UN panel refuses to criticize Zimbabwe and Sudan
Back to the International Organizations Page
Wed November 24, 2004 11:21 PM ETBy Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. General Assembly panel has killed resolutions denouncing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and Sudan after African nations argued the measures were politically motivated by Europeans and the United States.
But the African countries, after objecting to measures singling out any particular country, allowed a human rights resolution on the Democratic Republic of Congo to be adopted by the panel on Wednesday, despite objections from Rwanda and Uganda.
The United States tried to delete a reference to the International Criminal Court, which it opposes, but its amendment was roundly defeated.
A decision in an assembly committee, which includes all U.N. members, means it will be adopted formally by the 191-member General Assembly next month.
Developing nations, led by South Africa, successfully presented a "no action" motion that puts off the Zimbabwe and Sudan resolutions until next year. The European Union, Australia and the United States argued that cutting off debate prevented serious consideration of gross rights violations.
On Zimbabwe, the European Union said the government of President Robert Mugabe intimidated human rights defenders, parliamentarians and opposition leaders.
Dutch Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg, representing the EU, told the committee that "no country large or small can be regarded to be beyond consideration."
But Pitso Montwedi, the South African Foreign Ministry's director of human rights, said the EU, which has imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe, had succeeded in "naming and shaming and poisoning" the committee.
"The European Union purports that human rights are violated only in developing countries," he said, adding that the EU chose confrontation on issues that can be solved bilaterally.
The draft resolution on Zimbabwe, sponsored by mainly developed nations, accused Harare of impeding free elections and torturing, arresting and executing its opponents.
On Sudan, South Africa's Montwedi said there was "absolutely no need to burden this committee with a preemptive resolution." He said criticism would undermine the African Union's peace process and the U.N. Security Council's meeting in Nairobi last week, aimed at a peace pact between Khartoum and its southern opposition.
U.S. Ambassador John Danforth, who transported all 15 Security Council ambassadors to Nairobi last week, castigated the assembly on Tuesday when it became clear the measure would be scuttled by a procedural vote.
"One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on days like this. One wonders if there can't be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle," he said.
"Why have this building? What are we all about? This to me is a very bad situation," Danforth told reporters.
On Wednesday, U.S. delegate Gerald Scott noted the well-documented abuses in Sudan's western region of Darfur, where Arab militia had tortured civilians and made homeless 1.8 million civilians in a clash with African rebel groups. The resolution would have condemned all sides in the conflict.
"If these (U.N.) bodies cannot speak with one voice on an issue as clear as Darfur, what can they do?," Scott asked.
The Sudan draft expressed "grave concern" at atrocities in Darfur "including forced displacement and arbitrary executions" as well as widespread abuse of women throughout the country "in law and practice."
© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved.
