As US Wins Re-Election to UN Human Rights Council, Susan Rice Tells ICP Drones to be Looked at on Substance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 12 -- The United States, along with Germany and Ireland, won in the only contested race for the UN Human Rights Council Monday, beating out Sweden and debt-plagued Greece.

  Perhaps because of the relative lack of competitive races, when Inner City Press arrived to cover the voting session, there was no UN Television camera set up, and for a time only one other journalist. Soon a push began to put up a camera; then US Ambassador Rice arrived as the ballot were being counted.

  Before the vote, a slew of Permanent Representative speculated to Inner City Press that the US might well lose. "Under the secret ballot," one African Perm Rep told Inner City Press, "people vote how they really feel." But it seems that the US felt it would win re-election, correctly as it turned out.

  Last month, Inner City Press asked US State Department official Harold Koh about the human rights issues raised by drone strike executions. Koh insisted they are entirely legal. But the issue does not appear resolved, to say the least.

  After the Permanent Representative of Palau read out the results, Germany's Permanent Representative Peter Wittig came out to the UNTV camera. Given Germany's statements about Syria, Inner City Press asked him how his country would use the seat on the Syria issue.

  Wittig praised the Commission of Inquiry -- whose chairman told Inner City Press that no dossier or evidence is being kept on, for example, the Al Nusra Front -- while also saying Germany aims to be cooperative with other Human Rights Council members.

  Venezuela's Permanent Representative Jorge Valero came out next. Inner City Press asked him of the criticism levied against his country's candidacy and he answered, in Spanish then repeated it when asked in English, his view that some of the criticizing groups are paid by countries to bring about regime change.

 Leaving that aside, there are some which when they meet and lobby should give read-outs.

  After some delay, and missing the UN's noon briefing, US Ambassador Susan Rice came out. Her spokesperson permitted three media to question, the crowd having grown. Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice about the two HRC Special Rapporteurs, Heyns and Emmerson, who've said they want to investigate and report on US drones.

  Rice replied "we have questions about the appropriateness of
that approach. But we will look at it on its merits, and as we do with all the work of the rapporteurs, we'll judge their work on the substance of their products." She went on to say the US engagement has improved the HRC, including on Sudan.

   Some have pointed at Sudan last week winning election to the UN's Economic and Social Council with 176 votes as a breakdown in standard setting; others says "you have to pick your battles."

  Monday one wanted to ask Ambassador Rice about this and US follow up on the March 2012 resolution on Sri Lanka and accountability, but time did not permit.

   After Ambassador Rice left, UN Television shut down its camera. There were still winning countries inside the General Assembly.

Other winners Monday included incoming Security Council members Argentina and South Korea, UN peacekeeping mission hosts Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone, the UN's second largest individual financial contributor Japan, the world's seventh largest country by land mass Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Brazil, Gabon, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates.

   When Pakistan's Permanent Representative Masood Khan came to the microphone where Inner City Press was waiting, the cameras were not on.

   After some delay they restarted. Inner City Press asked Masood Khan about the criticism of his country (as well as Kazakhstan and Venezuela), and about the balance between civil and political on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand.

  Masood Khan said people are free to have their opinions, and that these two sets are rights are indivisible. Then he too was gone, and the GA Hall and entrance went quiet.

  Of the losers, what to say? Greece is embroiled in economic trouble; one wonders how this might bode for Spain's candidacy for the Security Council.

 Sweden is a more complicated story, including its insistence on Internet freedom, even when Russia says it is violating UN Security Council sanctions by hosting the website of the Kazkhaz Center. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

On Pakistan, Sudan Raises Drones, US Balochistan, Sri Lanka Spins Terrorism

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- The UN Human Rights Council, elections for which are heating up, allowed a mere 80 seconds per speaker on candidate Pakistan on Tuesday in Geneva.

  Speaking back to back, Sri Lanka wished the country best of luck in its fight with terrorism then Sudan raised the US of drone strikes, by the US.

  As UN system Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns responded to Inner City Press last week, this fight in 2009 killed some 40,000 civilians. Is this the luck being wished?

  Sri Lanka soon faces its own so-called Universal Periodic Review, but with even less time per speaker: only 72 seconds.

  On Pakistan, Sudan raised the issue of drone strikes, days after its Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman told Inner City Press his country would be filing a complaint against Israel with the UN Security Council for the bombing of the Yarmouk compound in Khartoum.

  The UN Security Council has been closed for five days: first for Eid and the weekend, now two days and counting for Hurricane Sandy in New York.

  Incoming UNSC member Australia raised Malala by name; Brazil offered some praise despite a glancing reference to "recent disturbing developments." 

 Permanent UNSC member UK raised the death penalty; failed UNSC candidate Canada used its time to ask a question, about religious freedom.

  When US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Eileen Donahoe took the floor, she said Pakistan has a vibrant media and raised Balochistan. She did not mention US drone strikes, which some believe she should have.

  The US is running to keep its seat on the Human Rights Council, and sent official Harold Koh to make its case at UN Headquarters earlier this month. Inner City Press asked about drone strikes, not only in Pakistan but also Yemen and Somalia.

  Koh said these comply with all international laws, a point about which Inner City Press asked Heyns, who is UN system Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions. He was less sure of their legality.

  But what is or can be resolved in the 80 seconds given on Pakistan? Or the 72 seconds coming up on Sri Lanka? Watch this site.

At UN, Expert Heyns Tells ICP of Legal Flaws of Drones and US Sales

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, October 25 -- US drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia are problematic, the UN system's Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns told Inner City Press at Thursday afternoon at the UN. Video here, from Minute 31:50.

 

Along with a question on execution in Sri Lanka, Inner City Press asked Heyns about drone strikes, as it had last week asked US State Department official Harold Koh. Heyns answer was different than Koh's, and made different points than fellow Rapporteur Ben Emmerson.

 

Heyns told Inner City Press that he (and Emmerson) will submit a report on drones "next year to the [UN] General Assembly in October." He said while "the use of a drone is not inherently illegal... in Yemen, Somalia and so forth it is problematic, outside the theater of war."

 

Inner City Press has also asked about Pakistan, but Heyns did not mention it by name. He continued that "the inherent nature of drone, far away from where there is a military conflict taking place" raised two issues "when you look at the defense by US officals" like Koh.

 

Heyns summarized that US defense as "it's an act of self-defense, so the normal rules of international humanitarian law don't apply." He said, "that's wrong -- first ask if entitled to self-defense, then ask if comply with international humanitarian law."

 

He said, "the largest problem is tartgeting individuals who are not direct participants. There is a general requirement they be an immediate threat, enemy combattants or those participating in hostilities... Mere membership is not enough."

 

He concluded that beyond the US' own use, "the US agreed sell to 66 countries, maybe 70 states already have drones.. there's the specter of collateral damage anywhere."

 

Click here for Heyns' answers to Inner City Press on Sri Lanka; click here for US official Harold Koh's answers to Inner City Press on drones. Watch this site.

Defending Drones at UN, Harold Koh Tells ICP Transparency Is Aided by US on HRC, 2d Term Promises

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- When Harold Koh came to the UN on Friday to pitch the US' candidacy for a second term on the Human Rights Council, his opening statement did not mention an issue with which he has become associated: drones.

  Nor did the moderator's question to him -- Koh was asked what the US would do on its HRC campaign pledge about torture. While important, this seemed a softball focused on the previous Bush administration. (An ACLU question extended it to what the Obama administration will do to hold accountable those who tortured in the past.)

  There were only ten minutes left when Inner City Press was able to ask Koh to "address drones, on which there's been controversy at the Human Rights Council and elsewhere, whether their use complies with human rights law. Would the US support a special session or inquiry into the use of drones to commit executions?"

  When it was Koh's turn to answer -- he was moved up in the queue -- he cited to his own speech "in March 2010, echoed by John Brennan at the Wilson Center....The point is, all killing is regrettable [but] not all killing is illegal."

  He said that killings by drone "in the course of armed conflict or in self defense is consistent with international law." He cited Al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated forces" -- presumably including Al Shabab in Somalia and forces in norther Mali or Azawad -- and said it is "not illegal to target an individual who is leader of an opposing force."

  What about a 16-year old who is not a leader? What about "collateral damage"?

  These weren't answered. Rather, Koh said he thought he questions were "ask[ed] in friendly way." He closed with the pitch that it would easier to work on the issue and get "transparency" if the US remains on the Human Rights Council. And then he left.

  Inner City Press had also asked, "if the others running [for the Human Rights Council had] a interest in having drones addressed at the Council, the use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries."

  But the other candidates present did not address this in their answers after the question. Germany's Permanent Representative Peter Wittig answered a question about vote-trading by saying that Permanent members of the Security Council don't have to engage in it, but others do. Estonia and Montenegro addressed this and other points, but not drones.

  Argentina acknowledged that the Latin slate is "clean" -- three candidates for three seats -- just as it ran unopposed the day before for a two-year seat on the Security Council.

  Ireland's closing statement concerned the "style" it brings; the moderator's Irish question about about food security." Sweden focused on Internet freedom -- the country hosts, for example, sites that Russia argues are subject to UN Security Council sanctions.

  Greece spoke about the difficulty of being besieged by immigrants. There were echoes of the previous Romney - Obama debate, to which Koh jokingly referred. But drones are no joke. Watch this site.