UPI Asia Online
By Basil Fernando
Column: Burning Points
Published: September 18, 2008
Hong Kong, China — The protest made by Professor Yash Ghai in his written statement to the 9th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is an eye-opener. He spoke of the rude insults meted to him by the Cambodian government and their failure to cooperate with his mandate.
His comments demonstrate the serious decline in the cooperation of a number of states with authoritarian regimes that are actively undermining the work of the United Nations. These states resist issues related to the development of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights. Professor Ghai also complained about the inadequate backing he received from the relevant U.N. agencies and the international community for his work.
The mandate for a special representative for human rights in Cambodia was created in 1993 and in the subsequent 15 years several special representatives held this post. They all maintained contact with the government, civil society organisations, international human rights organisations and the Cambodian Office for Human Rights, established after the U.N. sponsored elections in 1993.
Commenting on the recommendations of his predecessors, Ghai stated that he had reviewed the recommendations made previously and had repeatedly endorsed them. These repeated endorsements included the recommendations of the very first representative appointed in 1993. In simple terms this implies that none of the recommendations have ever been implemented. Perhaps the professor would have realized the wisdom of Einstein who once said that madness means repeatedly doing the same thing, expecting a different result. Perhaps the 15 years that the U.N spent making recommendation to the Cambodian government has proved that the only reaction of the Cambodian government is to ignore them.
Professor Ghai also mentioned that he was repeatedly insulted by Prime Minister Hun Sen and the government spokesman and information minister, Khieu Kanharith. He said that the prime minister referred to him as a deranged person, a tourist and a lazy person, while Khieu Kanharith referred to him and human rights organisations as animals. The spokesman also attacked the professor on racial grounds by referring to his nationality and said that Kenyans are savages who did not know the ways of the Aryans.
Such personal attacks and slurs on the basis of race are increasingly used as a method adopted by authoritarian regimes to attack U.N. officers dealing with human rights issues. Some countries also attack such officers on the basis that they are white westerners who suffer from the Anglo Saxon complex of wanting to dominate the world. The essence of such attacks is a loud cry which states clearly that “we do not want any exposure and criticisms of our human rights record. It is our business.” This means that the absence of the rule of law, exploitation of the weak by the powerful because the weak do not have the means to protect them, the stealing of their land and its distribution to the rich patrons of powerful politicians and the use of the police to harass and to intimidate the people are all local matters and should not be commented upon by the United Nations.
The debate on Cambodia shows that some countries call upon the United Nations to support only those issues, which their government wants to address. For example, if U.N. agencies observe that law institutions are weak in the country and request the government to act on the matter, the government may say that they do not need the assistance of the U.N. on that matter but rather on some other issues like medical infrastructure or training the police etc. They attempt to demand that the U.N. accept the country’s denial of rights by repression as a matter that should be left to the government and the international discourse on these matters should be of no concern to the United Nations. Often this approach is aimed at requesting the United Nations for technical assistance while denying the U.N. a role in monitoring the actual human rights situation faced by the people.
Thus, there is a strong attempt to change the very discourse on human rights. Ever since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been a global discourse to improve human rights standards for the benefit of all people in all countries. The adoption of the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was a further step taken to improve the global concern for human rights. This was followed by a large number of other covenants relating to various specific aspects of human rights such as the elimination of torture, extrajudicial killings, discrimination against women, equality before law, children’s rights and a vast number of other concerns. Now, a considerable number of countries with authoritarian regimes have formed themselves into a strong lobby to resist the influence of the human rights discourse.
Professor Ghai also mentioned that he did not receive adequate backing when he was being undermined and insulted by the Cambodian regime. He said that when the Cambodian prime minister mentioned that he was carrying out his mandate only to make money, the relevant U.N. agencies did not make a public statement to say that the mandate was carried out voluntarily and that no payment of money was involved in his work. Therefore, he had to make such a statement himself to counteract the false allegations.
This aspect of understanding and supporting the work of U.N. officers dealing with difficult situations has become a matter of serious concern in recent times. Such governments are increasingly alienating themselves from the relevant U.N. agencies and the various mandate holders tasked with handling the grave situation of human rights. Perhaps the international anti-terrorism drive has undermined the international will to protect and promote human rights.
By Basil Fernando
Column: Burning Points
Published: September 18, 2008
Hong Kong, China — The protest made by Professor Yash Ghai in his written statement to the 9th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is an eye-opener. He spoke of the rude insults meted to him by the Cambodian government and their failure to cooperate with his mandate.
His comments demonstrate the serious decline in the cooperation of a number of states with authoritarian regimes that are actively undermining the work of the United Nations. These states resist issues related to the development of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights. Professor Ghai also complained about the inadequate backing he received from the relevant U.N. agencies and the international community for his work.
The mandate for a special representative for human rights in Cambodia was created in 1993 and in the subsequent 15 years several special representatives held this post. They all maintained contact with the government, civil society organisations, international human rights organisations and the Cambodian Office for Human Rights, established after the U.N. sponsored elections in 1993.
Commenting on the recommendations of his predecessors, Ghai stated that he had reviewed the recommendations made previously and had repeatedly endorsed them. These repeated endorsements included the recommendations of the very first representative appointed in 1993. In simple terms this implies that none of the recommendations have ever been implemented. Perhaps the professor would have realized the wisdom of Einstein who once said that madness means repeatedly doing the same thing, expecting a different result. Perhaps the 15 years that the U.N spent making recommendation to the Cambodian government has proved that the only reaction of the Cambodian government is to ignore them.
Professor Ghai also mentioned that he was repeatedly insulted by Prime Minister Hun Sen and the government spokesman and information minister, Khieu Kanharith. He said that the prime minister referred to him as a deranged person, a tourist and a lazy person, while Khieu Kanharith referred to him and human rights organisations as animals. The spokesman also attacked the professor on racial grounds by referring to his nationality and said that Kenyans are savages who did not know the ways of the Aryans.
Such personal attacks and slurs on the basis of race are increasingly used as a method adopted by authoritarian regimes to attack U.N. officers dealing with human rights issues. Some countries also attack such officers on the basis that they are white westerners who suffer from the Anglo Saxon complex of wanting to dominate the world. The essence of such attacks is a loud cry which states clearly that “we do not want any exposure and criticisms of our human rights record. It is our business.” This means that the absence of the rule of law, exploitation of the weak by the powerful because the weak do not have the means to protect them, the stealing of their land and its distribution to the rich patrons of powerful politicians and the use of the police to harass and to intimidate the people are all local matters and should not be commented upon by the United Nations.
The debate on Cambodia shows that some countries call upon the United Nations to support only those issues, which their government wants to address. For example, if U.N. agencies observe that law institutions are weak in the country and request the government to act on the matter, the government may say that they do not need the assistance of the U.N. on that matter but rather on some other issues like medical infrastructure or training the police etc. They attempt to demand that the U.N. accept the country’s denial of rights by repression as a matter that should be left to the government and the international discourse on these matters should be of no concern to the United Nations. Often this approach is aimed at requesting the United Nations for technical assistance while denying the U.N. a role in monitoring the actual human rights situation faced by the people.
Thus, there is a strong attempt to change the very discourse on human rights. Ever since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been a global discourse to improve human rights standards for the benefit of all people in all countries. The adoption of the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was a further step taken to improve the global concern for human rights. This was followed by a large number of other covenants relating to various specific aspects of human rights such as the elimination of torture, extrajudicial killings, discrimination against women, equality before law, children’s rights and a vast number of other concerns. Now, a considerable number of countries with authoritarian regimes have formed themselves into a strong lobby to resist the influence of the human rights discourse.
Professor Ghai also mentioned that he did not receive adequate backing when he was being undermined and insulted by the Cambodian regime. He said that when the Cambodian prime minister mentioned that he was carrying out his mandate only to make money, the relevant U.N. agencies did not make a public statement to say that the mandate was carried out voluntarily and that no payment of money was involved in his work. Therefore, he had to make such a statement himself to counteract the false allegations.
This aspect of understanding and supporting the work of U.N. officers dealing with difficult situations has become a matter of serious concern in recent times. Such governments are increasingly alienating themselves from the relevant U.N. agencies and the various mandate holders tasked with handling the grave situation of human rights. Perhaps the international anti-terrorism drive has undermined the international will to protect and promote human rights.
Professor Ghai’s protests are courageous, frank and rare in present day international diplomacy and have to be appreciated. There are lessons need to be learned from such protests, which are eye-openers to the severe problems affecting the movements for human rights and democracy globally.
No comments:
Post a Comment