Showing posts with label mumbai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mumbai. Show all posts

Saturday, July 16, 2011

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.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Questions About Jamaat ud Dawa and UN's Pakistan Aid in Mumbai's Wake

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1jamaat120808.html

UNITED NATIONS, December 8 -- As arrests for the Mumbai massacre are being made at the Jamaat ud Dawa camp in Kashmir, questions have resurfaced about the UN's engagement with Jamaat ud Dawa following the October 2005 Pakistan earthquake. On October 6, 2006 Inner City Press asked then-UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to address reports that the UN worked with both Jamaat ud Dawa and the Al Rashid Trust, on the UN's sanctions list. Mr. Dujarric said that the UN's focus is on working with and through group who can get aid to those who need it. Video here, from Minute 13:50.

Inner City Press pursued the issue and published a report including a quote that UN "aid they got from international agencies - have really boosted their position locally. One Jamaat leader told us that people were now trusting them with their children - they hadn't before the earthquake - and they had actively recruited hundreds of children left orphaned."

Days later on October 10, Inner City Press asked the UN's top humanitarian Jan Egeland about the reports. Egeland, who still works part-time with the UN, answered that "I'm sure we did cover people of many different beliefs and many different political orientations. We do not ask hungry people if they do have this or that political belief... But if you work in Kashmir, there will be people given aid who would belong to organizations which have fundamentalist beliefs." Video here, from Minute 46.

As Inner City Press reported at the time, after the October 10, 2006 press briefing, supplemental answers were provided by one of Mr. Egeland's spokespeople, Kristen Knutson. Asked how, in the future, OCHA will try to ensure that it does not increase the influence of groups like the Al Rashid Trust by providing aid to camps they establish, Ms. Knutson insisted that "determining who can set up a camp is entirely up to governments of member states. And once a camp is open, OCHA and the UN will provide aid to the people in that camp."

So now, what has been the UN's engagement with Jamaat ud Dawa? The UN's New York headquarters was closed for a holiday on Monday. The issue will continue to be pursued.

News analysis: Giving aid is good, but so is having standards, or at least being transparent about the lack of standards.

Footnote: to show that the issue cuts in many different ways, while Egeland said that the UN tries not to work with organization's whose principles vary from those of the UN, last week Inner City Press asked current UN spokesperson Michele Montas again about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's agreement with NATO, which was kept confidential and not pre-shown even to member states. While the UN is for the abolition of war, NATO is a military alignment that, among other things, does not oppose the use of nuclear weapons. So what are the UN's standards for engagements with groups? As we said, it cuts both ways.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1jamaat120808.html