Hillel Neuer:
''Too often the very opposite of what the Council is meant to be is the reality''
Hillel Neuer is Executive Director of UN Watch, a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is “to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter”. What follows is a summary of the interview held on June 26th in his office.
Hillel Neuer is Executive Director of UN Watch, a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is “ to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter ”. What follows is a summary of the interview held on June 26th in his office.
Pablo Brum – In your opinion, which is the greater problem in the Council: the actions of dictatorial regimes or the inaction of democracies?
Hillel Neuer – It's both. They work hand-in-hand. The only thing you need for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. The scary thing is seeing the alliances that do develop between dictatorial regimes and certain countries, and sometimes certain NGOs. The case of Jean Ziegler is just an example. Someone who is a UN expert, who was supported by the vast majority of the Council –he got 40 out of 47 votes-, and who is a lifetime apologist for some of the worst regimes - be it Mugabe in Zimbabwe , in Cuba Castro, North Korea and so forth. So at times, unfortunately, you see certain unholy alliances that develop within the United Nations, where dictatorial regimes and groups that are far-left and anti-American, for example, will make common cause. But you asked specifically about dictatorial regimes and democracies – and certainly that is the problem at the Council where, in fact, when you look at membership, we see that about 50% are free countries -and yet why is almost every resolution of the Council negative? You can't pass a positive resolution, it's almost impossible with a few exceptions. Here and there you have a resolution on Myanmar – a country that is so weak that it has no allies at all. That way you can pass a resolution, and even then they have to amend certain things they don't want to say. But still, it's only a few exceptions that prove the rule. Also, usually these exceptions are made to be a fig leaf, so that the Council and the diplomats won't be embarrassed. Obviously Israel is the main object, but every now and then something on Burma – Myanmar- , and on Darfur , where unfortunately as you know you can get resolutions but they won't be condemnatory. All of this is made possible because you have 50% of the Council who are free countries, and yet vote to support every anti-democratic, anti-human rights resolution. These include countries like India , a great democracy; include South Africa , another important democracy, and unfortunately virtually every single country in South America – democratic or not-, which have supported automatically almost every single Islamic resolution. So really, it's the action of the non-democracies, together with the inaction. In fact it's more than inaction, because they vote to support them.
Pablo Brum –What are some of the major human rights issues the Council has ignored in favor of actions like condemning Israel ? Also: Would you say Latin American countries are more aligned with the Canada/EU bloc or with the OIC/Non-Aligned bloc?
Hillel Neuer – I'll take the last question first. Unfortunately, in the Council the Latin American group seems to be fully aligned with the anti-democratic forces, which are led by the Islamic countries. It is almost guaranteed support that the Latin American countries give to the Islamic group. This is deeply disturbing. We can look at the resolutions and the votes, and one is struck by seeing Latin American countries –that people assume would be defenders of liberal principles like individual freedom and mechanisms to hold countries accountable-, and we're not seeing that. Why that is the case, whether it's because of financial considerations, political considerations, or also ideology –you have some countries in Latin America which are friendly with certain regimes, you got Daniel Ortega inviting Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua, and obviously Castro and Chávez who are also friends with Iran-, and also other governments that seem to be part of this axis. I mentioned Jean Ziegler just as an extreme example of a UN expert who is close to dictatorships – he helped found the Gadhafi Prize, won the Gadhafi Human Rights Prize, and one of its winners was Evo Morales of Bolivia. Another winner was of course Castro, and another winner was Chávez, in addition to other similar types of leaders around the world. It's interesting that Ziegler made two trips in the last year to visit two places. One of them was Cuba –where he said the Castro regime was incredible-, and the second place he went to was Bolivia, where he endorsed the Bolivian regime and said its government should be elected to the Human Rights Council and so forth. All of this was a sham. Human rights experts are supposed to investigate countries. The whole thing was just ridiculous. Unfortunately, to answer your question, the Latin American countries by and large –a few exceptions here and there-, have not been voting with the democratic bloc. The democratic bloc is composed of 12 countries at most, that can be relied upon to support mechanisms of accountability, independent investigations, to oppose pro-Hamas resolutions from the Council. You've got the European Union which is six or seven countries; you got Japan , Canada , and a handful of others. Latin American countries are not among them.
In regard to your questions about situations ignored by the Human Rights Council, we just don't have enough time to sit here all day to look at them. The answer is that almost every human rights situation has been ignored by the Human Rights Council, with a handful of very narrow exceptions. Burma ( Myanmar ), which is an historic exception. Myanmar has always had unanimous or consensual resolutions, because it has no alliances. It has some important friends like India and China , who trade with it. So really it's an anomaly. You have a few other exceptions. You have North Korea , which again is in a similar situation. Both of these are radical regimes, they are rogue regimes that have no friends or allies at all. Again, North Korea has certain support from China , but it too has also been historically an anomaly and an exception, and is one of those countries that could be condemned. So it too received one condemnation. Then we have a resolution on Darfur , which was non-condemnatory. It had some critical language, but then you got praise, praise for Sudan as you know for “cooperation”, and resolutions that talk about “the needs of Sudan ”. The resolution on Darfur talks about “the needs of Sudan ”. It's really grotesque.
So we've got 19 country resolutions by the new Council against Israel . That's the way for the Council to show that it's doing something. These are the situations that have been addressed; the situations that have been ignored are all human rights situations around the world. It's a long list; we could include another twenty worst-of-the-world situations that are just ignored. China, which has a sixth of the world's population , that have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble – and the list goes on. China is ignored. The Human Rights Commission used to have a resolution that would be attempted [frequently]. Every couple years, the United States would try, or one of its friends would try. In the Council, no one has even tried. The most you get is a speech. When the killings in Tibet were in the front pages it was embarrassing for Western countries not to raise it. They raised it and there was opposition to even raising it. Even mentioning it as a certain item of debate was considered out of order. China interrupted the United States and other NGOs when they tried. So, a sixth of the world's population, which suffers gross human rights abuses, has no voice in the Human Rights Council. The list goes on. Cuba has been not only ignored but worse – it has been celebrated at the Council. Cuba historically had a mandate to investigate its systematic abuses. The expert was not an American puppet; actually she was French (Cristine Chanet). She would talk not only about violations by Cuba , but also the embargo –she wanted it lifted-, so no one could claim this was an American puppet at all. This was an important mandate. In Cuba no one has the freedom to express criticism of the government, so you need someone from the outside to do that. It was so vital to have a UN voice do that, and it was eliminated. It was eliminated in June 2007 in the package of [first President of the Council and Mexican delegate] De Alba, of which one of the key elements was the elimination of the Cuba mandate. So that was gone. This was compounded a few months later, to rub salt into the wound, by Cuba 's saying “to show our openness we are inviting Jean Ziegler” – who is of course a long-time supporter of Castro. He came and it was reported in the press that it was something big. Louise Arbour praised Cuba for letting him come. The whole thing would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for the people of Cuba , who have traded one Castro for another.
So you go across the world. Zimbabwe : there's no special session on Zimbabwe . You think Mugabe has gone as low as he could go, and then he finds a way to go even lower: to kill more people, torture more people, make more refugees. And no one has even stopped to propose a special session on Zimbabwe . And even if they were to try –the UK , or France , or Canada would try-, they'd never get the requisite majority. They should at least call a special session, but they're not even doing that. The list goes on around the world. You got China in Asia , in Africa Zimbabwe, in the Americas Cuba, all of these are ignored and really the list goes on. It's tragic.
Mariana Dambolena – And Iran ?
Hillel Neuer – Iran – of course, again, another example. Here you have a few experts, to their credit, which have spoken out. The UN expert on racism deserves credit –he will soon be replaced-, Doudou Diène, has condemned as an expert, individually, Iran's threats of genocide. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General, did. The Council, of course, has done nothing on Iran. It's not just the calling to destroy another member state, but it's Iran's treatment of women. Women are stoned for adultery; if they protest for women's rights they are brutally beaten and arrested. Iran is a gross violator of human rights.
Pablo Brum – I was going to ask you about Cuba's participation. They seem to have a leading role in the Council's functioning. They have a prominent voice. Would you have something to add in regard to that?
Hillel Neuer – It's important to note that. People don't realize that Cuba, as a dictatorial regime, plays such an important role in the Human Rights Council. Cuba chairs the Non-Aligned Movement. It plays a vigorous and leading role at the Council. It's obscene that you have that regime on a Council that's meant to promote human rights. I don't think most people realize that unfortunately, too often the very opposite of what the Council is meant to be is the reality. The fact that Cuba plays such a leading role in the Council is just one shining example among many.
Pablo Brum – What is your opinion of Uruguay's participation in the Council? Do you think it has a positive voting record?
Hillel Neuer – We haven't paid special attention to Uruguay. Unfortunately, Uruguay along with other Latin American countries has a negative voting record. That's pretty disturbing. The Human Rights Council could be a voice for victims around the world, and what's needed is countries that will support independent mechanisms and that will speak out for victims around the world. Uruguay has failed to do that. When people think about Uruguay, they think about –myself not knowing a great deal about it-, they think about a nice place, about a country that will be supportive of human rights. But when it comes to defending [rights] when it counts, Uruguay has failed.
Mariana Dambolena – Do you think Latin American countries could make a difference?
Hillel Neuer – Absolutely. In fact, I would even say that they would make a difference. They are the swing vote. If Latin American countries would make a decision to support legitimate and authentic human rights mechanisms in the Council –mechanisms that would hold countries accountable and that would address country situations and would oppose repeated attempts by the Islamic group to destroy freedom of speech and to introduce Islamic anti-blasphemy laws into international law. If Latin American countries as a block would be opposing instead of supporting these measures –as they do in most cases-, it would be a radical change for the Council. It's actually vitally important that anyone who cares about human rights and the ability of the United Nations to be credible in human rights would need to urge Latin American governments to take a new approach, and to reconsider the path that they've taken until now, presumably for political reasons. If they would do so as a block, they could succeed. Canada has been very firm in voting against counterproductive resolutions. Has it suffered in any way? Canada remains a very successful and wealthy country. Australia is the same. The Zimbabwes and the Irans and the Cubas and the Middle Eastern countries, at a certain point reach a grudging respect. I think Latin American countries should show more courage.
Pablo Brum – And speaking of Latin American countries, Argentina and Chile joined the Council on June 20 th . Both leaders, both female Presidents, have expressed an interest in protecting human rights. For example, the President of Argentina famously condemned the dictator of Guinea-Bissau to his face, in a press conference.
Hillel Neuer – I wasn't aware of that.
Pablo Brum – It was sort of a scandal at the time. Do you expect anything in particular from those countries?
Hillel Neuer – Based on their records in the past few years we have little reason for hope. It is vital for human rights groups and the human rights and pro-democracy community in Latin America to hold their governments accountable. We often hear a lot of rhetoric from governments that supports human rights. In fact, when you look at their voting records, you see something completely different. There's a thinking that goes: What's done in Geneva stays in Geneva . No one will ever know. No one will ever know in Buenos Aires and Montevideo, or Santiago. If human rights groups want to do a good deed, they ought to make known to their public what is being done in their name, because they probably don't know.
Pablo Brum – In your opinion, which is the greater problem in the Council: the actions of dictatorial regimes or the inaction of democracies?
Hillel Neuer – It's both. They work hand-in-hand. The only thing you need for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. The scary thing is seeing the alliances that do develop between dictatorial regimes and certain countries, and sometimes certain NGOs. The case of Jean Ziegler is just an example. Someone who is a UN expert, who was supported by the vast majority of the Council –he got 40 out of 47 votes-, and who is a lifetime apologist for some of the worst regimes - be it Mugabe in Zimbabwe , in Cuba Castro, North Korea and so forth. So at times, unfortunately, you see certain unholy alliances that develop within the United Nations, where dictatorial regimes and groups that are far-left and anti-American, for example, will make common cause. But you asked specifically about dictatorial regimes and democracies – and certainly that is the problem at the Council where, in fact, when you look at membership, we see that about 50% are free countries -and yet why is almost every resolution of the Council negative? You can't pass a positive resolution, it's almost impossible with a few exceptions. Here and there you have a resolution on Myanmar – a country that is so weak that it has no allies at all. That way you can pass a resolution, and even then they have to amend certain things they don't want to say. But still, it's only a few exceptions that prove the rule. Also, usually these exceptions are made to be a fig leaf, so that the Council and the diplomats won't be embarrassed. Obviously Israel is the main object, but every now and then something on Burma – Myanmar- , and on Darfur , where unfortunately as you know you can get resolutions but they won't be condemnatory. All of this is made possible because you have 50% of the Council who are free countries, and yet vote to support every anti-democratic, anti-human rights resolution. These include countries like India , a great democracy; include South Africa , another important democracy, and unfortunately virtually every single country in South America – democratic or not-, which have supported automatically almost every single Islamic resolution. So really, it's the action of the non-democracies, together with the inaction. In fact it's more than inaction, because they vote to support them.
Pablo Brum –What are some of the major human rights issues the Council has ignored in favor of actions like condemning Israel ? Also: Would you say Latin American countries are more aligned with the Canada/EU bloc or with the OIC/Non-Aligned bloc?
Hillel Neuer – I'll take the last question first. Unfortunately, in the Council the Latin American group seems to be fully aligned with the anti-democratic forces, which are led by the Islamic countries. It is almost guaranteed support that the Latin American countries give to the Islamic group. This is deeply disturbing. We can look at the resolutions and the votes, and one is struck by seeing Latin American countries –that people assume would be defenders of liberal principles like individual freedom and mechanisms to hold countries accountable-, and we're not seeing that. Why that is the case, whether it's because of financial considerations, political considerations, or also ideology –you have some countries in Latin America which are friendly with certain regimes, you got Daniel Ortega inviting Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua, and obviously Castro and Chávez who are also friends with Iran-, and also other governments that seem to be part of this axis. I mentioned Jean Ziegler just as an extreme example of a UN expert who is close to dictatorships – he helped found the Gadhafi Prize, won the Gadhafi Human Rights Prize, and one of its winners was Evo Morales of Bolivia. Another winner was of course Castro, and another winner was Chávez, in addition to other similar types of leaders around the world. It's interesting that Ziegler made two trips in the last year to visit two places. One of them was Cuba –where he said the Castro regime was incredible-, and the second place he went to was Bolivia, where he endorsed the Bolivian regime and said its government should be elected to the Human Rights Council and so forth. All of this was a sham. Human rights experts are supposed to investigate countries. The whole thing was just ridiculous. Unfortunately, to answer your question, the Latin American countries by and large –a few exceptions here and there-, have not been voting with the democratic bloc. The democratic bloc is composed of 12 countries at most, that can be relied upon to support mechanisms of accountability, independent investigations, to oppose pro-Hamas resolutions from the Council. You've got the European Union which is six or seven countries; you got Japan , Canada , and a handful of others. Latin American countries are not among them.
In regard to your questions about situations ignored by the Human Rights Council, we just don't have enough time to sit here all day to look at them. The answer is that almost every human rights situation has been ignored by the Human Rights Council, with a handful of very narrow exceptions. Burma ( Myanmar ), which is an historic exception. Myanmar has always had unanimous or consensual resolutions, because it has no alliances. It has some important friends like India and China , who trade with it. So really it's an anomaly. You have a few other exceptions. You have North Korea , which again is in a similar situation. Both of these are radical regimes, they are rogue regimes that have no friends or allies at all. Again, North Korea has certain support from China , but it too has also been historically an anomaly and an exception, and is one of those countries that could be condemned. So it too received one condemnation. Then we have a resolution on Darfur , which was non-condemnatory. It had some critical language, but then you got praise, praise for Sudan as you know for “cooperation”, and resolutions that talk about “the needs of Sudan ”. The resolution on Darfur talks about “the needs of Sudan ”. It's really grotesque.
So we've got 19 country resolutions by the new Council against Israel . That's the way for the Council to show that it's doing something. These are the situations that have been addressed; the situations that have been ignored are all human rights situations around the world. It's a long list; we could include another twenty worst-of-the-world situations that are just ignored. China, which has a sixth of the world's population , that have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble – and the list goes on. China is ignored. The Human Rights Commission used to have a resolution that would be attempted [frequently]. Every couple years, the United States would try, or one of its friends would try. In the Council, no one has even tried. The most you get is a speech. When the killings in Tibet were in the front pages it was embarrassing for Western countries not to raise it. They raised it and there was opposition to even raising it. Even mentioning it as a certain item of debate was considered out of order. China interrupted the United States and other NGOs when they tried. So, a sixth of the world's population, which suffers gross human rights abuses, has no voice in the Human Rights Council. The list goes on. Cuba has been not only ignored but worse – it has been celebrated at the Council. Cuba historically had a mandate to investigate its systematic abuses. The expert was not an American puppet; actually she was French (Cristine Chanet). She would talk not only about violations by Cuba , but also the embargo –she wanted it lifted-, so no one could claim this was an American puppet at all. This was an important mandate. In Cuba no one has the freedom to express criticism of the government, so you need someone from the outside to do that. It was so vital to have a UN voice do that, and it was eliminated. It was eliminated in June 2007 in the package of [first President of the Council and Mexican delegate] De Alba, of which one of the key elements was the elimination of the Cuba mandate. So that was gone. This was compounded a few months later, to rub salt into the wound, by Cuba 's saying “to show our openness we are inviting Jean Ziegler” – who is of course a long-time supporter of Castro. He came and it was reported in the press that it was something big. Louise Arbour praised Cuba for letting him come. The whole thing would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for the people of Cuba , who have traded one Castro for another.
So you go across the world. Zimbabwe : there's no special session on Zimbabwe . You think Mugabe has gone as low as he could go, and then he finds a way to go even lower: to kill more people, torture more people, make more refugees. And no one has even stopped to propose a special session on Zimbabwe . And even if they were to try –the UK , or France , or Canada would try-, they'd never get the requisite majority. They should at least call a special session, but they're not even doing that. The list goes on around the world. You got China in Asia , in Africa Zimbabwe, in the Americas Cuba, all of these are ignored and really the list goes on. It's tragic.
Mariana Dambolena – And Iran ?
Hillel Neuer – Iran – of course, again, another example. Here you have a few experts, to their credit, which have spoken out. The UN expert on racism deserves credit –he will soon be replaced-, Doudou Diène, has condemned as an expert, individually, Iran's threats of genocide. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General, did. The Council, of course, has done nothing on Iran. It's not just the calling to destroy another member state, but it's Iran's treatment of women. Women are stoned for adultery; if they protest for women's rights they are brutally beaten and arrested. Iran is a gross violator of human rights.
Pablo Brum – I was going to ask you about Cuba's participation. They seem to have a leading role in the Council's functioning. They have a prominent voice. Would you have something to add in regard to that?
Hillel Neuer – It's important to note that. People don't realize that Cuba, as a dictatorial regime, plays such an important role in the Human Rights Council. Cuba chairs the Non-Aligned Movement. It plays a vigorous and leading role at the Council. It's obscene that you have that regime on a Council that's meant to promote human rights. I don't think most people realize that unfortunately, too often the very opposite of what the Council is meant to be is the reality. The fact that Cuba plays such a leading role in the Council is just one shining example among many.
Pablo Brum – What is your opinion of Uruguay's participation in the Council? Do you think it has a positive voting record?
Hillel Neuer – We haven't paid special attention to Uruguay. Unfortunately, Uruguay along with other Latin American countries has a negative voting record. That's pretty disturbing. The Human Rights Council could be a voice for victims around the world, and what's needed is countries that will support independent mechanisms and that will speak out for victims around the world. Uruguay has failed to do that. When people think about Uruguay, they think about –myself not knowing a great deal about it-, they think about a nice place, about a country that will be supportive of human rights. But when it comes to defending [rights] when it counts, Uruguay has failed.
Mariana Dambolena – Do you think Latin American countries could make a difference?
Hillel Neuer – Absolutely. In fact, I would even say that they would make a difference. They are the swing vote. If Latin American countries would make a decision to support legitimate and authentic human rights mechanisms in the Council –mechanisms that would hold countries accountable and that would address country situations and would oppose repeated attempts by the Islamic group to destroy freedom of speech and to introduce Islamic anti-blasphemy laws into international law. If Latin American countries as a block would be opposing instead of supporting these measures –as they do in most cases-, it would be a radical change for the Council. It's actually vitally important that anyone who cares about human rights and the ability of the United Nations to be credible in human rights would need to urge Latin American governments to take a new approach, and to reconsider the path that they've taken until now, presumably for political reasons. If they would do so as a block, they could succeed. Canada has been very firm in voting against counterproductive resolutions. Has it suffered in any way? Canada remains a very successful and wealthy country. Australia is the same. The Zimbabwes and the Irans and the Cubas and the Middle Eastern countries, at a certain point reach a grudging respect. I think Latin American countries should show more courage.
Pablo Brum – And speaking of Latin American countries, Argentina and Chile joined the Council on June 20 th . Both leaders, both female Presidents, have expressed an interest in protecting human rights. For example, the President of Argentina famously condemned the dictator of Guinea-Bissau to his face, in a press conference.
Hillel Neuer – I wasn't aware of that.
Pablo Brum – It was sort of a scandal at the time. Do you expect anything in particular from those countries?
Hillel Neuer – Based on their records in the past few years we have little reason for hope. It is vital for human rights groups and the human rights and pro-democracy community in Latin America to hold their governments accountable. We often hear a lot of rhetoric from governments that supports human rights. In fact, when you look at their voting records, you see something completely different. There's a thinking that goes: What's done in Geneva stays in Geneva . No one will ever know. No one will ever know in Buenos Aires and Montevideo, or Santiago. If human rights groups want to do a good deed, they ought to make known to their public what is being done in their name, because they probably don't know.