Warning: in_array() [function.in-array]: Wrong datatype for second argument in D:\Inetpub\unwatch\wp-content\plugins\sociable\sociable.php on line 770

UN Rights Official Endorses 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

UN Palestine Expert Richard Falk: 9/11 doubts “taint legitimacy of U.S. government”

Geneva, November 11, 2008 - UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring organization based in Geneva, today called on UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights commissioner Navi Pillay to condemn a United Nations official for endorsing conspiracy theories regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In a new article published this week in a Scottish student newspaper, entitled “9/11: More than meets the eye”, Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council investigator of “Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law”, expressed unqualified support for the 9/11 conspiracy movement, pointing to “doubts surrounding the true character of the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.”

Human rights activists expressed concerns over the potential damage of Falk’s remarks. “The very credibility of the UN mission to preserve international peace and security is at stake,” said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer. “The UN can’t claim to oppose Al Qaeda terrorists while its officials seek to deny their most ghastly crimes.”

Dominated by Arab states, the 47-nation UN rights council appointed Falk to the only mandate that is immune from regular review, with Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and other member states voicing strong support for his work.

“How tragic that in the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN’s representative figures have gone from luminaries like Eleanor Roosevelt to loonies like Richard Falk.” said Neuer.

“Falk’s biased mandate, radical politics, and crackpot views are a microcosm of what has become of the UN’s highest human rights body, where the world’s worst abusers divert attention from their crimes, attacking Israel in 80 percent of the resolutions,” said Neuer. “Innocent victims are being slaughtered in Congo, yet the council just eliminated its scrutiny of that country, saying it wasn’t needed.”

Elaborating on previous remarks on the topic, Falk referred to the collapse of one of the World Trade Center buildings, endorsing one of the more popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. “Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings on that fateful day in 2001.”

“It is not paranoid under such circumstances to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain.” Falk wrote that we need “answers to the most difficult questions,” and expressed hopes of “an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.”

According to Falk, “the real explanation” for the alleged suppression of his views is “a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11.”

“The persisting inability to resolve this fundamental controversy about 9/11 subtly taints the legitimacy of the American government,” said the UN official.

The European Union has in the past expressed opposition to the one-sided focus of Falk’s mandate. When he appeared on October 23 before the UN in New York, however, the EU urged Israel to cooperate with his investigations.

New Australian government changes position on UN votes against Israel

AUSTRALIA has switched its position to vote against Israel on two resolutions at the United Nations, ending the Howard government’s alignment with the United States. In the weekend vote in New York, Australia supported a resolution calling on Israel to stop establishing settlements in the Palestinian territories and a resolution calling for the Geneva Conventions to apply in the Palestinian territories.

The resolutions on the Middle East peace process are held annually and in recent years the previous Howard government refused to support either.  More

Timeline: How Libyan-funded GONGO “North Sud XXI” Leads Lobbying Campaign for Durban II NGO Forum

Not only is Libya’s Qaddafi regime heading the 20-member planning bureau of the Durban II racism conference, but the one behind the steady drumbeat calling for the UN conference to feature a NGO Forum has been none other than “Nord Sud XXI”, a Libyan-funded front organization, or “GONGO”, which tragically infiltrated the Geneva NGO world long ago.

For the past year, Nord Sud XXI — which hides its connection to the Libyans and dual identity as the Muammar Qaddafi Prize Human Rights Prize committee  — has been leading the campaign for a NGO Forum:

  • May 2008: Nord Sud XXI media campaign for Durban II. Nord Sud XXI representative Curtis Doebbler — lawyer for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — expressed his outrage at a South African journalist who reported the news that the Durban II conference would take place in Geneva instead of Africa: “[L]et us hope that the South African government will prove that it has the courage to speak up in defense of Durban II and to throw its whole-hearted support behind it. By not holding Durban II the struggle against insidious discrimination and intolerance will suffer a serious setback. And only by holding Durban II in the South can this Review  Conference be made truly accessible to civil society from all over the world…” Click for Letter
  • May 2008: Nord Sud XXI lobbies for NGO Forum. With no shame, the Libyan-run Nord Sud XXI helped organize a joint NGO letter sent to the Libyan chair of the Durban II planning committee, demanding that the UN allocate space for a NGO Forum adjacent to the conference, as well as funding to fly in activists from around the world, and castigating UN officials who dared to disagree:  “We are equally concerned over recent remarks by representatives of the UN Secretariat which tend to discourage the holding of an NGO Forum at the Review Conference, contrary to UN tradition… [We call for] “a positive decision [to be] taken to enable civil society to fully contribute to a successful Durban Review Process and that financial resources are allocated to support the holding of an NGO Forum in the immediate vicinity of the official Conference site.”  See: http://nordsud21.ch/08-05-23%20NGO%20Letter%20to%20Chair%20of%20Prep%20Com.pdf
  • May 2008: Speech delivered in Swaziland, urging African Commission to support Durban process. “Nord Sud XXI wishes to make use of its vantage point as an NGO founded by almost two dozen of Africa’s most respected independence leaders and its position as an NGO active at the United Nations both in New York and Geneva to bring to your attention some matters of concern…. While this [Durban] process is strongly supported by all people of Africa, who still suffer from the scars of past discrimination as well as contemporary forms of discrimination and intolerance, there are others who seek to stop the Review Conference or limit its remit so as to backtrack on commitments made in Durban in 2001. Most of this resistance to the 2009 Review Conference has come from outside Africa. Nevertheless, this resistance can only succeed if Africans remain silent. We urge the Commission to publicly express its support for the 2009 Durban Review Conference and to ensure that the Review Conference it builds on the progress achieved in 2001….” Statement by Nord Sud XXI to the 43rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Euzulwini, Swaziland, May 2008. See: http://www.nordsud21.ch/African%20Commission%20Oral%20Statement%20_Item%204_.pdf
  • June 2008: Nord Sud XXI makes joint statement to UN with group that distributed anti-Semitic literature at 2001 Durban conference. Nord-Sud XXI made a joint statement to the UN Human Rights Council in support of Durban II together with the Arab Lawyers Union, the group that was condemned by High Commissioner Mary Robinson in 2001 for distributing an anti-Semitic Hitler flyer, as well as the General Arab Women Federation and the Union of Arab Jurists.  In August 2008, at the Paris UNDPI NGO conference, Nord Sud XXI also co-sponsored an event with the Arab Lawyers Union.
  • September 19, 2008: Nord Sud XXI, in address to UN Human Rights Council, demands NGO Forum, attacks Durban skeptics. “We can imagine that all states, and indeed the United Nations itself, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, will strongly support the Review Conference, will speak out against those who try to oppose the conference, will support the efforts of NGOs to organize a strong NGO Forum, and will ensure that civil society can contribute to the Durban Review Conference.”
    See http://nordsud21.ch/statement%20Durban%20HRC%2008.pdf
  • October 2008: Nord Sud XXI is key player at meetings to plan NGO Forum.
    On the sidelines of the October 2008 Durban II prep session, a coalition of fringe groups met over three days, Oct 15-17, to to plan a NGO Forum. Nord Sud XXI played a key role at each meeting, urging the UN to adopt a decision to organize a NGO Forum, nominating themselves to be on the coordinating committee for it, and making statements attacking Israel.

              ____________________________________________________________

Nord Sud XXI Role as Agitator at 2001 Durban Conference

In all the literature on  the 2001 Durban conference, it’s not clear that observers ever appreciated the particular role played by this Libyan GONGO.

  • June 26-28, 2001:  Nord Sud XXI convened African conference in Goree, Senegal, in advance of Durban conference. A co-sponsor of the event was UIDH, which received $100,000 in funding from Libya after Nord Sud XXI recommended them for the Qaddafi Prize. Speaking on behalf of Nord Sud XXI was Nuri D. El Hamedi of Libya (listed in a October 2008 news report as secretary-general of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize Committee, and as secretary of the Libyan Popular General Committee of Culture and Information):

Au nom du Président Ahmed Ben Bella, empêché par des contraintes majeures d’être avec nous, et au nom de l’organisation Nord-Sud XXI, c’est avec un immense plaisir que nous saluons tous les participants à cette Conférence. . . Aujourd’hui, quand Maommar Khadafi réaffirme la nécessité de la création de l’Union Africaine et appelle les Etats arabes à la soutenir, voire à entretenir des rapports stratégiques avec elle, il appelle en réalité à faire revivre l’alliance scellée autrefois entre Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ahmed Ben Bella, Kwamé Nkrumah, Ahmed Sekhou Touré, Patrice Lumumba et d’autres combattants dans Cette région en tant que partie indivisible du mouvement de libération africaine.  See http://nordsud21.ch/revue%20Nord-Sud%20XXI,%20Gorée.pdf, at 21.

  • January 2002: Joint statement to UN Human Rights Council, with affiliated group Centre Europe-Tiers Monde (CETIM), in praise of the 2001 Durban conference. Click for text.  Nord Sud XXI has funded CETIM, a fellow Geneva NGO, by granting it the Kadhafi Prize cash award in the year 2000. (See note 33 here.)  

More Patience Needed for UN Rights Council, Its President Says

“All too often, and most times without any real justification, the Human Rights Council has been criticized in the manner and outcome of its work. Let me appeal for greater circumspection, objectivity and patience in assessing the work of the Council,” reported its president, Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, to the UN General Assembly yesterday.

“Two years is hardly enough time to be overly critical of an institution which we strongly believe holds great promise as a universal human rights body.”

We beg to differ. In its two years of existence, the Arab-controlled council has systematically undermined the cause of human rights and eviscerated the UN’s few existing tools that work. Human rights monitors in Belarus, Cuba, Liberia, Congo (DRC), have all been scrapped. Genocide by Sudan has been ignored, with the monitor of that country’s atrocities now on the  chopping block as well. Watch the March 2009 session, when the Sudan mandate is set to expire.

Violations by 189 other countries have been equally ignored, while Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism was encouraged. A full 80% of all country censures were directed at one nation, Israel. The list goes on and on.

Never in the history of international human rights has one of its own institutions inflicted so much damage.

On what basis will time be a healer? On the contary, with each session, another remaining country monitor gets eliminated, more Islamic resolutions are adopted to curtail free speech in the name of “defamation of religion”, and human rights as a whole suffers.

Green Party Urges Geneva to Support Libyan-Led Campaign for Durban II “NGO Forum”

Geneva’s Green Party is urging the city council to lend support and resources for a Libyan-led campaign to hold a “NGO Forum” at the April 2009 Durban II conference. The same event in 2001 was condemned by UN officials and human rights organizations for its excesses, including anti-Western, anti-Israel, and anti-Semtic hatred. About Libya’s key role, using the GONGO “North South 21″, click here.

At an October meeting of NGOs in Geneva, Anne Moratti Jung, a member of the Geneva city council for the Green party, discussed the motion that she co-sponsored with her colleagues Marguerite Contat Hickel, Frédérique Perler-Isaaz, Sandrine Burger, Sophie de Weck Haddad, Claudia Heberlein Simonett, Marie-Pierre Theubet, MM. Alpha Dramé, and Yves de Matteis, Miguel Limpo, Eric Rossiaud et Gilles Garazi.

The Green Party motion claims that the April 2009 conference will be an “opportunity for the City at the conference to promote the mission of international Geneva and to strengthen relations with international organizations, the UN and NGOs.”With this motion, the Greens want the City Council to invite the Administrative Council to:

  • “Participate actively in the preparations for the Durban II conference”;
  • “Organize one or more demonstrations enabling residents to Geneva and delegates to the conference to discuss the issue of racism and issues related thereto”;
  • “Support the participation of associations, including those against racism, in the organization of this event”; and
  • “Implement any other measure for the success of this conference and in particular to provide the necessary budget to achieve its goals.”

According to a press release (also featured below) by CICAD, the leading Geneva anti-defamation group, “Such motion, if accepted, would see a repeat of the 2001 scenario. This position of the Greens is irresponsible, and encourages the City of Geneva to support a forum whose outcome is already known. CICAD is convinced that our politicians will be mobilized to deny such a motion.” 

Despite Green Party support for the Libyan-sponsored campaign for a “NGO Forum”, a majority of Geneva parties are said to be oppposed. The motion was first tabled in June but has been repeatedly postponed for procedural reasons.

___________________

CICAD PRESS RELEASE, November 2, 2008

Genève, le 2 novembre 2008

COMMUNIQUE

Durban II / Genève I
Motion des Verts genevois ou la promesse d’un retour aux débordements antisémites de Durban en 2001

La perspective d’un nouveau Forum des ONG lors de la conférence de Durban II ou Genève I reste une source importante d’inquiétude. Les mêmes acteurs que ceux qui s’étaient illustrés en 2001 entendent être présents ; un nouveau Forum des ONG peut dès lors nous faire craindre le pire.

À Durban, en 2001, une littérature haineuse distribuée par des ONG, dont nombre se définissant comme engagées en faveur des droits de l’homme et contre le racisme, n’a pas répugné à représenter les Juifs avec les crocs dégoulinant de sang et coiffés de casques arborant des croix gammées. L’un des exemples les plus saisissants de cette orgie de haine est probablement une brochure présentée au Centre d’exposition de Durban, montrant un portrait d’Adolf Hitler avec en légende : «Si j’avais gagné la guerre, il n’y aurait plus de… sang palestinien versé. »

La CICAD a récemment pris connaissance d’une motion déposée par les conseillers municipaux Verts genevois, invitant la Ville de Genève à financer et organiser un forum des ONG. La tenue d’un tel Forum, nous pousse à l’inquiétude et nécessite notre mobilisation.

Selon les Verts, la conférence d’avril 2009 sera une « occasion offerte à la Ville, par la tenue de cette conférence, de promouvoir la mission de la Genève internationale et de renforcer les relations avec les organisations internationales, onusiennes et les organisations non gouvernementales ».

Avec cette motion, les Verts souhaitent que le Conseil municipal invite le Conseil administratif notamment à :
-  participer activement à la préparation de la conférence Durban II;
- organiser une ou des manifestations permettant aux habitants de Genève et aux délégués à cette conférence d’échanger sur la problématique du racisme et les enjeux qui y ont trait;
- favoriser la participation des associations, notamment celles de lutte contre le racisme, à l’organisation de cet événement;
- mettre en œuvre toute autre mesure utile au succès de cette conférence et en particulier à prévoir le budget nécessaire à la réalisation des objectifs.

Une telle motion, si elle était acceptée, risquerait de voir se renouveler le scénario de 2001. Cette prise de position des Verts est irresponsable ; encourageant la Ville de Genève à apporter son soutien à un forum dont l’issue est déjà connue.

La CICAD est persuadée que nos responsables politiques sauront se mobiliser pour refuser une telle motion.

Contacts presse :
Johanne Gurfinkiel, Secrétaire général

____________________________

TEXT OF GENEVA GREEN PARTY MOTION

Motion du 24 juin 2008 de Mmes Marguerite Contat Hickel, Anne Moratti Jung,
Frédérique Perler-Isaaz, Sandrine Burger, Sophie de Weck Haddad, Claudia
Heberlein Simonett, Marie-Pierre Theubet, MM. Alpha Dramé, Yves de Matteis,
Miguel Limpo, Eric Rossiaud et Gilles Garazi: «Durban II et Genève».

PROJET DE MOTION  M-815

Considérant:
– la conférence Durban II qui aura lieu à Genève du 20 au 24 avril 2009;
– que cette conférence traitera du suivi de la «Conférence mondiale contre le racisme, la
discrimination raciale, la xénophobie et l’intolérance», qui a eu lieu à Durban du 2 au 9
septembre 2001;
– l’importance de cet événement tant sur le plan de la défense des droits humains en
général que sur le plan de la lutte contre le racisme;
– l’importance d’une participation de la Ville de Genève comme lieu de dialogue entre les
diverses communautés;
– l’occasion offerte à la Ville, par la tenue de cette conférence, de promouvoir la mission
de la Genève internationale et de renforcer les relations avec les organisations
internationales, onusiennes et les organisations non gouvernementales,
le Conseil municipal invite le Conseil administratif:
– à participer activement à la préparation de la conférence Durban II;
– à organiser une ou des manifestations permettant aux habitants de Genève et aux
délégués à cette conférence d’échanger sur la problématique du racisme et les enjeux
qui y ont trait;
– à favoriser la participation des associations, notamment celles de lutte contre le
racisme, à l’organisation de cet événement;
– à mettre en oeuvre toute autre mesure utile au succès de cette conférence et en
particulier à prévoir le budget nécessaire à la réalisation des objectifs.

* * *

Postcript: After UN Watch’s report, and the CICAD press release, the Green Party, to their credit, withdrew their motion. We look forward to working with them to promote real human rights, for women, gays, and other victims of discrimination.

Durban Deception: Libyans Using Front Organization to Subvert NGO Movement

That Libya chairs the Durban II “anti-racism” process, which culminates in the April 20-24, 2009 Durban Review Conference in Geneva, is bad enough. Far more dangerous, however, is Libya’s hidden campaign to subvert the NGO (non-governmental organization) movement, using a Libyan front-organization to instigate an innocent-sounding campaign for a “NGO Forum.”

On its face, nothing could be more desirable for a human rights conference than to have a broad gathering of non-governmental organizations, to allow the world’s unheard voices to speak.  NGOs are often the backbone of whatever positive comes out of the UN human rights system. Which is exactly why repressive regimes often try to stifle them.

Tragically, however, the repressive regimes are even more clever than that. Instead of waging only open battle against the NGO movement, which enjoys a powerful aura of respect in the media and other influential circles, the anti-democratic countries long ago realized that, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

Over the years, they created “GONGOs”, groups that are NGOs in name — with UN accreditation that allows official participation at world conferences — but that are in fact “Government-Operated NGOs.” Cuba, China, and Sudan all have their GONGOs, state-funded and controlled, who show up at UN conferences to spout the respective party lines and deny human rights violations and atrocities.

The objective is for diplomats, non-governmental delegates, and the broader world to believe that the regimes’ propaganda is the legitimate view of idealistic activist groups that represent the people. These groups obviously fail to meet the official UN criteria for NGOs, but get a pass from the highly politicized accreditation process.

This is exactly what is happening now in the preparation for Durban II. One of the groups lobbying hardest for the April conference to feature another “NGO Forum” — just like the event in 2001 that degenerated into an anti-Western, anti-Israel and anti-Semtic hatefest, and which was condemned by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and other leading NGOs — is the Geneva-based “North South 21″ (known in French as “Nord Sud 21″), a Libyan GONGO. Another coalition member is EAFORD, an openly anti-Semitic group, also created in Libya, that, in a September 2008 statement to the UN, accused “Jews everywhere” of “allowing Israel to inflict [a Holocaust] on the Palestinian people.”

To spell it out: What we have here is a Libyan-led “NGO” campaign demanding a NGO Forum from the Libyan-led governmental committee planning the conference. Qaddafi has the whole world over a barrel. It’s the greatest scam since the invention of three card monte.

Click on http://nordsud21.ch/durban.htm to see North South 21’s dedicated webpage for promoting a repeat of the 2001 hatefest, all in the supposed name of the legitimate NGO movement. Joining it are a motley group of radical anti-Israel and anti-Western organization, knowing enablers, and naive fellow travelers in the anti-racism cause.

HOW LIBYAN REGIME CONTROLS GONGO “NORTH SOUTH 21″  

What do we know about North South 21?

 A series of publicly-available documents show how the Qaddafi regime created the organization in 1989, as part of the Geneva-based committee to award an annual “Moammar Qaddafi Prize for Human Rights.” Radical anti-Western activist Jean Ziegler played a founding role in the inter-linked organizations.

UN Watch detailed all of this in a major 1996 report here, as cooroborated by a front page story by Switzerland’s leading newspaper,  the Neue Zurcher Zeitung. Further details about the Libyans’ open acknowledgment of North South 21 being a part of the Qaddafi Prize organization can be found here. (Supplement to UN Watch’s June 20, 2006 Report, “Switzerland’s Nominee to the UN Human Rights Council and the Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize”, containing excerpts from http://www.gaddafiprize.org/ that document Jean Ziegler’s role as a 1989 co-founder of the Khaddafi Prize and its 2002 winner, and confirming the Khaddafi Prize organization’s control over North-South XXI and the North-South Institute, of which Jean Ziegler is vice-president.According to the Libyan press agency, the organization in Geneva that awards the Khaddafi Prize is an entity called North-South XXI (or Nord-Sud XXI). See “President Chavez of Venezuela wins International Gaddafi Award for Human Rights,” Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation, December 10, 2004, at http://en.ljbc.net/online/news_details.php?id=475 (see Attachment 7 here); “Oxymoron,” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 15 Oktober 2004 (citing Libyan press agency Jana as saying the Prize is awarded by an International People’s Committee and Nord-Sud XXI) (see Attachment 8 here).  

The British press has also reported North-South XXI’s role in awarding the Prize. See “Gaddafi human rights prize for two dock strike wives,” The Daily Mail (London), September 4, 1997 (stating that Prize “[r]ecipients are chosen annually by a Geneva-based organisation called Nord-Sud 21.”) (see Attachment 9 here).

Even Geneva’s left-wing daily Le Temps, which is generally avoids criticizing Geneva’s UN industry, said this about North South 21, in an August 30, 2002 article:

The Kadhafi Prize [for Human Rights] is managed in Geneva by North-South 21, which claims to be an organization for the defense of human rights. . . . It is worth noting that North-South 21 does not want to mention the financial investment of Tripoli in the Geneva center. The organization issues many periodicals and other publications but none mentions the name of the provider of funds.  (Le Prix Kadhafi est géré à Genève par Nord-Sud 21 qui se veut une organisation de défense des droits de l’homme… Force est de constater que Nord-Sud 21 ne veut pas évoquer l’investissement financier de Tripoli dans le centre genevois. L’organisation dispose de plusieurs périodiques et autre publications à thème mais aucun ne mentionne le nom du bailleur de fonds.)

See “Un deuxième spectacle autour du Prix Kadhafi,” Le Temps, 30 août 2000 (see Attachment 10 here).  See also “Les Noirs demandent réparation pour l’esclavage,” Le Temps, 7 août 2001 (describing North-South XXI as “an NGO installed in Geneva and tied to Libya” and discussing a symposium “ordered and financed by Libya through North-South XXI.”) (see Attachment 11 here).

While all of the facts are out there, Geneva UN circles tend to pretend that North South 21 is a legitimate group instead of a Libyan GONGO.

FURTHER DETAILS CONNECTING LIBYA, NORTH SOUTH 21, AND JEAN ZIEGLER

A past winner also has attributed the Prize to North-South XXI.  See Website of Union interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme (UIDH), at http://www.iuhr.org/article.php3?&id_article=105 (noting that it won the Khaddafi Prize at the “proposal of the NGO North-South XXI.”).  Indeed, in a posting on the Human Rights Internet website, UIDH used the fact that the Khaddafi Prize is granted by a northern NGO, based in Geneva with ECOSOC status, to argue against those who criticized it for accepting Libyan money.  See http://www.hri.ca/partners/uidh/persp/budget.html (describing how, after UIDH won the Prize, many of its partner institutions stopped funding it because of the Libya affiliation, and arguing that this was incorrect in light of the Prize being awarded by a Northern, Geneva-based, UN-accredited NGO).

Like the Khaddafi Prize, North-South XXI was founded in 1989. In addition to awarding the Prize, North-South XXI organizes seminars and colloquia (many of which have been held in Tripoli) and issues a periodic journal of the same name. North-South XXI has special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which allows it to participate at UN sessions. It has argued before UN bodies against the international sanctions on Libya, without ever disclosing its connections to the Khaddafi regime. See Written Statement of North-South XXI to the Commission on Human Rights, 55th Session (E/CN.4/1999/NGO/40) (arguing against sanctions in general and against the sanctions on Libya in particular); Written Statement of North-South XXI to the Commission on Human Rights, 54th Session (E/CN.4/1998/NGO/83) (arguing that sanctions against Libya violate children’s rights).

North-South XXI is located in Geneva at rue Ferdinand-Hodler, number 17. Its director is Ahmad Soueissi, and its chairman is Ahmed Ben Bella. Mr. Ben Bella and Mr. Soueissi are also chairman and secretary, respectively, of a similarly-named organization at the same address: the Institut Nord-Sud pour le dialogue intercultural. The vice-chairman of the Institut Nord-Sud, according to official records of the canton of Geneva, is Jean Ziegler.  See Entry for Institut Nord-Sud pour le dialogue interculturel, Registre du commerce de Genève, at http://rc.geneve.ch/rc/consultation/consultationcomplete.asp?no_dossier_fed=CH-660-1684998-3 (see Attachment 14 here).

Several websites identify the Institut as the source of the North-South XXI journal, and one describes it as “presided over by Jean Ziegler.” See “Le Monde Diplomatique, Revues,” at http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/revues/nordsud; Philippe Corcuff, Liste des publications, at http://www.cerlis.fr/pagesperso/permanents/corcuffphilippepubli.htm (listing one article as follows: “Avec Éric Doidy et Domar Idrissi, “S’émanciper des langues de bois : originalité du langage zapatiste”, dans Club Merleau-Ponty, La pensée confisquée - Quinze idées reçues qui bloquent le débat public, 1997, Paris : La Découverte; réédité en 2001, Nord-Sud XXI (Institut Nord-Sud pour le dialogue interculturel, Genève), n°16 (4)”).

The Institut Nord-Sud is managed and financed by the Fondation Nord-Sud pour le dialogue interculturel. See Entry for Fondation Nord Sud pour le dialogue interculturel, Registre du commerce de Genève, at http://rc.geneve.ch/rc/consultation/consultationcomplete.asp?no_dossier_fed=CH-660-1881999-1 (see Attachment 15 here).

The Fondation have the same street address as North-South XXI and the Institut. The Fondation’s address in the Geneva registry of commerce is in care of a Geneva fiduciary society.  However, an entity called the Nord-Sud Fondation, http://www.nordsud-dialogue.org/, is also found at rue Ferdinand-Hodler 17, and has the same phone number, fax number, email address, and director as North-South XXI (see Attachment 16 here).

The officers of the Fondation are the same as of the Institute: Mr. Ben Bella, chairman; Mr. Ziegler, vice-chairman; and Mr. Soueissi, secretary. See also Entry for Fondation Nord Sud pour le dialogue interculturel, Registre du commerce de Genève, at at http://rc.geneve.ch/rc/consultation/consultationcomplete.asp?no_dossier_fed=CH-660-1881999-1 (see Attachment 15 here).�

UN Watch Report: “Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration”

[la version française suit]

Click here for new report: “Shattering the Red Lines”

SUMMARY

The dominant thesis of the 88-page Durban II draft declaration (”Draft Outcome Document”)[1] is that the U.S., Western Europe, Israel, and other liberal democracies — their principles, institutions, policies, respective histories and national identities — are singularly racist, and, in addition, discriminatory against Islam. Free speech, wealth, globalization, security measures to combat anti-Western terrorism — all of these are attacked as causes of racism, discrimination, and the “defamation of Islam.” Indeed, the new language seeking to distort human rights law for the purposes of Islamic censorship makes the Durban II draft even worse than the 2001 text.

In particular, the draft — compiled by a committee that includes Libya as chair, and Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba as vice-chairs — focuses on one specific country, Israel, which it portrays as the enemy of humanity, using language lifted verbatim from the notorious 2001 Tehran Declaration.

This report examines a small selection of the 646 provisions of the Durban II draft declaration, highlighting several that breach the European Union’s red lines. As set forth by France on behalf of the EU, in a 19 September 2008 statement to the UN Human Rights Council, the EU red lines reject (1) singling out one region of the world in particular; (2) reopening the 2001 Durban declaration by inserting a prohibition against “defamation of religion,” designed to restrict free speech and impose the censorship of Islamic anti-blasphemy laws; (3) drawing up an order of priority among victims; and (4) politicizing or polarizing the discussion.

Earlier this year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged — “without ambiguity” — to withdraw the EU from the Durban II process if the 2001 excesses repeated themselves and the EU’s concerns were ignored. Sarkozy also set forth a timeline in which France would act on its pledge, saying the decision would be made while France chaired the EU “in the final months preceding the review conference.” With France’s presidency concluding on December 31, 2008, that means now.

Click here for new report: “Shattering the Red Lines”

——————————————————————————————

cliquez ici pour nouveau rapport: “Violation des lignes rouges”

Résumé

La thèse dominante présentée dans les 88 pages de l’avant-projet de la déclaration de Durban II (« Draft Outcome Document »)* est que les Etats-Unis, l’Europe de l’Ouest, Israël et d’autres démocraties libérales que ce soit leurs principes, leurs institutions, leurs politiques, leurs identités tant nationales qu’historiques, sont singulièrement racistes et en plus discriminatoires envers l’Islam. La liberté d’expression, la richesse, la globalisation, les mesures de sécurité pour combattre le terrorisme antioccidental sont pointées du doigt comme des causes de racisme, de discrimination et de « diffamation de l’Islam ».

En particulier, cette ébauche, compilée par un comité qui inclut des pays comme la Lybie en tant que présidente, l’Iran, le Pakistan et Cuba en tant que vice-présidents, ne s’intéresse qu’à un pays spécifique, Israël, qui est présenté comme l’ennemie de l’humanité, utilisant un langage repris de la célèbre déclaration de Téhéran de 2001.

Le tableau ci-dessous examine une petite sélection des 646 dispositions de l’avant-projet de la déclaration de Durban II, mettant en avant certains points qui rompent les lignes rouges européennes. Comme présentées par la France au nom de l’UE, lors d’une déclaration le 19 septembre 2008 dans le cadre du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, les lignes rouges de l’UE rejettent (1) la singularisation d’une région du monde en particulier ; (2) la réouverture de la déclaration de Durban de 2001 en insérant une interdiction de « diffamer la religion », dans le but de restreindre la liberté d’expression et d’imposer une censure par les lois islamiques contre le blasphème ; (3) l’établissement d’une hiérarchie des victimes et (4) la politisation ou la polarisation de la discussion.

Plutôt cette année, le président français Nicolas Sarkozy s’est engagé à retirer l’Union Européenne de Durban II si les excès de 2001 se répétaient et si les intérêts de l’UE étaient ignorés. Sa présidence sur l’UE et sa capacité à honorer sa promesse se terminera le 31 décembre 2008.

cliquez ici pour nouveau rapport : “Violation des lignes rouges”


[1] Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009, as published on the United Nations website, Second Substantive Session (6 to 17 October 2008), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/session2-documentation.htm
(last accessed on Oct. 22, 2008).

UN General Assembly Chief Appoints Rogues’ Gallery of “Special Senior Advisors”

And now this:  UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockman, former Nicaraguan FM and unrepentant Sandinista, has named a rogues’ gallery of anti-Western crackpots and 9/11 conspiracy theorists as his “Special Senior Advisors.”  The indefatigable Matt Lee of Inner City Press has the story here.

Now advising the head of the UN’s parliament are Professor Richard Falk, cheerleader for the theory that 9/11 was an inside job; Ramsey Clark, tool of left-wing cultists who defend Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Rwandan torturers as anti-imperialist heroes, and Noam Chomsky, the anti-American guru who lends his name to Holocaust deniers. See full list below.

SPECIAL SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 63RD SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1. Brother David Andrews CSC (USA).

2. Ms. Maude Barlow (Canada).

3. Mr. Mohammed Bedjaoui (Algeria).

4. Mr. Leonardo Boff (Brazil).

5. Mr. Kevin Cahill (USA).

6. Mr. François Houtart (Belgium).

7. Mr. Noam Chomsky (USA).

8. Mr. Ramsey Clark (USA).

9. Mr. Richard Falk (USA).

10. Mr. Michael Kennedy (USA).

11. Ms. Eleonora Kennedy (USA).

12. Mr. Olivier De Schutter (Belgium).

13. Mr. Joseph Stiglitz (USA).

14. Sir John E. Sulston (UK).

15. Mr. Howard Zinn (USA).

Durban myth debunked: 2001 NGO Forum was “integral part” of main conference

As of late, defenders of the 2001 Durban debacle, from UN officials to activists in the U.S., have been trying to cleanse the world conference and its texts by rewriting history to allocate all of the blame, and isolating the stigma, to the NGO Forum, claiming it had no connection to the governmental conference.

In fact, in 2001, the UN had said the exact opposite. “I regard this Forum as an integral part of the World Conference,” said UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson in her August 28, 2001 address to a stadium of assembled activists. In particular, she noted how the NGO Forum “played a critical role in shaping the draft programme of action” adopted by the governments.

Leading International Voices on the 2001 Durban NGO Forum

With a Libyan-backed group of fringe organizations now lobbying the UN and the City of Geneva to help them hold a so-called “NGO forum” during the April 2009 Durban Review Conference (”Durban II”), it’s worth recalling why so many fear a repeat of the nightmare that was the 2001 NGO Forum.

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson:

[T]he atmosphere of anti-Semitism at the NGO Forum was described as ‘hateful, even racist’ by former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson. Source: U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 1361 EH, Sept. 23, 2008

I had urged the NGOs not to adopt it. But the process was democratic and they went ahead and adopted it. But I also have a democratic right to reject that declaration dealing with Israel. . .  I think the NGO Forum, by including that text on Israel, have diminished the chances of it being adopted by the conference. I don’t think it can be adopted. Source: “Israel branded ‘racist’ by rights forum,” CNN, Sept. 2, 2001.

[A]fter [an activist] showed Robinson the booklet, she stood up, waved it and said, ‘This conference is aimed at achieving human dignity. My husband is a cartoonist, I love political cartoons, but when I see the racism in this cartoon booklet, of the Arab Lawyers’ Union, I must say that I am a Jew - for those victims are hurting. I know that you people will not understand easily, but you are my friends, so I tell you that I am a Jew, and I will not accept this fractiousness to torpedo the conference.’ Source: Robinson in Durban: I am a Jew,” The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 30, 2001.

 

South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad:

The South African government has condemned the anti-Semitism at the nongovernmental conference against racism held in Durban last August. Referring to the “disgraceful events,” Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad said the conference was hijacked and turned into an anti-Semitic event. Source: “South Africa decries anti-Semitism at Durban Racism Conference,” Human Rights Education Association, 2002.

Human Rights Watch:

Human Rights Watch. . . calls on all participants to avoid a repeat of the conduct that so marred the 2001 conference. In particular, the NGO forum at the Durban Conference undermined the wider process when the forum’s concluding statement singled out one country, Israel, as the target of exaggerated and unsupportable allegations and when certain forum participants made anti-Semitic statements and expressed anti-Semitic sentiments that targeted, among others, individuals participating in the conference. Source: Human Rights Watch, “Position Paper: Second Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference,” April 21, 2008.

Amnesty International:

Amnesty International “joined Jewish and Israeli leaders in warning that a forthcoming UN conference against racism could degenerate into an assault on Israel, Zionism, and the significance of the Holocaust.” Regrettably, we were not able to head off the ugly incidents that in fact did take place. Source: Joshua Rubenstein, Northeast Regional Director, Amnesty International USA, Letter to Boston Jewish Advocate, Dec. 27, 2007.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

Vous avez parlé de la conférence de Durban. Je vais vous le dire : la conférence de Durban en 2001 a donné lieu à des débordements intolérables de la part de certains Etats et de nombreuses organisations non gouvernementales qui ont fait de cette conférence une tribune contre l’Etat d’Israël. Personne n’a oublié. Une conférence de suivi est prévue pour 2009. Monsieur le Président, vous m’avez interpellé. Je vous répondrai très franchement. La France n’acceptera pas que les dérives et les outrances de 2001 se répètent. Nos partenaires européens partagent les inquiétudes de la France. Celle-ci présidera l’Union européenne dans les derniers mois précédant la conférence de suivi. Je vous le dis, nous saurons nous désengager du processus si nos exigences légitimes ne sont pas prises en compte. J’estime que ma réponse est sans ambigüité.

Translation:  

You have spoken about the Durban conference. I will tell you: The Durban conference in 2001 led to intolerable excesses from certain states and numerous NGOs that turned the conference into a forum against Israel. No one has forgotten. A follow-up conference is planned for 2009. Mr. President [of the CRIF], you asked me a question. I will answer very frankly. France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001. Our European partners share France’s concerns. France will chair the EU in the final months preceding the review conference.  I say to you:  if ever our legitimate demands are not taken into account, we will disengage from the process. I believe my response is without ambiguity. Source: Discours de Nicolas Sarkozy au diner annuel du crif le 13 fevrier 2008.

Canadian Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney:

[The Durban conference] turned into a bit of a circus for intolerance and bigotry, particularly but not exclusively directed at the Jewish people. . .  Hitler posters [were displayed] by NGOs that have been re-invited by the organizing committee now chaired by Libya. Source: “Canada pulls support for UN anti-racism conference,” CTV News, Jan. 23, 2008.

U.S. House of Representatives

[T]he NGO Forum produced a document called the ‘NGO Declaration’  that contained abusive language, branding Israel an ‘apartheid state’ that is guilty of ‘racist crimes against humanity’. . .  the atmosphere of anti-Semitism at the NGO Forum was described as ‘hateful, even racist’ by former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and as ‘disgraceful’ by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad, of South Africa, who also stated that parts of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism were ‘hijacked and used by some with an anti-Israeli agenda to turn it into an anti-Semitic event’…”  Source: U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 1361, Sept. 23, 2008

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay:

Seven years ago at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, the virulent anti-Semitic behaviour of a few non-governmental organizations on the sidelines of the Durban Conference overshadowed the critically important work of the Conference. Measures were taken to address this betrayal of the core principles of the Durban Conference, and the NGO document was not forwarded to the Conference.” Source: Address by Navanethem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Opening of the Durban 2nd Preparatory Committee, Oct. 6, 2008.

U.S. Representative Tom Lantos:

Another ring in the Durban circus was the NGO forum, taking place just outside the conference center. Although the NGO proceedings were intended to provide a platform for the wide range of civil society groups interested in the conference’s conciliatory mission, the forum quickly became stacked with Palestinian and fundamentalist Arab groups.

Each day, these groups organized anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rallies around the meetings, attracting thousands. One flyer which was widely distributed showed a photograph of Hitler and the question “What if I had won?” The answer: “There would be NO Israel…” At a press conference held by Jewish NGO’s to discuss their concerns with the direction the conference was taking, an accredited NGO, the Arab Lawyers Union, distributed a booklet filled with anti-Semitic caricatures frighteningly like those seen in the Nazi hate literature printed in the 1930s. Jewish leaders and I who were in Durban were shocked at this blatant display of anti-Semitism.

For me, having experienced the horrors of the Holocaust first hand, this was the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I had seen since the Nazi period. Source: “The Durban debacle: An insider’s view of the world conference against racism,” Fletcher World Forum, Winter Spring 2002, at 46. The late Tom Lantos was founder of the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus and delegate to the 2001 Durban conference.

UN Expert Gay McDougall

I join with Congressman Lantos and other critics who rightly condemn the anti-Semitism that some groups brought to events and activities surrounding the Non-Governmental Forum (NGO Forum). In some places, there was an atmosphere of intimidation and hate against Jewish people. There were cartoons and posters that were hurtful and inappropriate. Additionally, the final NGO document contained language relating to Israel that was inflammatory. In fact, portions of the document proposed by the Jewish caucus were defeated in a process that was intimidating and undemocratic.” Source: “The world conference against racism: through a wider lens,” Fletcher World Forum, Summer/Fall 2002, at 136.  

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) Delegate to NGO Forum Jerry V. Leaphart:

[T]he NGO Forum document contained language that was fairly criticized as anti-Semitic. Source: “The World Conference against Racism: What was really achieved?” Fletcher World Forum, Summer/Fall 2002, at 154.

Joint Coalition of 94 NGOs, including International League for Human Rights,
Human Rights First, ENAR – European Network Against Racism, UNITED for Intercultural Action - European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants and refugees, The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (USA), SOVA Center for Information and Analysis (Russian Federation), Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (USA), ILGA-Europe, International Lesbian and Gay Association, CCDN - Celebrating Cultural Diversity Network (UK), CRARR - Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (Canada), Observatorio sobre Conflictos Etnicos en la Argentina – OSCEA, CAERS - The Canadian Anti-racism Education and Research Society, Citizens’ Watch (Russia), AFRICAN UNION Social organization of St. Petersburg (Russia), Asian American Justice Center, Freedom House (USA), Human Rights Without Frontiers International, Roma Virtual Network (RVN), The Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (Kyrgyz Republic), Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly of Moldova, Defence for Children International (Czech section), Sisters of Mercy, Mercy Justice Office – SCP (Ireland), Physicians for Human Rights, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (Sweden), The Bahá’í International Community, The Canadian Helsinki Watch Group, Conectas Direitos Humanos (Brazil):

Many civil society representatives were disappointed, when the [2001 Durban] NGO process, which raised the profile of important contemporary racism problems and the historic wounds of slavery and discrimination, was discredited. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson spoke out against what she called the “hateful, even racist” antisemitic atmosphere that plagued the NGO forum. She refused to commend it to governments for their consideration. Leading international human rights organizations called some of the human rights language in the declaration inaccurate, inappropriate and even counterproductive. They regretted that progress on vital issues such as discrimination against Roma and caste discrimination was thereby diminished. Observers were shocked by violations of procedure in the preparatory and drafting processes, the racist treatment including violence, exclusion, and intimidation against Jewish participants, and the misuse of human rights terminology in the document related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of groups was silent or refused to speak out. In the years since, many have reflected that the result was a regrettable vacuum of moral leadership. Source: Civil society groups seek Durban Review that rejects hatred,” April 28, 2008

On the Durban Conference in General:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell:

Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. . . I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism;’ or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world–Israel–for censure and abuse. Source: “World Conference against Racism,” U.S. Department of State, Sept. 3, 2001.

Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper

We have every reason to believe it [the 2009 Durban Review Conference] will be a repeat of Durban I. . . We will not be party to an anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatefest dressed up as an anti-racism conference. Source: PM calls UN conference an ‘anti-Western hatefest’“, National Post, Jun. 28, 2008.

UN Expert Gay McDougall

The Leadership Conference for Civil Rights Under Law, a coalition of more than 180 civil and human rights organizations in the United States, issued a press release on September 4, endorsed by all its members, that referred to the anti-Semitism in Durban as “repugnant and reprehensible” and noted, “We share the concerns of those who decry anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry.” Other NGO’s offered press statements of their own condemning the hateful language aimed at Israel and Jewish groups in the final NGO document. In addition, some NGO participants resigned from the NGO International Steering Committee in protest and, ultimately, 77 NGOs from 37 countries rejected the NGO document the night it was finalized because of references to Israel as an apartheid state. Source: “The world conference against racism: through a wider lens,” Fletcher World Forum, Summer/Fall 2002, at 136.  Source: “The world conference against racism: through a wider lens,” Fletcher World Forum, Summer/Fall 2002, at 136.