The right of self-determination
is cornerstone of United Nations human rights instruments and
is recognized under common Article 1 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, as many decolonised
African and Asian countries increasingly faced demand for the
right of self-determination, it became a taboo within the United
Nations system. In this era of Osama Bin Laden and George Bush,
governments across the region equate the movement for the right
of self-determination with socalled terrorist activities and
use self-defence to justify serious human rights violations.
Consequently, the Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries
as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise
of the right of peoples to self-determination fails to adequately
address the human rights violations by the vigilante groups
especially in the territories afflicted by armed conflicts over
demands for the rights of self-determination.
Palestine: From NAM to
Arab League
The
right of self-determination of the Palestinians survived the
taboos of the United Nations on the right of self-determination.
During the cold war period, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) championed
the cause of the Palestinians; many NAM members severed diplomatic
ties with Israel and United Nations adopted numerous resolutions.
However, in the post Cold War period, with NAM almost being
defunct, the occupation of Palestine territories has gradually
become an issue of the Arab League. This is despite that a sizeable
number of populations amongst the Palestinians are Christians.
While this sojourn of Palestinian movement would make an excellent
academic study, the increasing violence in West Asia as a direct
consequence of the continued occupation of Arab-territories
played its role to make the occupation of Palestinian an issue
of the Arab League.
The government
of Israel justifies its actions which results in gross human
rights violations in the Occupied Palestine Territories on the
grounds of self‑defence and portrays them as anti-terrorism
measures. While Israel has legitimate security concerns, its
measures abysmally fail to conform to international human rights
standards and are nothing but State terrorism. In July 2003,
UN Human Rights Committee in its Concluding Observations condemned
disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians
by Israeli forces.
Israel
even justifies the construction of the Wall, separating Israel
from the West Bank, on self-defence grounds. This despite
that the Wall does not follow the Green Line, which marks the
de facto boundary between Israel and Palestine and over 210,000
Palestinians will be seriously affected. As the Special Rapporteur
on Palestine (E/CN.4/2004/6) states “Annexation of this kind,
known as conquest in international law, is prohibited by the
Charter of the United Nations and the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
Each
year, the CHR adopts a generic resolution condemning the Occupying
Power, Israel for violation of human rights and humanitarian
laws. Each year, the United States opposes the censure motion
and Israel dishonours numerous UN resolutions with impunity.
The CHR resolution at the 59th session (2003/6) while rightly condemning Israel failed to denounce
killings of the Israeli civilians by the Palestinian suicide
bombers. While recognising “the legitimate right of the Palestinian
people to resist the Israeli occupation in order to free its
land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination”,
the 60th session of the CHR should also explicitly
condemn the suicide bombings of the Jews civilians. The
violations of humanitarian laws both by Israel and violent Palestinian
groups often provide the necessary excuse to derail the roadmaps
for peace.
Iraq:
Addressing the rule of jungle
The invasion
of Iraq by United States and United Kingdom was also justified
in the name of self-defence of the United States and the invasion
was both pre-emptive and punitive.
After the fall of Saddam Saddam’s regime, Iraq has been
ruled without a constitution and rule of law. While suicide
bombings by the armed opposition groups opposed to the Occupation
have deflected human rights violations by the military forces
of the Occupying Powers, Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch have extensively reported about serious human rights violations
by the occupying powers. Human Rights Watch reported about “excessive
or indiscriminate use of force by troops resulting in serious
harm to civilians, and the failure to equip or train troops
adequately for the complex law enforcement tasks of military
occupation. In Baghdad alone between May 1 and September 30,
2003, Human Rights Watch documented the deaths of twenty Iraqi
civilians in questionable circumstances and collected information
concerning ninety-four civilians killed by U.S. troops in circumstances
that merited investigations. In the five investigations that
the U.S. said it had completed as of the beginning of October,
four concluded that soldiers had operated within official rules
of engagement”. The US troops also took hostages, a grave breach
of the Geneva Conventions. At present, human rights violations
both by the military forces of the Occupying Powers and the
Iraqi armed opposition groups are not covered by any Penal Code.
Amidst the rule of jungle where the militias of the religious
and ethnic groups control security, the United States proposes
to try Saddam Hussein in a Kangaroo Court.
The
CHR in its resolution (2003/84) did not recognise the legality of Iraq
war and urged “all parties to the current conflict
in Iraq to abide strictly by their obligations under international
humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions and the
Hague Regulations including those relating to the essential
civilian needs of the people of Iraq”. At the 60th
session, the CHR resolution should call upon the Occupying Powers
and Interim Government to establish accountability for human
rights violations, to try Saddam Hussein in an international
tribunal or a tribunal, which meets international judicial standards
of openness and fairness, and continue the mandate of the country
rapporteur on Iraq to monitor the human rights situations.
It would be a shame if the CHR were to presume that human rights
situations improve under foreign occupation and therefore, the
CHR could do away with country rapporteur on Iraq. The occupation
itself is a grave human rights violation. The 60th
session of the CHR must equally condemn the occupation of Iraq
and call for an immediate end to the occupation.
Myanmar:
Support the Forum on International Support for National Reconciliation
in Myanmar
Human
rights situation in Myanmar remains deplorable and the report
of the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2004/33)
is a clear testimony. The military junta, which rechristened
itself as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has
nonetheless been making right noises. Myanmar extended invitations
to Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Sergio Phinhero to visit the
country in November 2003, to Amnesty International in December
2003 and to the Secretary General’s Special Envoy, Ismail Rizali
in March 2004. The cease-fire agreement signed with Karen National
Union in February 2003 further bolstered the SPDC and its seven
points road map. The intervention of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers
at the June 2003 summit at Phnom Penh demanding the release
of Aung San Suu Kyi is history now.
International
initially supported restoration of democracy and restoration
of the National League for Democracy government. As neibghbouring
countries like China, India and Thailand collaborated with the
military generals, they gradually gained legitimacy at regional
level. The restoration of democracy has gradually turned into
a course for national reconciliation, thereby making the military
junta a legitimate part of the future government. Nothing reflects
this shift of policy towards the military junta at international
level than the conclusions of the Secretary General in his report
(E/CN.4/2004/30) to the 60th session of the CHR,
“It is high time for the Government, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and
ethnic nationality representatives to set aside their differences,
unite for the larger cause of national reconciliation and commence
substantive dialogue on ways to achieve democratic transition
in Myanmar.” Unfortunately, it is not Daw Aung San Suu Kyi but
the military generals who are opposed to dialogues. While in
the context of the conflicts between the military junta and
the armed opposition groups representing the ethnic nationalities,
the issue of national reconciliation is understandable; it is
a misnomer in the context of restoration of democracy in Burma.
The involvement of neighbouring countries in the mediation facilitated
by the Secretary General’s Special Envoy is crucial. The Director
of Asian Centre for Human Rights urged in March 2003, “Unless,
the ASEAN and other neighbouring countries espouse the need
for power sharing with the NLD, Mr Ismail may end up talking
to the walls. Even if the talks are to be held at the junta's
own choreographed pace, the fear of losing the grip is all pervading.
In addition to having his own special envoy, it is time Mr Annan
considered urging the ASEAN and other neighbouring countries
to directly involve in the talks to compliment the UN efforts
to make a much-needed breakthrough in Myanmar.”
The
Secretary General’s Special Envoy, Mr Ismail has so far made
12 trips to Yangoon to conclude that former top honcho of military
intelligence and current Prime Minister, Lt General Khin Nyunt
and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi are now ready to work
to democracy. At the 60th session, the CHR rather
than passing generic resolution on the situation of human rights
in Myanmar (2003/12)
should put the United Nations imprimateur on the Forum on International
Support for National Reconciliation in Myanmar and call upon
the Secretary General to host the Forum’s meeting under the
UN auspices. The Forum had already held its first meeting
in Bangkok on 15 December 2003 and the process of national reconciliation
needs to speed up.
Racism: Dark Asia
Because
of the history of European colonisation and explicit racial
discrimination in the Western hemisphere, racism has often been
misconstrued as discrimination of the coloured people by the
Whites. In the preparatory process leading upto the WCAR, many
mis-conceptions on the definition of racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance were clarified. Yet, the
Durban Declaration and Programme of Actions contained some of
these mis-conceptions. Racial discrimination in Asia largely
remains ignored. In its programme of actions in 2004-2005, the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights must focus
on Asia.
The right to development:
Corporate responsibility and Global South
The
United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on the Right to Development
reflects what is Global South. The voice of the South often
means what is presented by Cuba, Nigeria, Brazil, India, China,
Pakistan, Malaysia etc. South Korea and Singapore are on the
fence. Poor Laos does not have a mission in Geneva while many
Southern countries such as Nepal can hardly follow the proceedings
of the sessions.
Global
South is not uniform although neo-developed and developing countries
exploit “South-South Solidarty”. “Capitalism” is no longer synonymous
of “western capitalism”. The complicity of the oil companies
such as Talisman Energy Inc. of Canada and Lundin Oil AB of
Sweden, for human rights violations in Sudan has been well documented.
Amid mounting pressure from rights groups, Talisman and Lundin
sold their interests in 2002. These Western-based corporations,
however, have now been replaced by the state-owned oil companies
of China’s China National Petroleum Corp., Malaysia’s Petronas
(Petrolium Nasional Berhad) and India’s Oil and Natural Gas
(ONGC) Videsh Ltd. The question remains as to how and whether
any pressure could be brought to bear upon these state-owned
oil companies from Asia about the corporate responsibility against
human rights violations.
At the
55th session in August 2003, United Nations Sub-Commission
in its 55th session in August 2003 adopted the Draft Norms on
the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other
Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights
as a first incremental step towards adoption of a morally binding
international instrument for corporate responsibilities. At
the 60th session, the CHR should consider adoption
of the text approved by the Sub-Commission to promote ethical
globalisation to ensure compliance
of multinational corporations from all over the world.