Dear all,

the 3rd HRC special session was held in Geneve last Wednesday. It was also the third special session concerning Middle East. SHRC started its internal debate after the session. We discussed statements on countries concerned, as well as the most characteristic statements of the other countries. For SHRC it was a very new experience to work on a special session, just after we finished working on 2nd ordinary session. Soon we will present more details about SHRC: our reports, ideas and plans! Now we would like to encourage everyone to take part in our discussion on OPT. Let me just post my short input and I am looking forward to your responds!

At 1979 UN GA President Binaisa of Uganda said: „For how long will the UN remain silent while governments represented within this organization continue to perpetrate atrocities against their own people?” Today we can be happy about the fact that the international community is not silent about the tragedy of OPT. But does it mean that the wish of Binaisa is fulfilled? It seems that the world still can not find balance between politics and interest of peoples. Even if we strongly condemn the Israeli operation, we must honestly admit that the last one-sided HRC resolution is not what Middle – East really needs, and – especially – it is not what people in Gaza, Beit Hanoun and Sderot need. As liberals, we are foremost concerned about rights of individuals, as we wrote when we were creating SHRC. Furthermore, we believe that it is a human being who always stand in the middle of politics. For liberals, it is not the main problem, which of governments (Israel or Palestine) is innocent. The main problem is how many people die and suffer all kinds of horrible inconveniences every day, week
and month. In case of Middle East and – specifically – in case of the last tragedy the general presumption must be: human rights belong to individuals,not to governments. It makes clear that these are individuals (specifically NGOs) who must make the societies of Middle East strong enough to persuade their governments to finish the spiral of terror. Liberal answer for the tragedy is to show the civil society another way. Fact – finding missions and resolutions can only support these efforts.

Best regards,

Jan Pawlak

Young Center (MC), Poland

SHRC co-ordinator

Dear All

it occurred to me the other day that we as a people have this reaction to ethnic genocide that says - lets talk about human rights - lets talk about human rights violations...

after the 60000 bodies are mass cremated?

after the civil war escalates such that every household has at least 1 funeral every two months?

after the criminal dictators who wield the scabre of abuse are hailed at the UN?

after the diamond, oil, gas and precious metal extraction and beneficiation deals are signed?

after it becomes a PR disaster for some bigwig who finds out that his "business partner" is a warlord?

 ***

surely if we believe in Human Rights - we will do like Rousseau and be prepared to defend tha principle to our deaths?

***

so let the liberals form militias to defend the weak the downtrodden the oppressed and abused - and lets start in the cities where we live because the single biggest victims of Human Rights Abuses are the homeless "vagrants" who live in first world cities. and theyre on your doorstep.

First of all, I think Jan makes an excellent point that we as liberals should foremost look at the situation of the individual people who are being affected by the conflict, which is no doubt one of the most complex issues in international politics today. My organization sent a small exploratory mission to Israel last weekend to speak with some Palestinian youth organizations. The lack of hope for a better future is the main problem for young people in the region. When there is constant fear for conflict, which is also present among Israeli youth, it must be difficult to build a society, let alone two democratic states that can co-exist peacefully.

As for the international reaction, the UN has always been a battleground for the proponents of both sides in the conflict. A majority of states puts the blame on Israel, a large minority is in-between, and a few states are against any condemnation of Israeli actions (usually the US and Israel). But it must be said that picture is not always clear, as there are even diverging opinions within the European Union. There are different interests for France than for the Netherlands, for example. Now, it is evident that Israel has a lot to answer for when human rights are concerned. It is equally so that the Palestinian Authorities can do a lot more to prevent acts of terrorism.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to ask for an evenhanded resolution in a conflict where the parties are not balanced at all. So, I do feel there is a need for institutions like the Human Rights Council to speak out. However, it is necessary that the HRC does this in a credible way. In the past, it was easy to issue a condemnation without any justification. Now, by strengthening the apparatus for monitoring human rights on an international level, the members of HRC will be held more accountable for the statements they make. Hopefully, this will bring an end to the vicious circle of finger-pointing and give way for a strong and effective international voice in regards to the conflict in the region.

Thanks, Thomas, for your comment and important remark about the role of institutions. Credibility is indeed an important point in this discussion and in the general discussion on the HRC as well. One of the measures of credibility is impartiality. Another one is non-selectivity... Both and all the other measures must be based on the respect for facts. And this respect does not depand on the institutions, procedures and resolutions establishing these institutions. It depends on the participants of the decision-making process. It seems that some of them are not still keen to respect all of the facts. This situation may sometimes remind us of the worse part of the history of the CHR.

Let us hope that the today's session on Darfur will be the next step in the process of building HRC's credibility.

 _______________

Jan Pawlak

Young Center (MC), Poland

SHRC co-ordinator

Chaps

 I fully agree with these positions of yours.

 What i want to know is however this, If the HRC doesnt do something or does something we dont want; how do we get them to do what we want. Obviously if we have people on the HRC its easier, but if we're on the sidelines, we will have to engage at some point and at some level in Civic Protest/Campaigning.

Can we do this?

There is great potential for IFLRY to have an impact on the HRC. Of course, in a global sense, it may look marginal, but every step forward counts. I believe that our main advantage is that we are an international federation of political youth organizations, based on a system of belief that places strong emphasis on human rights. Each of those characteristics is very relevant. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, they are wonderful organizations, but they are NGOs, which means that by name and definition, they are on the sidelines of the actual politics that is being done. They are impartial, and that is good. IFLRY is also an NGO, but it can work on both fronts.

Since we want to involve ourselves in the political life, through the member organizations, we can in fact change the positions that the members of the HRC take. Evidently, we don't all live in Andorra where the liberals have an absolute majority and your next-door neighbor could be the UN Representative, but each of our member organizations has a role to play. Belgium has a decent minister of foreign affairs of the liberal party, and I think that the youth organization is closer to him than organizations such as Amnesty. But even when the liberal are in opposition, there are ways to question government through protest, letter writing campaigns, lobbying MPs, etc.

That is why it is important for an organization such as IFLRY to raise awareness for the activities of the HRC. Too often, young people say that there is no way to influence international politics. However, by effectively and thoroughly understanding how positions are being formed, by gathering knowledge and information and by co-ordinating actions between MOs without without imposing anything, we can in fact make a difference. And most importantly, we are doing this as liberals. We are not there at the HRC to promote some small interest of specific. No, we believe that our ideals can benefit all inhabitants of this planet. This is what will make us a credible player on the international level.

For once I am just going to smile ;) and say, "right on brother"

how do we become honourary citizens of Andorra? ;)

Well on the European angle, you might want to have a look at this article, dealing with a call by Menzies Campbell (leader of the British Liberal Democrats) calling for more of an EU role in the Middle East peace process:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6173777.stm

the campbell dude is cool ;) he doesnt have kennedy's charm, but there's something about him, that tells u right off the bat that he's a reasonable sort.

can the EU deploy a peacekeeping force? like NATO?

Yes - there are EU peacekeepers in Macedonia, for example - but I think Ming is referring more to negotiating between the two parties. There might be a particular issue when it comes to trying to start negotiations with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, whereby one could imagine the Palestinian government being better able to trust a European negotiating team than an American one.

???

i dunno, i think theres another reason...

that, a Coalition of the Willing (USA+UK+Co) force would not have much credibility with the Palestinians (and their allies); while a NATO force would also not have much credibility with the Palestinians. However a EU force would exclude the USA, but include the new EU Members (source of cheap military labour from ex Warsaw Pact Countries), and patch up the differences between USA/UK and FRA/GRM over the whole Middle East invasion campaign, by allowing FRA/GRM to get a slice of the post-war pie.

nb. "force" = people deployed to sort out a problem through political, economic, diplomatic or military means.

hi!!
 Well on the European angle, you might want to have a look at this article, dealing with a call by Menzies Campbell (leader of the British Liberal Democrats) calling for more of an EU role in the Middle East peace process:

 Term Papers

Thanks for paying our attention to it and giving such a helpful information.

Menzies Campbell has not been the leader of the Lib Dems for a very long time!

detox retreats