4th Quarterly, 2006 No.142

---

In September of 2006, I attended the second session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) as an intern for the International Movement Against all forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute (BLHRRI). I knew that going to the UN through IMADR and the BLHRRI would be an eye opening experience for me.

Yet, before I left for Geneva I did not know what to expect. I graduated in May of 2006 from Scripps Women’s College in southern California with a degree in Sociology and a minor in Politics and International Relations. In the past four years I have developed an increasing interest in minority issues internationally. Having studied in southern California, I learned about the racial dynamics existing within the culturally and socio-economically diverse area of Los Angeles. Yet, my interest did not begin in college.

My eye for observing racial dynamics has developed out of my childhood growing up in a multiracial Japanese and German/Scot- Irish-American family, in another racially and culturally diverse city, Oakland, California, and then moving to Japan at the age of twelve. Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to live in different communities with a vast array of people. In college, my life experience led me to an interest in the movement of people across borders. As I learned more about the migrant community of L.A., I began to educate myself on the history of minority groups and ways to diminish human rights abuses against them.

Through the course of my studies, I read about and discussed the UN system through various classes as well as with peers. I wrote my senior thesis on U.S. media portrayals of sex trafficking. It was during my research that I examined the international debate around sex trafficking which often uses the UN protocol on trafficking as a center point for discussion. However, before I attended the HRC, my knowledge of the UN merely consisted of theory and facts that I had read in books.

I always knew that I learned less by books and more by experience. I suppose that is what led me to sociology. As much as I enjoy reading sociological theory, I also thrive on communicating with people, observing society with my own eyes, pin-pointing social norms and abnormalities and challenging myself to think about existing injustices. I realized throughout my experience in the HRC, that my time there taught me more than books ever could have.

Of course I had to research UN mechanisms that I was not familiar with such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Special Procedures and Thematic Mandates. Otherwise, I would not have understood the issues being discussed during the last week of the Council. Yet, through my observations I was able to witness the reality of power that was exhibited within the meeting between the delegations and those that represented the people on the ground, whom the Council claimed to be fighting for. The Council vividly showed me how cut throat the world of politics and the desire for power is. For instance, Cuba had insisted earlier in the Council that NGOs should be given more time to speak.

The delegation acted in this way in an effort to appear supportive of the work that NGOs are doing. However, as soon as particular NGOs began to pressure the Cuban Government on their human rights abuses, Cuba attacked the legitimacy of NGOs, thus opposing the allocated time given to them to make a statement. It was apparent that Cuba was tactically trying to shut the NGOs up. Throughout the three weeks I learned to respect the idea of the UN as a space to speak, discuss and negotiate the problems of our world. Yet, I also developed a disdain for the pro-human rights façade that many diplomats wore in meetings.

During my time in Geneva I witnessed the HRC go through a transitory phase. I was able to see the Council’s first steps in progressing out of the Commission on Human Rights. The internship made me come to the realization that the UN is not a completely effective mechanism. It also made me understand how difficult it is for members from vastly different cultures with altering political and economic motives and opinions to be brought together in dialogue. It made the process of coming to any sort of conclusion very slow. Thus, it made me see how important leadership is and what power advocacy, lobbying and coalitions can do.

Minorities and Racial Hatred: Doudou Diene

On the first day of the council, the Special Rapporteur on Racism and Intolerance, Mr. Doudou Diene presented his research on minorities. He gave an honest and thorough report of racism internationally and within Japan specifically. It was interesting to examine how the Japanese government responded defensively to Mr. Diene’s report. Furthermore, from the discussion that followed amongst delegates, I was also able to witness the opposition that China and other countries have toward Japan’s approach to dealing with their historical education program.

Mr. Diene stated that a priority around the world should be the incorporating of minority issues into education curriculums. Ms. Gay McDougall, the Independent Expert on Minority Issues also emphasized this point in her presentation.

In 2005, Mr. Diene made visits to Japan, Brazil, Switzerland and Russia and concluded from his findings that there had been a rise in racist and xenophobic violence perpetuated by extreme rightists, Neo-Nazi groups and certain political parties. He pointed out three main racist and xenophobic trends that he found as a result of his missions. These include the use of criminalization in resolving issues of immigration and asylum, xenophobia at country points of entry such as airports and border crossings and racism/xenophobia within sports – specifically soccer.

Mr. Diene laid down specific suggestions to overcome racism and xenophobia. These included the promotion of a multicultural society and the reconstruction of our present intellectual construct. In order to obtain these points, he emphasized the need for further legal protection toward minorities and the drafting of education of regional history in order to overcome nationalism and embrace tolerance. According to Mr. Diene, society must develop a system of values that does not promote racism.

In July of 2005, Mr. Diene undertook his mission to Japan. After compiling his research, he came to the conclusion that Japan is marked by the reality of racism and xenophobia. He divided the victims of racism and xenophobia in Japan within three main categories which included the Buraku; Ainu and Okinawans; descendents of former colonies such as Korea and China; and other foreign nationals. Mr. Diene stated that the problem of racism such as that experienced by Chinese and Koreans in Japan is beyond the contemporary but rather represents Japan’s long history.

In his final point, he gave a dynamic analogy of an iceberg. He stated that in order to eradicate racism we must touch the part where racism is constructed. The visible part of the iceberg is the present expressions of racism. The final act is a representation of years of racism that has developed from the racist core. Thus, he stated that we must focus on racism’s deep roots. This was his argument behind the need for the Japanese Government to address an accurate history in educational textbooks.

Mr. Diene also had another dynamic concluding point that put forth a vision of hope. He emphasized that although racism is gaining ground everywhere, the transformation of society is not all negative. According to Mr. Diene, this is a sign of new national identities – the formation of multicultural identities and the disintegration of old identities. Thus, our transforming society is also a representation of social progress.

Mr. Diene’s emphasis on reconstructing society is extremely important in forming a discussion with an outcome of action on racism. Furthermore, his analogy that represented racism not as an isolate expression but one that has been developed throughout history is a critical issue to examine. Lastly, I support his final statement on looking at the transformation of our society and how new racial and cultural identities are changing as something to be looked upon as positive.

Ms. McDougall, the independent expert on minority issues also presented her findings and observations on what minorities are presently facing. She emphasized the need for an increased focus on minority issues and communities (E/CN.4/2006/74, 2). According to Ms. McDougall, minority rights and policies that promote equality and fight against exclusion are vital and important for social stability (E/CN.4/2006/74, 2).

Throughout the council, minority rights issues were raised whether it was within racism specifically or while examining country specific issues such as Sri Lanka, a country where IMADR is specifically active in. IMADR put forth statements before the Council both individually and in coalitions with other NGOs. It was quite interesting to find that IMADR was the only Japanese NGO that held representation throughout the three week council session. On one of IMADR’s statements they joined with Minority Rights Group International, Baha’i International and the International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and Other Minorities to urge the Council to make permanent, Ms. McDougal’s mandate on minority issues.

There were other Japanese observers present at different points throughout the Council. These groups included the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. They presented a statement on the Japanese Constitution. They emphasized that the Japanese people have forever denounced war as a sovereign right of the nation or a threat or use of force as a means of solving international disputes. They stated that this must be upheld and maintained. Furthermore, it should be a good model in promoting peace all over the world.

Out of the presentations that focused specifically on minorities and racism, there was a joint report on the Incited to Racial and Religious Hatred and the Promotion of Tolerance which was delivered by Ms. Asma Jahanger and Mr. Diene. In our post 9-11 society as well as after the Danish comics of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad last year and the relatively recent remarks against Islam by the Pope, the issue of religious hatred was quite sensitive at the council.

Ms. Jahanger and Mr. Diene stated that violence expressed as an act against a particular religious belief cannot be tolerated. Especially after Mr. Diene’s report on Japan that pointed out a number of human rights violations toward minorities, the Japanese delegation said that instead, people should build trust through peaceful dialogue. The Japanese government was sure to emphasize the international dialogues that they have undertaken that include the Arab/Japanese dialogue and missions of cultural exchanges between Japan and the Middle East.

Mr. Diene presented a long term strategy in order to follow-up on the joint report. This included a legal strategy to address the mechanisms of issues such as the political cartoons that were published in a Danish Newspaper in 2005. He also discussed the need for a political strategy in response to political platforms that supported a racist and xenophobic system of values. Lastly, he asserted the perusal of an intellectual strategy since religion and racism have great intellectual and historical significance to society. Ms. Jahanger concluded their joint statement by emphasizing the importance of an education system that teaches tolerance. She also said that the threshold of what constitutes human rights violations must be kept higher rather than lower in order to benefit society.

I strongly believe that if we are to talk about Minority Rights, it is essential that we speak out about Gender Rights. These two elements must be mainstreamed in every part of our society. Minority women are some of the most vulnerable in the world. Mr. V. Munoz Villalobos, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education discussed this in his report entitled Girls’ Right to Education (E/CN.4/2006/45). We must focus on why many women – particularly migrant women are forced into some of the most dangerous jobs that exist such as the sex industry.

Throughout the Council there were also a number of reports delivered on sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is of particular important to migrant women as well as Japan. Mr. Petit, the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography gave his report. He stated that Japan hosted the Second World Congress against the commercial exploitation of children in 2001. He also said that the issue of demand is of crucial importance in addressing child prostitution. He discussed how the Japanese tourist industry is working to fight against child sex tourists and that travel agents are now required to sign a code of conduct in an effort toward eradicating child pornography and sex trafficking.

The Lack of NGO Speaking Time

From the first meeting of the session to the final, I noticed the significant lack of time provided for NGOs and other outside observers to make statements to the Council. Throughout the three weeks I learned how difficult it was for NGOs to lobby for the human rights abuses that many of them were standing up for. NGOs were generally only given two to three minutes to deliver responses.

Thus, in order to have their voices heard, they had to oftentimes form coalitions of 17 or so members for one message. I also witnessed the lack of respect granted to NGO representatives compared with the delegates. If delegations or Special Rapporteurs went over their allocated speaking time, then they were given a verbal warning to finish their statement. NGOs on the other hand were simply cut off from their microphone.

On September 28, 2006, NGOs were significantly treated poorly during the HRC. They were allocated three minutes each to give a statement toward various reports drafted by the High Commissioner of Human Rights as well as a number of other representatives from UN Human Rights offices. However, during the allocated time left for NGOs nearly all of them were cut off by various delegations in the middle of their statements. This is because the NGOs were threatening particular states by pointing out existing human rights problems in those countries.

Delegates accused the NGO statements of not having anything to do with the day’s agenda. Yet, in fact a number of the NGO’s statements were applicable. IMADR was one of the NGOs who were cut off that day. I delivered a statement on behalf of IMADR on human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. IMADR put forth statements before the Council both individually and in coalitions with other NGOs.

I presented one of these statements on behalf of IMADR to address the violence against civilians and harassment of Muslim and Tamil internally displaced people. Our statement was drafted to address the High Commissioner and ask her what her plans were to expand the human rights office in Colombo. We also wanted to address the government’s failure to effectively investigate the killings that took place in Kayts, Trincomalee and Manna between April and May of 2006. The statement was to call upon the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) to refrain from engaging in acts of violence and to respect human rights and assist in the Cease Fire Agreement.

Yet, I was cut off by the Sri Lankan delegation and asked by the vice president who was sitting in for the president to stop speaking because the statement did not coincide with the relevant discussion. The IMADR statement was in fact, completely legitimate for the allotted time because it was directing a question toward the High Commissioners international work, an item she had discussed earlier in the period. This experience forced me to confront the ruthlessness of members of the Council and the general lack of true and genuine engagement for addressing human rights abuses.

Human Rights Council Mechanisms: Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

A large segment of time during the Council was devoted to the mechanisms of the newly formed Human Rights Council. In June of 2006, the Council officially transformed from what was the Commission on Human Rights that had begun in 1946. The new Council has 47 member countries while the former Commission had 53. One of the mechanisms discussed during the Council was the UPR which examines the human rights in all countries. The Working Group on the UPR gave a progress report in which he said that the review should be a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue and should avoid politicization.

Furthermore, the UPR should compliment rather than duplicate the work of other HR mechanisms. The working group gave recommendations on the UPR and then a number of delegates voiced their opinions for an interactive dialogue during the UPR process along with transparency and a question-air created by UPR experts. Many countries spoke out in support for an interactive dialogue, transparency and a question-air created by UPR experts. Suggestions from the delegation floor for the frequency of meetings ranged from three to six years. Countries also proposed that between two to three hours be given to reporting on each country.

Last Thoughts

My time spent at the UN Human Rights Council was a significant learning experience. I learned about the ways that international politics are dealt with and organized. In the three week session the Council focused on a number of issues which included minority rights, the growth of racism, torture, the post-war situation of Lebanon and the occupied territories, and the human rights abuses taking place in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, I learned how difficult it is for NGOs to come to the Council and be represented due to financial and time constraints.

This is even more of a struggle now that the Council meets three times a year versus only once a year. At the end of the Council, most resolutions had been pushed to the next session with few decisions made. According to President Luis Alfonso De Alba, the Council would not adopt the final report until all relevant decisions had been held. At the end of the Council the only decisions that were made included the Generic Text and Follow up. I was quite surprised with the lack of resolutions made in the three weeks. It made me see how many inabilities the Council maintains.

Now at the age of twenty-two I find myself looking into the future quite often. I ask myself, who am I and what are my abilities? How can I be a social mover for human rights progress? I know that all people must have the opportunity to have a life of peace. Therefore, the questions I ask myself include how I can contribute to making this peaceful life not only for myself but for others. What can I do now so that human rights abuses stop taking place? My challenge now is to bring the issues I learned in Geneva, the experiences I had and the stories I heard into my community and be a mover of social change and progress.

---

| Back | Home |