UNW's Hillel Neuer Asks U.N. Rights Chief: "Why Were You Silent on Qadda...

Reversal: UN Ousts Qaddafi from Human Rights Council UN Watch

Nine months after shamefully electing the Qaddafi regime to its Human Rights Council, the UN today reversed itself and suspended Libya's membership. Click here for details.

From the moment the Libyan regime declared its candidacy last year, UN Watch initiated the opposition to Qaddafi sitting as a world judge of human rights. Click here for chronology of UN Watch's tireless campaign.

In September, when the Libyan regime took its seat, UN Watch launched a campaign demanding Libya’s suspension from the Geneva-based Council, becoming the first voice to do so. We were supported by 27 human rights groups, a number that surpassed 80 in our renewed NGO appeal of nine days ago.

Silence of the ghouls:

UN Watch Asks Rights Chief: "Why Were You Silent on Qaddafi's Crimes?

Around the globe, the Qaddafis were kings. No longer. The head of the London School of Economics has just resigned over his ties to the Qaddafi regime. Rock stars Beyonce, Nelly Furtado and Mariah Carey are expressing remorse for paid peformances at Qaddafi family parties. Former Egyptian minister of culture Gaber Asfour renounced his 2010 “Qaddafi International Award for Literature.”

Yet at the U.N., no one is willing to take the slightest responsibility for the world body's tight embrace of the Qaddafi regime. In the plenary of the UN Human Rights Council yesterday, UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer urged U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay to begin the soul-searching. She refused to respond. Click here for video. The text follows below.

Madame High Commissioner,

We thank you for your report, and applaud its emphasis on the core principle of accountability. We commend your recent leadership on human rights in Libya. As you stated, “the people of Libya had long been victims of the serious excesses of the Libyan leadership.”

In this regard, given that accountability begins at home, we wish to ask whether your office has begun to reflect upon how, in recent years, the United Nations and its human rights system could have shown greater solidarity with Libya’s victims. We offer five specific questions:

1. Given that your responsibility is to mainstream human rights throughout the U.N. system, we ask: When the Qaddafi regime was chosen to serve on the Security Council for 2008 and 2009; when its representative was chosen as President of the General Assembly in 2009; when Col. Qaddafi’s daughter Ayesha was designated in 2009 a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador — why did you not speak out?

2. According to a study of all your published statements from September 2008 through June 2010, you never once mentioned human rights in Libya. Why?

3. Your report refers to your office’s strong support for the Durban process, for which you served as Secretary-General of its 2009 World Conference on Racism. When a representative of the Libyan regime was chosen to chair that conference’s two-year planning committee, and to chair the main committee, why did you not speak out?

4. When the Qaddafi regime was elected as a member of this council last year, why did you not speak out?

5. Your report refers to the council’s Advisory Committee. In 2008, ignoring the appeal of UN Watch and 25 human rights groups, the council elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize—a propaganda tool for the regime—to this body. Last year he was made the committee’s vice-president. Why did you not speak out?

And will you now call on the recipients of this prize—former Cuban President Fidel Castro in 1998, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2004, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in 2009, and Turkish PM Erdogan in 2010—to renounce this prize, and to apologize to all the human rights victims—past and present—of Col. Muammar Qaddafi?

Israel's Extremely 'Dire Situation' in Europe

There is a debate within Israel over the broader implications of the cancellation of the local authorities' heads' trip to Holland on Sunday. Some commentators see it as part of a broader anti-Israel trend in Europe, while others view it as an isolated incident.

"You need to look at the context of Israeli-European relations. During the past year, the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg ruled on a seemingly financial issue, which carries long term political and legal implications."

Dr. Pardo referred to a ruling according to which Israeli produce originating from territories beyond the Green Line does not qualify under the criteria set by the trade agreement between Europe and Israel, and therefore cannot be exported tax free. That is to say, anything that is grown beyond the Green Line is not considered as being grown in Israel, and therefore is not included in the agreement.

"This decision critically influences Israel's future conduct in front of the EU," Dr. Pardo noted. "We are witnessing the qualification of a political decision in the legal echelons. As far as the EU is concerned, the ruling forced the 1967 borders on Israel. It is an unprecedented ruling.

"It is clear that as long as there are no significant steps to end the conflict, there will be no upgrade in relations with Europe," he added.

"There is an ideological gap between the two societies. Israel's situation is extremely dire in Europe. It is not considered legitimate as long as it is an occupier. Holland is one of the founders of the EU, and so its decisions accurately reflect the European public's position vis-à-vis what they consider an unjust occupation," he concluded.

In contrast, Dr. Emmanuel Navon, a European Union expert from Tel Aviv University, wished to calm the spirits. "At the moment it is the expression of a single country, and does not reflect the European Union's policy, because the EU has no de-facto stance vis-à-vis foreign and defense policies," he said.

Dr. Navon pointed especially to Eastern Europe, where he said "states hold much more pro-Israeli positions." Navon also named several Western European leaders with a pro-Israeli stance, such as Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Angela Merkel.

"In the past," he noted, "Holland was the most pro-Israeli country within the EU, but its stance does not reflect the rest of the member states."

I would add that since the gentleman pictured at the top of this post recently won 24 seats in the Dutch election, Holland's anti-Israel policies aren't written in stone either.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem