks.
A politician who has bad political influence holding any post in the UN will
never be able to truly serve the purposes of the United Nations. Therefore the
top post holder and other honorable post holders should be neutral, impartial
and should be honest to their conscience. Anyone who has violated human rights,
or is a supporter of aggressive states, or advocates violence and inhumanity
should be kept well away from these posts.
The Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into force on 1
July 2002. This is the first permanent international judicial body capable of
trying individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As of
September 2003, only 139 countries are signatories and 92 countries have ratified
the Rome Statue of the ICC. But there are 191 member countries in the United
Nations. What is delaying those countries, which have neither ratified nor
signed the Rome statue? Does it mean that there are individuals in their
countries who are/were involved in genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes?
The United Nations, which passes several resolutions on various subjects around
the world, should establish pre-conditions for candidates who wish to contest
for the post of General Secretary of the United Nations. The pre-condition
should not only be that the candidate comes from a member country but also that
the country has signed and ratified important UN conventions including the Rome
statue of the International Criminal Court.
This pre-condition would allow the United Nations to continue to have Secretary
Generals with integrity as has been the case up to the present day. (“Tamil
Mirror” South African Edition – January 2004 and “Asian
Tribune” – 25 January 2004)
S. V. Kirubaharan
General Secretary
Tamil Centre for Human Rights – (TCHR)
France.
29 December 2004
