 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 6 - 12 May 1999 Issue No. 428 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 6 - 12 May 1999 Issue No. 428
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Special Focus Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Getting mild on human rights
By Mohamed KhaledThe United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), in its annual session which ended last week, adopted what observers described as a "mild resolution" on the Sudanese government's record of human rights violations. This year's resolution, in marked contrast to ones passed over the past six years, condemned human rights abuses in Sudan but also welcomed reports of recent improvements regarding freedom of expression and association.
The resolution, adopted by consensus, expressed deep concern over extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary execution, but failed to make any mention of the practice of slavery or religious persecution allegedly practised by the Sudanese government in the south. Instead of referring explicitly to "slavery" the resolution used euphemisms such as "enforced or involuntary disappearance" and referred to the "abduction of women and children [who are] subjected to forced labour or similar conditions."
The Sudanese delegation to the commission went along with the text and the Sudanese parliament reacted by issuing a statement last week describing the resolution as "fair". The UN resolution, according to the statement, "proved that the world community has shown an understanding of the Sudanese government's efforts to achieve peace [in the south] and recognised the constitutional developments that have taken place in the country."
In his report to the commission, the recently appointed UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Sudan, Leonardo Franco, cited a climate of intimidation and fear in the country. He said that arbitrary arrests and torture are widespread and pointed out that tentative progress toward allowing political parties has been overshadowed by curtailment of other political freedoms.
In the opinion of some Sudanese human rights activists the report was inadequately brief and did not cover all forms of violations. "The rapporteur made a short nine-day visit [during February] which is not enough for a full comprehensive assessment," Hamouda Fath Al-Rahman, secretary-general of the Sudanese Human Rights Organisation, told Al-Ahram Weekly.
Yet, despite Franco's brief, but clear report, this year's resolution seems unusual. One of the reasons behind the mild condemnation contained in the resolution is that the Sudanese government has largely succeeded during the last few months in convincing the international community that there is an improvement in the human rights situation in Sudan. The approval of a new constitution that allows, subject to certain conditions, registration of new political parties helped the Sudanese government appear in a more favourable light. The conclusion of a peace agreement with some rebel groups in southern Sudan is also thought to have influenced opinion in favour of the government.
Some analysts also noted that this year's UNCHR proposal did not come from the United States, as has been the case for the previous six years. Washington's decision to leave the tabling of the resolution on Sudan to the European Union this time was interpreted as an attempt to compensate for what many observers agreed was an unjustified missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant last year.
However, after the official resolution was adopted last week, the US delegation issued a statement disagreeing with attempts to equate the actions of the government and the rebels in the south. "The resolution expresses deep concern over extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the armed conflict, supposedly perpetrated by all parties. This attempt to be even handed is misplaced. It is the government of Sudan which executes all surrendered soldiers while the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) takes prisoners, a fact confirmed by international authorities who have visited their POW camps" the US statement said. It also pointed out that the resolution did not mention the practice of slavery in the regions of Bahr Al-Ghazal and Darfur, saying that this "will be seen by some as ignoring an abominable practice for which there should be zero tolerance."
The US delegation said that it had supported consensus on the resolution "only because of Washington's strong desire to assist" the efforts of the special rapporteur.
It seems that major Western countries are about to embark on a policy that avoids serious confrontation with developing countries. According to some commentators, the Western-backed United Nations policy on handling issues of human rights violations in developing countries has been brought into question in terms of both output and the high cost of establishing fact-finding commissions.
Many questions have also been raised about the efficacy of condemnations and other procedures adopted by the United Nations and other international human rights organisations over past decades. A new trend appears to be gaining momentum in the area of tackling human rights violations which requires that international bodies address the causes of the violations rather than merely catalogue the abuses.
