As
UNSC
Condemns Mumbai Bombings, Human Rights Phrase
Used From Kabul to Kampala, & India 2008, Gets Omitted
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 13 -- The UN Security Council's press statement about
today's Mumbai bombings does not contain the Council's usual
admonition to “States that they must ensure that measures taken to
combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under
international law, in particular international human rights, refugee
and humanitarian law.”
Significantly, this language appeared in the Security
Council's statement condemning terrorist act in Mumbai back in November
2008.
Some ask, what changed: India's position, or its power?
When
a terrorist
attack like today's occurs, the UN Security Council members issue
ritualized press statements. They use templates, because they see a
need to respond the same day as the attack, and there is not time to
negotiate a brand new statement for each incident.
But
when German
Permanent Representative Peter Wittig read out the Council's press
statement about the three Mumbai bombings on Wednesday afternoon, he
immediately began walking away from the microphone. Video here.
Inner City Press
asked the first, and only, question: was there any discussion of who
was responsible for the bombings?
There
was no
discussion of responsibility, Ambassador Wittig said, and left.
There
was another
question, which while it seems Wittig would not have answered remains
puzzling to some: the omission of the human rights language.
In
the Security
Council's
press statement last year about bombings in Kampala, Uganda -- then
a member of the Council -- it was
said that
“The
members of the Security Council remind States that they must ensure
that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, in particular international
human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”
The
same
admonition was contained in the Council's
press statement about
terrorist attacks in Iran issued four days later on July 16, 2010:
“The
members of the Security Council remind States that they must ensure
that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, in particular international
human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”
Regarding
bombings
in
Abuja, Nigeria -- a Security Council member -- the Council on October
4, 2010 said the same:
“The
members of the Security Council reminded States that they must ensure
that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, in particular international
human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”
The
same language
is found in Security Council press statements about terrorist attacks
in Afghanistan. Later on Wednesday, after the Council's Mumbai
statement, Inner City Press asked Afghan Permanent Representative
Tanin about the statements. He indicated that Afghanistan gets the
Council's normal treatment.
This was true
-- that is, the human rights language was included -- in Council
statements about Afghanistan in on February11,
2009 (Kabul), on August
26, 2009 (Kandahar), on October
8, 2009 (Kabul), and on October
25, 2010 (Herat).
This year the
human rights language has been in the Security Council statements on Morocco
(April 29, 2011) and Belarus
(April 10, 2011).
There
have been at
least three
recent
exceptions
to this template, all three regarding a
Permanent Five member of the Council. India is not a Permanent
member, at least not yet. But India, perhaps as a reflection of its
newly muscular foreign policy or economic heft, seems to some to have
requested and gotten
that same treatment.
Significantly, the Security
Council's condemnation of terrorist acts in Mumbai on November 28, 2008
did contain the human rights language:
“The
members of the Security Council reminded States that they must ensure
that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, in particular international
human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”
The death of
innocents is of course to be condemned. But the Security Council speaks
in words. So how terrorism is
condemned must be covered, comparing both statements about different
countries and about the same country in different years. We will have
more on this.
Here is the
Council's July 13 statement on Mumbai:
Press
Statement
The
members
of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the
terrorist attacks that occurred in various parts of Mumbai, India on
13 July 2011, causing numerous deaths and injuries. They expressed
their deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the victims of these
heinous acts and to their families, and to the people and Government
of India.
The
members
of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats
to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism
are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation,
wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.
The
members
of the Security Council reiterated their determination to
combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its
responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.
* * *
At
UN,
Few
Answers to India & Colombia on Children & Armed Conflict
"Mandate Creep," German Slogan Dredged Up
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July
12, updated -- During what was billed as a “debate” on
Children and Armed Conflict in the UN Security Council on Tuesday,
countries like Colombia and
India criticized the way the concept is
being carried out by the UN.
Colombia's
foreign
minister
Maria Angela Holguin called “unacceptable” the
UN's attempts to talk to the FARC rebels without the consent of her
government. India's Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri
complained, for the second day in a row, about the UN's “mandate
creep.”
Afterward,
Inner
City
Press asked about the critique and requested responses from
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through this spokesman, UNICEF and
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, in his capacity as
Security Council president.
Typical
of
the UN,
none wanted to directly respond. Westerwelle said he wouldn't comment
on what other countries said, emphasizing only that the resolution
passed.
Westerwelle meets Ban July 12, reply to India not shown
Ban
Ki-moon came to
the stakeout and read a statement but took no questions. His
spokesman Martin Nesirky said Ban had an urgent 11:45 telephone call.
At
the noon
briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky for Ban's response to the
critique, and to those who feel that the decisions of which countries
to put on the CAAC Annex is arbitrary, excluding for example Pakistan
despite the armed conflict and child recruitment admitted by Ban's
previous envoy Jean-Maurice Ripert.
On the
former, Nesirky replie that "the most important thing to emphasize here
is that the Security Council has been consistently focused on this
topic, underscoring the importance that the international community
attaches to dealing with the question of children and armed conflict."
On
the latter,
Nesirky told Inner City Press to asked Ban's CAAC expert, Radhika
Coomaraswamy. She had come out of the Council ready to do a stakeout,
but was told there were not enough journalists. Later she told Inner
City Press among other things that her office needs now to do the
political work,
explain how her Office works. Inner City Press asked, will you come
out to speak after Myanmar's speech? She replied, and speak to you?
Update: when
the session ended at 5:45 pm, Ms. Coomaraswamy and her team emerged.
They indicted, again, that Colombia's fear is unfounded, that they
would not speak to a rebel group without the government's consent. One
wonders why Colombia wasn't answered, on the record, during what was
called the debate?
UNICEF's
Tony
Lake came out and Inner City Press asked him about the
critique by India and Colombia. “I'm running late,” he said,
indicating he would have answered “if ten minutes earlier.” But
after Inner City Press immediately e-mailed the questions to four
separate UNICEF spokespeople, still there was no answer two hours
later.
Footnote:
Alongside the debate, the Permanent Representative of Syria
was told that Westervelle political party in 1999, the FDP, was
associated with a slogan, "Kinder
Statt Inder" -- children not Indians. It was a reference to the
granting of information technology visa to Indians.
The
other side is that is was in only one region, not by FDP but CDU,
and unrelated to India's opposition to the German introduced and pushed
resolution. But so it goes at the UN. We exoect to hear more on this.
, 
in