Self-defence and Human Rights in West Asia
By Suhas Chakma

At the ongoing 60th session, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is scheduled to consider the agenda items relating to the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation; racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination; the right to development; and the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. The CHR will review the reports of country rapporteurs and Secretary General on the occupied Arab territories of Palestine and Syrian Golan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Cuba, Belarus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and Iraq.
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.
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 championed the cause of the Palestinians 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 the 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 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". Yet, the United States like each year will support the Israeli conquest of the Palestinian territories. At the same time it must be noted that 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.
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 attention from 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 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.
(The writer is Director, Asian Centre for Human Right)