President Obama will be in New York for three days, starting Wednesday. Where he will be going, who he will be meeting, and one big event that is surprisingly off his schedule.
Since April 21, at least eighty Afghan schoolgirls at three schools in the increasingly violent northern city of Kunduz have mysteriously fallen ill after reporting a strange smell in their classrooms. Most of the affected girls have been hospitalized briefly and released, but the sudden, mysterious epidemic of fainting and nausea is raising fears of poisoning by opponents of girls’ education.
The famed jurist explains why the international community should concern itself with accountability for alledged war crimes in Israel and Gaza.
both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. I am unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective.
Absent credible local investigations, the international community has a role to play. If justice for civilian victims cannot be obtained through local authorities, then foreign governments must act. There are various mechanisms through which to pursue international justice. The International Criminal Court and the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other countries against violators of the Geneva Conventions are among them. But they all share one overarching aim: to hold accountable those who violate the laws of war. They are built on the premise that abusive fighters and their commanders can face justice, even if their government or ruling authority is not willing to take that step.
We knew this day was coming. And, true to his reputation, the Goldstone report provides a dispassionate account of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity committed both by Hamas and during Operation Cast lead. There is a lot of horrifying stuff contained there in. I suggest you have a look.
The question is, now what?
The report suggests that the Security Council refer the situation to the International Criminal Court should local processes fail to provide appropriate accountability for the alledged crimes. That is the sort of route taken by the Council when it came to crimes in Darfur. Sudan, like Israel, is not a member of the ICC, so any court action would have to be mandated by the Security Council. Presumably, this sort of action would be blocked by Israel's historical ally on the Council, but so far, the American government has been silent on the Goldstone report. We'll have to wait and see how firmly the Obama administration stands behind the recommendations contained therein.
Meanwhile, Abraham Foxman debases himself with this kind of sentiment:
Israel refused to deal with Goldstone or the council, despite Goldstone’s Jewish credentials and longstanding ties to Israel -- he’s a trustee of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, among other things. Foxman suggested that the United Nations was using Goldstone's credibility to disguise an inherently biased report.
The idea that one of South Africa's leading anti-apartheid activists and a former head of the Rwanda and Yugolosav war crimes tribunal is just a patsy would be laughable if it did not come from the president of a formerly respectible group like the ADL.
Today the U.S. officially took its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, after being elected in June. This is the first time the U.S. has chosen to participate in the revamped Council, created to replace the UN Human Rights Commission in 2006.
The highlights of Asst. Secretary of State Esther Brimmer's remarks:
The charge of the Human Rights Council ties closely to the United States’ own history and culture. Freedom of speech, expression and belief. Due process. Equal rights for all. These enduring principles have animated some of the proudest moments in America’s journey. These human rights and fundamental freedoms are, in effect, a part of our national DNA, just as they are a part of the DNA of the United Nations. And yet, we recognize that the United States’ record on human rights is imperfect. Our history includes lapses and setbacks, and there remains a great deal of work to be done.
Building on those bedrock foundations, the United States’ aspirations for the Human Rights Council encompass several key themes. The first is universality. The principles contained [in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] are as resonant today as they were when Eleanor Roosevelt led the Commission that enshrined them. We can not pick and choose which of these rights we embrace nor select who among us are entitled to them. These rights extend to all, and the United States can not accept that any among us would be condemned to live without them.
The second is dialogue. The Human Rights Council is unique in its ability to draw together countries for serious, fact-based and forward looking debate on human rights abuses. [T]he United States will be an active and constructive participant. We will not resolve our differences overnight, nor end abuses with the wave of a hand or even the passage of a resolution. We approach this mindful of the long-haul, ready to devote the time it takes to build understanding and shared will to act.
The third is principle. We have come together as Human Rights Council members on the basis of shared principles. Our challenge lies in taking these principles - reflected in the Universal Declaration and many other broad based human rights instruments - and applying them in an even-handed way to situations that defy easy resolution. Defending our core principles from compromise and applying them fairly under all circumstances will require steadfastness and courage from all of us.
The fourth is truth. Make no mistake; the United States will not look the other way in the face of serious human rights abuses. The truth must be told, the facts brought to light and the consequences faced. While we will aim for common ground, we will call things as we see them and we will stand our ground when the truth is at stake.
More after the jump.
The government of Sri Lanka has ordered the expulsion of a UNICEF spokesperson. UNICEF Director Ann Veneman and Secretary General Ban Ki Moon have objected to the decision. But authorities in Columbo apparently stand by their decision to expel the Australian James Elder, chief of communications for UNICEF's operations in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lankan authorities have not stated what offense Elder committed. Chances are, however, that it has something to do with UNICEF speaking out on behalf of children affected by a brutal counter-insurgency against the Tamil Tigers. To date, over 200,000 ethnic Tamils are being forced to live in military run internment camps, largely off limits to the press and international humanitarian community.
Expelling a UNICEF spokesperson is not exactly the behavior of a responsible government. Sri Lanka is well on its way to becoming an international pariah state, on par with the governments of Eritrea, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Burma.
Lubna Hussein is a Sudanese woman and former UN worker arrested a few months ago in Khartoum for the crime of wearing pants. Because she is an incredibly brave human being she turned her arrest, detention and trial into a public event that drew considerable attention to the arbitrary enforcement of discriminatory laws in Sudan. Her trial concluded earlier this week. She was found guilty and sentenced to a $100 fine (which she refused to pay) and one month in prison.
She was released from prison earlier today. But her trial has made her an international hero to human rights defenders around the world. Lubna would not acquiesce to injustice. Instead, she fought it head on. In the process, she drew considerable attention to the discriminatory Sudanese criminal code. Consider this statement from the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
“Lubna Hussein, a female former UN staff member in Sudan, was yesterday sentenced to one month in jail, with the alternative of a 500 Sudanese Pound fine, on charges of dressing in an indecent manner – essentially because she was wearing trousers.
The Sudanese Criminal Act does not define what constitutes “indecent dress” and leaves wide discretion to police officers, raising concerns that the arrests are being conducted arbitrarily. According to Article 152(1) of the 1991 Criminal Act, "indecent dress" may be punished with up to 40 lashes or a fine, or both. Under international human rights standards, flogging is considered as cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Lubna Hussein's case is emblematic of a wider pattern of discrimination and application of discriminatory laws against women. Ms Hussein was arrested along with 13 other women. The arrests of all, and not only Lubna Hussein, were arbitrary and left to the discretion of police officers.
The arrest and conviction of Ms. Hussein is a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Sudan is a state party and Art. 29 of Sudan’s own Interim National Constitution. The charges were not communicated at the time of arrest which is in violation of Art. 14 of the ICCPR. Article 9 of the ICCPR deals with the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and is also applicable.
On account of being a UNMIS staff member at the time of arrest and initial trial Ms. Lubna Hussein was represented by UNMIS Legal Affairs. Ms. Hussein consequently resigned from UNMIS as the trial proceeded. However, there was lack of legal representation for the other women and inadequate time to prepare their defence. There was also an absence of review of the sentence for other women. The judgment and flogging of some of the women arrested with Ms. Hussein who were not represented by legal counsel were carried out immediately under Section 152(1) of the 1991 Criminal Act.
The rights to freedom from arbitrary arrest, to due process of law, and to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are expressly protected in the Bill of Rights contained in Sudan’s Interim National Constitution. They are also enshrined in international human rights treaties to which Sudan is a State Party.
Under the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, national laws, such as the Criminal Act, require a comprehensive review in order to bring them into line with the Interim Constitution and Sudan’s international human rights obligations. This review has yet to be completed.”
Lubna has vowed to press on. We'll be with her all the way.
When governments impose onerous restrictions on the media, it generally followes that governments have something to hide. For example, four months ago the Sri Lankan government prevented the media and foreign observers from accessing the front lines of a military campaign against the Tamil Tigers. This campaign ended up killing at least 7,000 civilians, and was described as a "bloodbath" by the UN. The government has also banned media from military-run internment camps that hold some 200,000 ethnic Tamil civilians; camps the government says are necessary to weed out potential insurgents disguising as civilians.
Despite these restrictions, one mainstream news outlet, Channel 4 News in the UK, has managed to stay on top of this story. And in so doing, Channel 4 News has emerged as the most important English language news source covering one of the most under-reported human rights stories of the past year. In May, Channel 4 managed to sneak a camera into one of these internment camps. The report showed absolutely deplorable conditions under which civilians were being held. It showed the daily humiliation visited upon female prisoners who were forced to go naked before male guards and raised allegations of rape and chronic food shortages in the camp.
The Channel 4 producers were subsequently arrested and deported. But this has not deterred Channel 4 from staying on the story. Today, Channel 4 News obtained new, shocking footage of what appears to be summary executions committed by members of the Sri Lankan military. The video is hard to watch, but it raises further questions about the conduct of the Sri Lankan military in its campaign against the Tamil Tigers. These questions, so far, have gone unanswered. There is not, as yet, an accountability mechanism for the war crimes committed in the name of defeating the Tamil Tiger insurgency.