UN's Annan Concerned About Use of
Terror's T-Word to Repress, Wants Freedom of Information
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee at the U.N.
UNITED NATIONS, June 15 -- The UN's Kofi
Annan, with six months left in his term, answered twenty media questions on
Thursday. Most dealt with the issues of UN reform, and the triple B's of Bolton,
budget and Mark Malloch Brown. As
question 19 out of 20,
from Minute 51:15 through 55:50, Inner City Press asked about the
Secretary-General's recent
praise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's
members' initiatives against separatism, in light for example of Uzbekistan's
imprisonment and torture of opponents. The full Q & A is below.
Uzbek refugees
Mr. Annan
Mr.
Annan responded that he has been speaking with the High Commissioner for
refugees, Antonio Guterres, about Uzbekistan and both the bulk of those fleeing
and specifically the four Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan; he used the terms of art
enforced refoulement, "particularly if they may be at risk if they are sent back
against their will." The Secretary-General said he has in the past spoken with
the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov; perhaps that is needed again. Mr.
Annan said he's increasingly concerned with the "excesses" he's seen in the
fight against terrorism. "It's been too easy for some governments to put the T
word on someone and then move against them and expect that nobody asks
questions," he said, an apt description of China's use of the "E.T." word, East
Turkestan, as well as the usual lack of questions about Xinjiang and places like
it at the UN.
On Inner City Press's second
question, which Mr. Annan called the third, whether he support and will
implement a Freedom of Information Act during his final six months, Mr. Annan
asked for clarification, which was given by reference to the UN Staff Union's
report on internal justice and even the calls for transparency from US
Ambassador Bolton. "Yes,"
the Secretary-General said, "I think we
should be more forthcoming."
He mentioned that some documents would have
to be withheld, concerning confidential communications with heads of state.
That should be no obstacle or excuse: all FOI laws have exemptions, for
pre-decisional and other information, within an overarching presumption of a
fight to information, such as that contained, too vaguely, in Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Minutes later,
Inner City Press asked Ambassador Bolton if
he might work with Kofi Annan on a Freedom of Information mechanism. The
response was not yes, but neither was it no. Amb. Bolton referenced his meeting
Wednesday with the Staff Council, and said he'd follow up.
In more marginal news, just before the
Kofi Annan briefing, journalists were cleared from Room 226 so that a
bomb-sniffing dog could go through. Later by the 46th Street entrance, the dog
and his handler were interviewed. The former's name is Storm. Meanwhile Sandy
Berger floated off the UN grounds with a big name tag on, and no documents in
sight. In the basement, the plasma TV sign for a meeting of the Friends of the
International Criminal Court said, "Closed meeting." Some friends...
Later at the Security Council stakeout, the Palestinian Permanent Observed
answered Inner City Press' request for an update on whether a funding mechanism
for the Palestinian Authority, previously discussed at the UN, has been found.
No, was the answered, talks remain ongoing in Brussels.
Pakistan's UN envoy Munir
Akram played diplomat upstairs before the UN Correspondent's Association. When
Pakistan come forward with its candidate for Secretary-General, now that India
has? It is complicated, he said, while stating that no country with eyes on a
(permanent) Security Council seat should also field a candidate for Secretary
General. Inner City Press asked Ambassador Akram about Baluchistan, the few
English language articles regarding which invariably use the adjective restive,
as well as about
mass evictions of the poor in Karachi.
On the former, Amb. Akram spoke
dismissively of "three Sardars" who used to work with the government, but who
then wanted more money. Amb. Akram said that their
Baluchistan Liberation Army
has funding and arms from "outside sources." When Inner City Press pointedly
asked if that means India, Amb. Akram declined to answer. The evictions, he
said, probably relate to attempts to give the poor more rather than fewer
property rights -- a position
not shared by close observers.
Finally, Inner City Press asked Amb. Akram if Pakistan would consider as its S-G
candidate the human rights lawyer, previously UN Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir. "I suppose not,"
Amb. Akram answered dryly. Later over a Pakistani lunch he spoke of Somalia,
calling it "Taliban Two." Given the links between Pakistan's ISI and Taliban
One, the irony was as pungent as the spinach, yoghurt and rice. Let the Games
continue.
June 15, 2006 Question and
Answer
Inner
City Press question:
This is a question about Asia and human rights. The media in China and Central
Asia reported your remark earlier this week that you praised the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization in its meeting for its work against terrorism,
extremism and separatism. And it said that you praised this, as I am sure you
know, UNHCR has criticized Uzbekistan for requiring that people be deported and
locking them up. China has cracked down on its Uighur minority. So I wonder if
you have any guidance for the balance between human rights and fighting
terrorism and, totally separately, whether you would consider supporting a
freedom of information act at the United Nations in the six months that remain
to you, maybe even imposing it in the Secretariat, as an experiment? Those are
two different questions.
The
Secretary-General: May I ask for
clarification on your third question? What do you mean by “freedom of
information act at the UN”?
Inner City Press clarification:
Okay, I’m sorry. The Staff Union report that just came out suggested that
documents be made available not just on a whim, but as a right, to the media or
to the public, as many Member States have such a law. I think Mr. Bolton has
said, and a variety of people have said – and I think you even said in your
reform proposal that you would favour something like that. So I just wanted to
hear whether you would actually implement it.
The
Secretary-General: I think, on the
question of effective action against terrorism and civil liberties and human
rights, my position is very clear: that there can really be no tradeoff between
effective action against terrorism and civil liberties and human rights of the
individual, and that if we undermine human rights, if we undermine the rule of
law in our fight against terrorism, then we are giving the terrorists a victory
they could never have won alone. And this is why I’ve been quite concerned about
some of the excesses I’ve seen around the world when it comes to the fight
against terrorism. It’s been very easy for many Governments to just put the
T-word on someone and then move against them, and expect that nobody asks
questions. So we have to be very, very careful not to undermine the basic rule
of law in the fight against terrorism.
As to my message to the others, I think it was a
gathering that was going to talk about security and the fight against terrorism,
and it was to encourage them in that direction. I’m very much aware of the High
Commissioner’s difficulties with the Government you mentioned. I’ve had the
opportunity to speak to the President myself at the time when the bulk of them
were allowed to leave. And we are working on the four, and in fact the High
Commissioner, Mr. Guterres, spoke to me about it, that we should make sure that
there’s no enforced refoulement, particularly when they may be at risk if they
are sent back against their will. And not only that: he has made arrangements
with other Government that are willing to accept these four. So, it’s not that
they will be stateless; we have homes for them. So we are asking the Government
to hand them over to the High Commissioner for Refugees; and Mr. Guterres has
worked very hard and has homes for them, and I urge the Government to let them
go.
On your freedom of information act – or, freedom
of information in the sense of making information available – I think, as an
Organization, we are pretty open. In fact, sometimes I say this is one of those
buildings, [if] you have two copies, consider it published. And it’s all over.
But I think we should be more forthcoming. We should release as much information
as we can. Of course, there are certain informations that you cannot release,
because it does cause problems. Sometimes, some of you have asked
me what is the nature of your conversations with this
President or that Prime Minister or others, and I’ve had lots of confidential
discussions and others that I cannot release till much later. And so, we do have
rules where certain things are embargoed for a certain period. But beyond that,
we should be open and forthcoming. [Q19 of 20 in
www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=887]
Copyright 2006 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editors [at] innercitypress.com - phone: (718) 716-3540
