This week, the UN Human Rights Council held a special session on the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan-its fourth special session, and the first not focusing on Israel. The result? A disappointingly weak resolution that refrained from any criticism of the Sudanese government, despite its widely documented involvement in the ongoing, egregious human rights violations there. The word “violation” does not even appear in the document at all.

Contrary to the self-congratulatory statements by many Council ambassadors at the session’s close, this outcome is neither a victory for the Council, nor for the long-suffering victims in Darfur.

The brief resolution merely expresses the Council’s “concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation” in Darfur. (A European proposal would have expressed “grave concern,” but even that was too strong for Sudan’s African, Arab and Islamic Group allies.) Neither the government of Sudan nor any other party to the conflict is deemed in any way responsible for causing, contributing to, or stopping that “situation.” The resolution even “welcomes” the Sudanese government’s “cooperation” with the UN-conveniently ignoring Khartoum’s repeated refusals to admit the UN peacekeeping force mandated by the Security Council last August. This soft approach stands in stark contrast to the harshly condemnatory language of the resolutions from the Council’s three previous special sessions, on Israeli actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Gaza again.

Moreover, as a result of the denials by Sudan and its supporters of the gravity of the crisis, the Council could not even agree on the well-documented facts, but only on the need for an assessment mission-by “five highly qualified persons” chosen by the Council President, and the Council’s independent expert on Sudan. Although it remains to be seen who the President, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, will chose for the mission, this composition is at least slightly better than the African Group’s initial proposal for a mission made up of Council members themselves-an attempt to assert political control over what should be an impartial process.

The special session’s outcome only confirms the double standard at work in the Council: Israel is repeatedly and harshly condemned, while other countries, if addressed at all, are treated with kid gloves. Yes, the Council has now addressed Darfur, but only weakly and without criticism. Israel is still the only country in the entire world that the Council, in its six months of existence, has censured for human rights violations. The Council, to date, has passed eight condemnatory resolutions against the Jewish state.

In a statement delivered on behalf of 31 NGOs, UN Watch expressed our hope that the special session would be “just the beginning of the Council’s active engagement, not only on Darfur, but on all major human rights crises worldwide.” We are deeply disappointed in the session’s immediate outcome, but we have not abandoned that hope. The Darfur assessment mission may yet turn out to be truly impartial, independent, and expert, and if so, it could help lay the groundwork for concrete, future Council action to help the millions of victims in Darfur. And the Council may yet begin to address other egregious human rights situations around the globe.

We still hope for improvement in the Council’s performance, and we will be watching.

_____________________

Full Text of Statement

HRC 4th Special Session The Human Rights Situation in Darfur December 13, 2006 Delivered by Leon Saltiel of UN Watch

Thank you, Mr. President.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR