You have to hand it to Sudan Now.  In August, the coalition of Sudan activist groups bought full page ads in two Martha's Vinyard newspapers while the Obamas vacationed there.  Now, as the president and his top staff embark on tour of Asia, Sudan Now has launched a Facebook ad campaign targeting Facebook users who are part of the "EOP Staff" and the "Obama for America" Facebook groups.   Obama for America is Obama's campaign group and "EOP" is Washington-ease for the Executive Office of the President, which includes everything from the National Security Council to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

China is a major economic partner with Sudan, and Sudan Now wants Obama to take up human rights issues during his conversations with Chinese leaders and "encourage China to use its position of influence to back real consequences for those who continue to attack civilians, block life-saving aid and undermine peace."

The new ads will run on these two Facebook networks for the duration of the President's China visit. 

Today is a big day of debate and maneuvering at the General Assembly over a resolution on the Goldstone Report. The end results of these negotiations will foretell the degree of support that the resolution will receive when it comes to a vote, likely tomorrow. (See this post from yesterday for more on the substance of the resolution and the EU's proposed edits.)

The big question is whether or not the EU will end up supporting the resolution. A close watcher of today's General Assembly discussion passes along these observations:

There is currently a divide within the EU group as to what language can be accepted in the resolution on Goldstone. The resolution currently reads, “Endorses the report of the Human Rights Council on its Twelfth Special Session of 15-16 October 2009”. This is unacceptable to the EU members [particularly the Netherlands and Italy] who either voted against or abstained from voting at the special HRC session.

The question is now whether the sentence will be taken out, in which case the EU will either abstain or vote in favor of the resolution. If not, the draft will most likely not receive important backing from the EU, leaving the Palestinian delegation to add more hard line language on Israel. The Palestinian delegation and the EU are currently engaged in consultations on this issue, with an outcome expected this evening

 

The observer also adds, "The U.S. has made the decision to speak after the vote (as an explanation of vote). There are currently 43 speakers on the list...and the session is likely to continue tomorrow. Consequently, the vote and the U.S. statement will also take place tomorrow."  We'll update as new information comes to light as to whether or not the offending clause is deleted.

UPDATE:  Our source at the GA says, "EU Ambassadors are currently meeting to discuss the joint EU position on the Goldstone draft resolution, which remains unclear. It looks like the majority of the EU would vote yes on a resolution where "endorse"  is replaced by less strong language, such as "takes note" or even "takes note with appreciation."  Some of the EU hardliners are expected to vote against this. However, if the Palestinian delegation does not alter the language in the draft as it stands now, this will all change."

UPDATE II:  From our GA insider this morning:  "The Swedish Presidency has received a counter-proposal from the Palestinians to amend two perambulatory clauses, as well as the operative clause which “endorses” the report of the Human Rights Council on its Twelfth Special Session of 15-16 October 2009 to instead read “welcomes”.

According to the Swedish presidency, these changes may not be sufficient to secure ample EU consensus to support the resolution. Several delegations will have a hard time “welcoming” the report, and have been checking back with capitals overnight for further instructions. The European ambassadors have been meeting this morning to discuss the counter-proposal. However, EU "hardliners" may still not go along with the new formulations."   

The drama continues! 

UPDATE III: Big news, I am told, "the Palestinians have rejected the proposed EU language modifications, which means that delegations will be voting on the original draft resolution which reads 'endorses the HRC report.' Action is not likely to be taken before 5 o’clock." 

It will be interesting to see how widespread the support for the GA resolution will be considering the language may now be too harsh for many European countries. 

UPDATE IV:  The USA votes against the resolution, not surprisingly.  Here is the explanation of the the vote from Deputy Perm Rep, Ambassador Alejandro Wolff:

The United States remains deeply concerned about the human suffering of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples that results from the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. The best way to end that suffering is to bring about a comprehensive peace in the region, including two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The United States is firmly committed to pursuing that goal. As we urge the parties to restart permanent status negotiations leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, we should all be seeking to advance the cause of peace—and doing nothing to hinder it.

The United States strongly supports accountability for human rights and humanitarian law violations in relation to the Gaza conflict. Our goal is to achieve genuine accountability in a way that respects internal processes and the ongoing efforts to restart permanent status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

As the United States made clear in Geneva, we believe that the Goldstone Report is deeply flawed—including its unbalanced focus on Israel, its sweeping conclusions of law, the excessively negative inferences it draws about Israel’s intentions and actions, its failure to deal adequately with the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict, its failure to assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for its decision to base itself and its operations in heavily civilian-populated urban areas, and its many overreaching recommendations.

First, let me point out that we appreciate that the resolution under consideration calls on both Israel and the Palestinians—although it does not name Hamas—to pursue investigations of the allegations that pertain to each of them in the Report. This is an advance over the original one-sided mandate provided by the Human Rights Council to the Goldstone Commission. We will continue to call for all parties to meet their responsibilities and pursue credible domestic investigations.

Nevertheless, we also have real concerns about this resolution.

Given the far-reaching legal conclusions and recommendations of the 575-page Goldstone Report, including findings that have serious implications for conflicts in other parts of the world, we do not think it appropriate to endorse the Report in its entirety.

Attempting, as this resolution does, to press the Security Council to take this matter up is equally unconstructive. The Security Council is already seized of the situation in the Middle East and holds monthly meetings on the topic, the only subject on the Council’s entire agenda that is discussed with such frequency. As many member states have made clear, the appropriate forum for discussion of this report is the Human Rights Council.

The resolution also unhelpfully introduces international supervision of the investigations to be undertaken by the parties that would interfere with the parties’ ability to conduct their own processes.

The proposed convocation of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention is also unnecessary and unproductive. Convening a conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention for the purpose of spotlighting one country would only heighten divisions and could set back the process of restarting permanent status negotiations. This and the other imbalanced references to the parties throughout the text—including the failure to mention Hamas by name—convey the impression that this body is, yet again, handling Arab-Israeli issues in an unbalanced manner.

 For these reasons, we will vote against the resolution. But we believe that lifesaving progress can be made if we can lift our sights and look toward a more hopeful future. The United States will continue to work resolutely in pursuit of a just and lasting peace.

 

Thank you Mr. President.

UPDATE V: Here is the final vote count, by country.  There were 114 Yes votes, 18 No votes, and 44 abstentions.

Picture: flickr.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak was deported from the airport in Harare yesterday.  Prime Minister (and Robert Mugabe's top political rival) Morgan Tsvangirai invited Nowak to his office in Harare yesterday. But upon arriving at the airport, Nowak was detained by immigration officials and forced on the next plane back to South Africa. 

Here is the story, as told from Nowak's point of view:

Mr. Nowak was invited by the Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe, Mr. Chinamasa, to conduct a fact-finding mission to the country from 28 October to 4 November 2009. While in transit in Johannesburg on 27 October, he was informed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mumbengegwi, had decided on 26 October to postpone the mission.

 Waiting in Johannesburg, the Special Rapporteur was informed by letter dated 27 October, that the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, wished to meet him in his office in Harare on 29 October at 10:00 a.m. He was also informed that he would be picked up at Harare Airport by an official of the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur flew to Harare in the evening of 28 October 2009, to meet the Prime Minister and to discuss with different members of the Government how best to conduct the mission under the changed circumstances.

 Upon arrival at Harare Airport at 9:20 p.m. on 28 October, the Special Rapporteur and his team were not met by a Protocol Officer, but by the Head of Airport Immigration, Mr. Nabika. Although the Special Rapporteur and his assistants had valid visas, Mr. Nowak was told that his entry was not cleared by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that, in the absence of such clearance, he would have to fly back to Johannesburg the next morning. He spent the night at the airport and was sent back on the first flight to Johannesburg on 29 October at 7:20 a.m. All efforts by the United Nations, the Prime Minister, his Secretary, and both Co-Ministers of Home Affairs to facilitate Mr. Nowak’s entry proved unsuccessful. A high level delegation sent by the Prime Minister to go to the airport was even denied access and told that the Special Rapporteur was no longer held at the airport.

 The Special Rapporteur strongly protests against such treatment by the various authorities of the Government of Zimbabwe. He urges the Government to fully investigate this incident and to clarify who bears responsibility for the denial of his access to the country. He will report about these experiences to the Human Rights Council.¨

The UN Refugee Agency set out guidlines last April which advised that asylum seekers from central Iraq be considered in need of international protection due to the human rights and security situation in central Iraq.  Not all governments, however, are taking heed.  From the UN Refugee Agency:

...the UK attempted to forcibly return 44 Iraqi men to Baghdad earlier this month. They were reportedly unsuccessful asylum claimants held in immigration removal centres in the UK. Iraq only accepted 10 who were allowed to leave the chartered aircraft in Baghdad, and the remaining 34 were returned to the UK and placed in immigration centres.Other European states have signed readmission agreements with Iraq for voluntary and forced return. Denmark has forcibly returned 38 people originating mainly from Central and Southern Iraq since signing its agreement in May 2009. Sweden has undertaken some 250 forced returns with an unspecified number of returnees originating from the five central governorates of Iraq since signing an agreement in February 2008. UNHCR has also concerns about the safety and dignity of these returns.

This is just awful.  Imagine that you are from Anbar and managed to survive Saddam's brutality, the war, the civil war, and -- against all odds -- escaped to Europe.   Now imagine that upon setting foot on European soil you apply for asylum only to be forced back on a plane to Bagdhad. It is hard to contemplate the disappointment and frustration one would feel in that situation. 

I dare say that the UK, like the United States, bears a certain amount of responsibility for the plight of Iraqi refugees.  Returning asylum seekers to places that the UN says is unsafe is an abrogation of that responsibility.