Human rights abuses, and how to deal with them, threaten the international human rights system itself, writes Hedayat Abdel Nabi* The overdue decision of the European Union (EU) to press for the holding of a special session of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Darfur comes at a crucial moment in the newly established council's deliberations. The reticence of the EU to call for a session, which only required 16 signatures out of the 47 member states of the council, had led to a fierce international campaign by Western countries and the United States, along with certain international non-governmental organisations, labelling the council as one sided due to its preoccupation with Israel's gross human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon. Thus a strange notion seems to be taking hold that convening three special sessions on gross human rights violations by Israel negatively affects the credibility of the council. The reluctance of the EU to call for a special session resulted in part from the voting process. Yes, they could call for a session, but a strong resolution on Darfur could be buried by a negative vote. The outcome of the fourth special session of the council, expected to take place before Beyond appears in circulation, will reveal if their fears were justified. The EU action helped save the council from an inexplicable assault on it by an international lobby that pretends not to have followed the atrocities committed by Israel in Palestine -- the latest in Beit Hanoun -- and during its 33-day war in Lebanon, televised globally in real-time for all to see. Did they really miss the horror, or did they turn a deaf ear and blind eye and switch to another channel? The Israeli equation in the Middle East has no doubt upset the yardstick of fundamental principles of human rights and their universal application. To start with, it has entrenched the notion of double standards that was exposed time and again by the US vetoing in the Security Council any resolution unfavourable to Israel. Were this veto is not exercised the situation in the Middle East might change, opening the way to a honourable peace. A seasoned diplomat in Geneva, Tehmina Janjua of Pakistan, acting chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with firmness told the council on behalf of the OIC that the occupier could not be equated with the occupied. But here arrives the notion of self-defence. Israel has repeatedly invoked this notion to convince those in power that it was victimised by Arab assailants in the last century, and now by Arab terrorists in the 21st century. Yes, self- defence is an acknowledged principle of international law, but there are prerequisites for exercising it. First, the state launching attacks must not be an occupying power. Second, it must be committed to the implementation of the Geneva Conventions in letter and spirit. Neither prerequisite applies to Israel. One has to admit in admiration, I suppose, that the international campaign waged by Israel has made the world forget those prerequisites. Even UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, while underlining that Israel must act "in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law" was able to affirm, after visiting the occupied territories recently, that "as long as the rockets continue to hit its territory, Israel has the right and indeed the duty to defend its population and to ensure the protection of its citizens and of all those who are within its jurisdiction, control or power." Arbour did not mention once the right of self- determination of the Palestinian people; an inalienable right guaranteed to all peoples by the United Nations. Nor did Arbour mention the right of the Palestinians to statehood and to a capital. She could not even affirm the urgent need to end the Israeli occupation, which is the prime cause of violent discontent across the Middle East. In a direct attack on Arbour, Mohammad Abu- Koash, ambassador of the Mission of Palestine in Geneva, told the council that Arbour had attempted to balance the unbalanced, equating victims of occupation with the occupying power. Egypt's ambassador in Geneva, Sameh Shoukry, also noted that the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories was appalling according to all reports. "Against that dismal backdrop, the statement of the high commissioner appeared, to say the least, as deficient and lacking," he said. Thus human rights practice stands at a crossroads, traditional guardians having moved away from their most noble principles. Does toning down resolutions of the council help? Yes, in achieving consensus, or close to it, as has happened with a resolution on Israeli settlements that the EU joined. Canada, however, another traditional guardian of human rights, voted against. Taken as an example, it is clear that the council did not dare condemn Israel, expressing only "grave concern", in order to bring onboard the EU. What is more important: consensus, or the plight of the victims on the ground? I would argue that it is the council's duty, if it is only a body of moral strength, to vindicate victims on the ground and forget about diplomatic consensus. The present crossroads is dangerous not least because expressions of "grave concern" might not be a sufficient to the victims of Beit Hanoun and elsewhere. The matter is serious and must be debated on a wide scale, for the Israeli equation has not only upturned the Middle East, it has upset the paradigm of human rights, their universality, and the primacy of victims, wherever they may be across the globe. * The writer is president of the Press Emblem Campaign (PEC), an NGO based in Geneva. She follows closely issues related to human rights on the world scene and can be contacted by email at [email protected]
