Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s murderous assault on his own people has exposed once again the United Nation’s hypocrisy, double-standards and total lack of credibility when dealing with international human rightsThe U.N. Security Council, the most important U.N. body, said nothing at all during the upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain — apparently because veto-wielding China and Russia objected. While failing to address these historic and sometimes violent events, the Council did find time last week to debate yet another condemnation of Israeli settlements, which was vetoed by the United States.Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is rather disingenuous to tell Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to refrain from using violence against protestors who are opposed to his rule.He said, “We believe that he should not use violence. What is important for us is to take into account the aspirations of people… The system should be legitimate, it has to be based on support of people.”Najib was speaking to AFP during his visit to Istanbul and said that the people in Arab and north African countries were giving “a clear sign of their demand for change and reform” and that those governments would have to acknowledge this.He said, “The constitutional and political reforms that would be effective should be able to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of people, particularly the young people”.Najib stressed that change in the region should be peaceful.If only he would heed his own words.
When asked to comment about a possible uprising in Malaysia, Najib said that he was unperturbed as he had no concerns about a possible uprising happening in Malaysia as elections here were “quite free and fair” and that support for the government support was increasing.
Does Najib truly believe that vote-buying and rigging as well as manipulation of voters does not happen here?
But if Najib was not worried about events in the middle-east, why has there been a media blitz with various ministers saying that none of the rebellions will happen here?
The day after Egypt fell, Najib denied claims that there were parallels between Egypt and Malaysia. A few days ago, Minister for Information, Communication and Culture Rais Yatim told Malaysians to ignore Opposition propaganda to hold protests like those in Arab countries. Soon after, Deputy Prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin said that upheavals in the middle-east would not happen in Malaysia
The more they protest, the more they betray their true feelings.
A few days ago, the British press claimed that Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi threatened to unleash mob rule as he pledged to “cleanse Libya house by house” until he crushed the insurrection seeking to sweep him from power.
In his most chilling speech of his 41 years in power, Gaddafi threatened death sentences against anyone who challenged his authority and in a diatribe lasting over 75 minutes, declared that “I will fight to the last drop of my blood”.
Najib’s ludicrous statement to tell Gaddafi not to use violence against the protestors is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
At the 61st Umno General Assembly in October 2010, Najib asked the near-hysterical delegates, “Are we willing to hand our beloved Malaysia to the traitor of race and country?” They in turn responded with shouts of “No. No.”
However, Najib’s most despicable statement then was, “Even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost, brothers and sisters, whatever happens, we must defend Putrajaya.”
His ensuing speech was riddled with hostility. It encouraged fear and apprehension. His words taught Malaysians all about envy and hatred.
With his violent past, Najib has the gall to tell Gaddafi to refrain from using violence.
Furthermore, how does he explain the police use of water cannons, chemical-laced sprays, police batons, tear gas, arrests, physical intimidation and assaults against peaceful protestors in his own homeland?
What is the point of Najib telling Gaddafi off?
When we asked Najib about the government’s alleged purchase of small arms – pistols, sub-machine guns, stun-grenades and more – from underground sources in the overseas black markets, he kept quiet.
When we demanded to know if these arms would be used by Umno Youth, who are suddenly embarking on paramilitary training, he did not reply. (Khairy Jamaluddin has just completed his parachute training.)
When we questioned him about the need to recruit 2.6 million Rela volunteers by mid-year, he again maintained silence.
This week, with the Libyan death toll mounting alarmingly, the Council came together around a presidential statement — not a resolution — condemning the violence. (A statement by the president of the Council is far less important and carries less weight than a formal resolution.)
This particular statement was particularly spineless considering the dire circumstances. It included no call for an investigation into the violence, similar to the one the Council set up last year after Israel intercepted a Turkish flotilla on its way to break an embargo of Gaza — an incident in which nine people were killed.
The Security Council’s blatant double standard pales into insignificance when compared to the shenanigans at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
First, we should note that Libya is a member of this 47-nation body, elected last year with 155 votes from the 192-member U.N. General Assembly. This was before the current slaughter obviously, but even then the world knew that Gadhafi was no paragon of human rights. He has presided over a one-man dictatorship since seizing power in 1969 and he has been a notorious sponsor of international terrorism for decades.
The 2006 U.N. resolution establishing the Council stipulated that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” Just by electing Gadhafi’s Libya, the Council lost any right to be taken seriously.
When last year’s flotilla incident happened, the U.N. Human Rights Council was all over it, launching its own separate investigation and ultimately issuing a 56-page report accusing Israel of violating human rights and international humanitarian law. That was for the death of nine people.
With the Libyan death toll estimated at anywhere between 200 and 1,000 and threatening to rise further as the cornered tyrant unleashes whatever forces and mercenaries he still has at his disposal in his desperate attempts to stay in power, the U.N. Human Rights Council was in no rush to meet.
It has scheduled a session on Friday, but with most Asian and African nations, backed by Russia, China and Cuba, refusing to support a draft resolution condemning the violence, the meeting is likely to produce little or nothing concrete.
The Council has not even moved to expel Libya as a member. By failing to do so, this body has shown the whole world that it has no moral standing. The sooner it is abolished the better.
my brother Fathi Eljahmi, Libya’s most prominent dissident, died. He had been imprisoned since March 26, 2004, just two weeks after President George W. Bush cited his release as a sign that Libya had changed. Ironically, this was a time when Libya presided over the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Until his last two weeks, when, already comatose, he was flown to Jordan, Fathi spent most of his last five years in solitary confinement in a Libyan prison, where he experienced torture and abuse. As his condition deteriorated, Libya denied him regular medical care. There was seldom international pressure to do otherwise.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s son to Foggy Bottom on April 21, 2009, she too did not raise Fathi’s case directly, but rather left the task to an aide. Had Clinton forcefully and personally raised the issue, Fathi might be alive today.Bush paid lip service to Fathi’s case, but administration officials seldom followed up on the president’s promises. The State Department conveyed concern about Fathi’s case, but Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, who has since retired, often delegated the issue to junior officials. (Ironically, as an official at Bechtel Corporation, Welch now pursues business contracts in Libya.)
It’s not just politicians who should reflect on how they handled Fathi’s case. My brother’s death should give prominent human rights organizations pause. For nearly a year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hesitated to advocate publicly for Fathi’s case, because they feared their case workers might lose access to Libyan visas.
Only on the day of Fathi’s death did Human Rights Watch issue a press release that announced what we had known for two months: That Fathi appeared frail and emaciated, could barely speak and could not lift his arms or head. When the researchers asked him on April 25 and 26 if he was free to leave prison, he said no. When they asked him if he wanted to go home, he said yes.
Perhaps because they still fear antagonizing Gaddafi, in their May 21 statement Human Rights Watch didn’t call for an independent investigation and stopped short of holding the Libyan regime responsible for Fathi’s death.
Amnesty International also compromised. They moved an April 2009 demonstration originally slated to occur in front of Libya’s U.N. mission to the U.S. mission instead so as not to antagonize Gaddafi. For the same reason, they ignored pleas for a public statement about Fathi’s deterioration. While an Amnesty delegation was in Libya when Fathi died, the Libyan regime refused it permission to travel to Libya’s second largest city.
After learning of Fathi’s death, Amnesty declined to condemn Libya’s role and instead simply requested that Gaddafi’s regime inform the family of the conditions that led to his death. It is unfortunate that other than the American Islamic Congress no Muslim or Arab organization ever advocated for Fathi, even as he dedicated his own life to advancing human rights for Arabs and Muslims in one of the region’s most oppressive states.
Experience has shown me that country researchers in marquee human rights organizations are vulnerable to the regime’s manipulation. Sarah Leah Whitson is one of the Human Rights Watch researchers who last saw Fathi before he was rushed to Jordan. She wrote an article for Foreign Policy upon her return from Libya, where she described efforts by the Gaddafi Foundation for International Charities and Development, which is headed by the Libyan leader’s son, Saif al-Islam, as a “spring.” The organization is actively menacing my brother’s family. Some family members continue to endure interrogation, denial of citizenship papers and passports, round the clock surveillance and threats of rape and physical liquidation.
Not all organizations compromised their principles. Physicians for Human Rights didn’t compromise with the Gaddafi regime and called for an independent medical investigation after Fathi’s death. One day, when free media penetrates Libya, my brother’s friends and admirers will learn how the American Jewish Committee sought to rally world leaders to Fathi’s cause.
It is important that Fathi not die in vain. President Barack Obama, congressional leaders and the human rights community should demand an independent medical investigation of Fathi’s death. They must hold Gaddafi accountable. For the State Department and the marquee human rights organizations, his death may simply be an inconvenience removed, but this attitude is shortsighted. Should Gaddafi conclude that Fathi’s death passed with little more than a press release, any reform efforts will backslide, as his government concludes that it can liquidate opponents with impunity.
Mohamed Eljahmi is a Libyan/American activist based in Massachusetts
This particular statement was particularly spineless considering the dire circumstances. It included no call for an investigation into the violence, similar to the one the Council set up last year after Israel intercepted a Turkish flotilla on its way to break an embargo of Gaza — an incident in which nine people were killed.
The Security Council’s blatant double standard pales into insignificance when compared to the shenanigans at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
First, we should note that Libya is a member of this 47-nation body, elected last year with 155 votes from the 192-member U.N. General Assembly. This was before the current slaughter obviously, but even then the world knew that Gadhafi was no paragon of human rights. He has presided over a one-man dictatorship since seizing power in 1969 and he has been a notorious sponsor of international terrorism for decades.
The 2006 U.N. resolution establishing the Council stipulated that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” Just by electing Gadhafi’s Libya, the Council lost any right to be taken seriously.
When last year’s flotilla incident happened, the U.N. Human Rights Council was all over it, launching its own separate investigation and ultimately issuing a 56-page report accusing Israel of violating human rights and international humanitarian law. That was for the death of nine people.
With the Libyan death toll estimated at anywhere between 200 and 1,000 and threatening to rise further as the cornered tyrant unleashes whatever forces and mercenaries he still has at his disposal in his desperate attempts to stay in power, the U.N. Human Rights Council was in no rush to meet.
It has scheduled a session on Friday, but with most Asian and African nations, backed by Russia, China and Cuba, refusing to support a draft resolution condemning the violence, the meeting is likely to produce little or nothing concrete.
The Council has not even moved to expel Libya as a member. By failing to do so, this body has shown the whole world that it has no moral standing. The sooner it is abolished the better.
my brother Fathi Eljahmi, Libya’s most prominent dissident, died. He had been imprisoned since March 26, 2004, just two weeks after President George W. Bush cited his release as a sign that Libya had changed. Ironically, this was a time when Libya presided over the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Until his last two weeks, when, already comatose, he was flown to Jordan, Fathi spent most of his last five years in solitary confinement in a Libyan prison, where he experienced torture and abuse. As his condition deteriorated, Libya denied him regular medical care. There was seldom international pressure to do otherwise.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s son to Foggy Bottom on April 21, 2009, she too did not raise Fathi’s case directly, but rather left the task to an aide. Had Clinton forcefully and personally raised the issue, Fathi might be alive today.Bush paid lip service to Fathi’s case, but administration officials seldom followed up on the president’s promises. The State Department conveyed concern about Fathi’s case, but Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, who has since retired, often delegated the issue to junior officials. (Ironically, as an official at Bechtel Corporation, Welch now pursues business contracts in Libya.)
It’s not just politicians who should reflect on how they handled Fathi’s case. My brother’s death should give prominent human rights organizations pause. For nearly a year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hesitated to advocate publicly for Fathi’s case, because they feared their case workers might lose access to Libyan visas.
Only on the day of Fathi’s death did Human Rights Watch issue a press release that announced what we had known for two months: That Fathi appeared frail and emaciated, could barely speak and could not lift his arms or head. When the researchers asked him on April 25 and 26 if he was free to leave prison, he said no. When they asked him if he wanted to go home, he said yes.
Perhaps because they still fear antagonizing Gaddafi, in their May 21 statement Human Rights Watch didn’t call for an independent investigation and stopped short of holding the Libyan regime responsible for Fathi’s death.
Amnesty International also compromised. They moved an April 2009 demonstration originally slated to occur in front of Libya’s U.N. mission to the U.S. mission instead so as not to antagonize Gaddafi. For the same reason, they ignored pleas for a public statement about Fathi’s deterioration. While an Amnesty delegation was in Libya when Fathi died, the Libyan regime refused it permission to travel to Libya’s second largest city.
After learning of Fathi’s death, Amnesty declined to condemn Libya’s role and instead simply requested that Gaddafi’s regime inform the family of the conditions that led to his death. It is unfortunate that other than the American Islamic Congress no Muslim or Arab organization ever advocated for Fathi, even as he dedicated his own life to advancing human rights for Arabs and Muslims in one of the region’s most oppressive states.
Experience has shown me that country researchers in marquee human rights organizations are vulnerable to the regime’s manipulation. Sarah Leah Whitson is one of the Human Rights Watch researchers who last saw Fathi before he was rushed to Jordan. She wrote an article for Foreign Policy upon her return from Libya, where she described efforts by the Gaddafi Foundation for International Charities and Development, which is headed by the Libyan leader’s son, Saif al-Islam, as a “spring.” The organization is actively menacing my brother’s family. Some family members continue to endure interrogation, denial of citizenship papers and passports, round the clock surveillance and threats of rape and physical liquidation.
Not all organizations compromised their principles. Physicians for Human Rights didn’t compromise with the Gaddafi regime and called for an independent medical investigation after Fathi’s death. One day, when free media penetrates Libya, my brother’s friends and admirers will learn how the American Jewish Committee sought to rally world leaders to Fathi’s cause.
It is important that Fathi not die in vain. President Barack Obama, congressional leaders and the human rights community should demand an independent medical investigation of Fathi’s death. They must hold Gaddafi accountable. For the State Department and the marquee human rights organizations, his death may simply be an inconvenience removed, but this attitude is shortsighted. Should Gaddafi conclude that Fathi’s death passed with little more than a press release, any reform efforts will backslide, as his government concludes that it can liquidate opponents with impunity.
Mohamed Eljahmi is a Libyan/American activist based in Massachusetts
No comments:
Post a Comment