As
UNSC
Condemns
Delhi Bombing,
Human Rights
Phrase Omitted
Again
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 7 --
The UN
Security
Council's
press
statement
about today's
Delhi High
Court bombing
tellingly 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, but
was dropped in
the July
13, 2011
statement on
Mumbai,
once India got
on the
Security
Council.
Some continue
to ask, what
changed:
India's
position, or
its power?
On September
7, Inner City
Press asked
the month's
Council
president
Nawaf Salam
about the
missing human
rights rights,
and if India
was
responsible
for the
omission.
Salam said the
draft was
circulated by
India and that
"no one raised
that question,
among the
members."
Video here,
from Minute
1:40.
This was later
qualified, and
the UK Mission
to the UN
spokesman
confirmed to
Inner City
Press that the
UK "raised"
the issue, on
the grounds
that the
Council should
be consistent
including in
how it treats
member states
serving on the
Council.
But
the UK, whose
Foreign
Secretary
William Hague
quickly sent
India his
"deepest
condolences,"
did not "break
silence" or
delay the
press
statement.
India thanked
the UK for its
support.
While
countries are
loath to
question each
other in the
wake of
televised
tragedy, it
appears this
issue may be
coming to a
head. Already
two Council
members, on
Permanent and
one for now
only elected,
have exempted
themselves
from the human
rights
language.
When a third
Council member
makes its move
for exemption,
what will
happen?
Bombing in
Delhi, UNSC
human rights
language not
seen
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.
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).
But on July
13, 2011 when
German
Permanent
Representative
Peter Wittig
read out the
Council's
press
statement
about the
three Mumbai
bombings, 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
remained
puzzling to
some: the
omission of
the human
rights
language.
There
have
been at
least three
recent
exceptions
to this
template,
other than the
July 13
omission on
Mumbai, 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
Security
Council's
September 7,
2011 press
statement:
UN
Security
Council Press
Statement on
terrorist
attack in
India, 7th
September 2011
The
members of the
Security
Council
condemned in
the strongest
terms the
terrorist
attack that
occurred
in Delhi,
India, on 7
September,
causing
numerous
deaths and
injuries. They
expressed
their deep
sympathy and
sincere
condolences
to the victims
of this
heinous act
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.
Here
is the
Council's July
13, 2011
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.