India has ITS OWN REASONS to worry about UNHCR moves

Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe

Navanethem Pillay complained in her annual report to the UNHRC for 2012 that, at the time of writing, the Sri Lankan government had not agreed to eight outstanding requests to visit Sri Lanka by her “special procedures mandate holders” - namely, those on minority issues; freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; freedom of opinion and expression; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; enforced or involuntary disappearances; human rights defenders; independence of judges and lawyers; and discrimination against women in law and practice.

One of her recommendations is that the Sri Lankan government invite special procedures mandate holders with outstanding requests to make country visits, particularly those pursuant to the US anti-Sri Lanka resolution 19/2 of March 2012.

By giving priority to this particular issue, Pillay is openly and unashamedly pushing the US neocon agenda of coercing developing countries to allow “unfettered access” to special procedures mandate holders - the same issue has been given high priority in the draft anti-Sri Lanka resolution for 2013 being circulated by the US at the UNHRC.

JAWAHARLAL Nehru	NAVANETHEM Pillay
CHRISTOF Heyns	KOFI Annan

In the draft resolution, the US “urges” the Government of Sri Lanka to “cooperate” with special procedures mandate holders and formally respond to outstanding requests, including by providing unfettered access to the Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers; human rights defenders; freedom of expression; freedom of association and assembly; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; minority issues; and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; and discrimination against women.

To make sure that the “unfettered access” is granted as demanded by the US, the draft resolution requests the OHCHR, “with input from relevant special procedures mandate holders as appropriate”, to present an interim report at the 24th session and a report in an interactive dialogue at the 25th session of the UNHRC, on the implementation of the resolution.

Special mandate is the precursor to R2P pretext for ‘humanitarian’ invasion

In addition to exposing the coalescence between the US and Navanethem Pillay agendas at the UNHRC, the demand for unfettered access to special mandate holders reveals the integral nature of this process to the bogus human rights crusade of the neocons. The special mandate holder “fact finding missions” are the precursor to invoking the Right to Protect (R2P) pretext for invading sovereign countries.

The introduction of the broader special mandate facility and the special mandate holder – independent expert – system has been one of the most sinister appendages of the global phoney human rights architecture devised by the US. The process started with the deprecation of the original UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and proceeded with the creation of the current UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006.

The neocon establishment cleverly used the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to campaign for many of their objectives such as the Right to Protect (R2P) fraud and the running down of the UNCHR. Clearly relaying the well-known US neocon line on the UNCHR, Annan declared that “the Commission’s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole” and called for it to be replaced.

As it always happens in response to the clamour for ‘reform’ by the neocons, the UN General Assembly took up the cause in 2006. But unhappy with the level and nature of powers granted to the newly created UNHRC, the Bush Administration voted against the resolution, and threw the tantrum of declining to participate in its activities.

Following the 2008 US elections, Barack Obama administration embraced the HRC and in May 2009, the UN General Assembly elected the US to the UNHRC. The US vowed to “make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights” - later events reveal that what they meant was, notwithstanding their late entry in to the process, they would seek to actively exploit the UNHRC to further neocon foreign policy aims.

The neocons championed the expansion of the UNHRC “special procedures” mechanism, referred to as special rapporteurs, charged with monitoring and reporting on thematic issues or country specific human rights situations.

The seven special rapporteur mandates that existed under the UNCHR grew exponentially since the entry of the US to the UNHCR, growing to more than 60 special rapporteurs today. In 2010 they created a Special Rapporteur to Protect Freedom of Assembly and Association, a move designed specifically to legitimise subversive NGO activity in developing countries.

At the five regular sessions and five special sessions that have been held since the US joined the UNHRC in 2009, they have renewed or established special rapporteurs on Burma, North Korea, Sudan, and Iran. The list of countries proves that virtually any country that is in the neocon gun focus, or merely unresponsive to US approaches, faces demands of unfettered access to carefully chosen special rapporteurs, channelled through the UNHRC forum.

In addition, they passed resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Guinea, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia as a first step towards appointing mandate holders. They forced special sessions to investigate the human rights situations in Libya, and Syria prior to the Libyan invasion and aiding and abetting rebel activity in Syria.

Countries that allow access to special rapporteurs by extending an invitation undergo serious transgressions of their sovereignty - during the course of the “fact finding missions” the special rapporteurs focus on everything from the legislations, judicial system and public administration with a view to spotting any imperfections that could be used to pressurise the government. They actively seek information from NGOs and other ‘civil society’ groups of any persuasion, with a grievance against the elected government.

India was deceived to invite a special rapporteur

India represents one of the most recent cases of being duped in to this trap, during the brief reign of the “brave new world” foreign policy regime that appeared to take shape, starting August 2011, following key personnel changes in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs.

The story emerges from this brief spell during which the neocons nearly gained control over India’s post-independence foreign policy formulated by Jawaharlal Nehru, to reflect India’s historical and cultural heritage through a firm commitment to good will and honesty in international affairs.

Nehru steered India away from violence and militarism in international affairs through policies based on pragmatism that, as a newly decolonised impoverished nation, India needed to invest all its resources towards economic development rather than on military hardware.

On the eve of the Bandung Conference in 1954, Nehru and the Chinese Prime Minister Chou-En-Lai declared Panchasheel - the fundamental principles of international understanding and cooperation based on - 1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; 2. Mutual non-aggression; 3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; 4. Equality and mutual advantage; 5. Peaceful co-existence and economic cooperation as the foundation of relations.

The US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who had taken over as “offshore balancer” for South Asia and the newly created Pakistan, under Winston Churchill’s instructions, disliked Nehru’s policy. They tested Nehru’s commitment to peace through almost unlimited military aid to Pakistan and by fuelling turmoil in Kashmir.

Other international relations issues such as the Chinese cross-border incursions of 1962 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the ‘claimed’ emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the US, in the post-Nehru era challenged Nehru’s original premise. However, India maintained its course, with an eye on America’s possible utility as a source of technology, nuclear technology in particular, rather than a trusted friend.

It appeared that in mid-2011, India had woken up, literally, to a “brave new world”. India appeared to have been persuaded by the new US global policy of “rebalancing” towards an Asia “ pivot” - the transparent effort by the neocon military-industrial complex to justify continuing US “defence” expenditure through a highly provocative shift of American military resources to Indian and the southern Pacific oceans, based on a supposed threat from China.

According to a new foreign policy discourse put in motion by the new Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, Ranjan Mathai, India appeared to be singing from the same neocon hymnbook, content with the role of “deputy sheriff” of the Indian Ocean offered by the neocons in their grand plan.

The Indian vote in support of the US generated anti-Sri Lanka resolution at the March 2012 session of the UNHRC signified this fundamental and momentous change in India’s foreign policy that was gathering steam.

Away from the limelight, India had also extended an invitation for the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to visit India. The invitation was every bit as unexpected as the anti-Sri Lankan vote because India had never hosted UNHRC special procedures mandate holders previously.

The UNHRC “expert” on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, a South African mate of Navi Pillay, duly accepted the invitation, undertaking a 12-day fact-finding mission to India from 19 to 30 March 2012, almost immediately after the atrocity against Sri Lanka.

Heyns met with Ranjan Mathai and other Central government civil servants and wanted meetings with State level officials in Gujarat, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam and West Bengal. The Gujarat government cancelled a meeting at the last minute, due to other commitments. He met with UN agencies based in India as well as a wide range of INGOs and NGOs, as you do.

In a media release issued at the end of the visit, following many salutary words about India’s guarantees of human rights through the Constitution and the Supreme Court etc., Heyns pontificated that “India faced many challenges to the realisation of human rights”.

In a detailed report written in the tone of a viceroy, Heyns criticised almost every significant piece of legislation that has been introduced by the democratically elected Indian parliaments since independence, in their desperate attempts to maintain the integrity of the Indian State in the face of numerous secessionist movements.

Heyns reported that he had received “complaints” of use of excessive force by the police against demonstrators and protestors. He attributed the problems concerning excessive and arbitrary use of force by the police to legislation such as Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code that requires prior sanction from the state government before a public servant is criminally prosecuted.

In relation to custodial deaths, of which there had been none, Heyns pressed India to “get on” with the passing of legislation which will allow the ratification of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He insisted that the proposed legislation “must” be compliant with CAT and “must” include the mandatory provisions of training of police, prison cadre and other forces as well as orientation of the judiciary.

Heyns’ real target was AFSPA

Despite focusing on many issues relevant to his “mandate”, the primary focus in Heyns’ report was clearly on India’s Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) that grants special powers to the armed forces in “disturbed areas” in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, originally enacted in 1958 and later extended to Jammu and Kashmir in 1990.

Some provisions of AFSPA, the requirement that prior sanction from the Central Government is obtained before any civil prosecutions can be initiated against armed forces personnel in particular, could lend themselves to criticism in an ideal world. However, AFSPA is a ‘desperate’ measure that has been put in place to address the ‘desperate’ problem of India facing continuous risks of disintegration. What matters is that the Indian Supreme Court determined in 1997 that AFSPA did not violate the country’s constitution.

A five-member committee chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Jeevan Reddy appointed in 2006 to review AFSPA in response to a virulent NGO-led campaign that began in the wake of a death in custody in Manipur in 2004, submitted inconclusive recommendations on the future of AFSPA.

NGO action including the much celebrated indefinite fast of Sharmila, dubbed the Iron lady of Manipur by media, that began in 2000 demanding the repeal of AFSPA is also keeping the matter on the UNHRC agenda. The Human Rights Watch, in typical, hyped-up language has called ASFPA a “tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination”. The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, an Indian NGO, and Amnesty International are constantly expressing outrage over AFSPA.

Heyns wanted to dismantle Indian defences against terrorism

Heyns wrote, “this law was described to me as hated”, and harangued that “a law such as AFSPA has no role to play in a democracy and should be scrapped. AFSPA clearly violates International Law. The repeal of this law will bring domestic law more in line with international standards.”

Heyns recommended that a “credible” Commission of Inquiry be appointed to look into past violations in the area of extrajudicial executions and to submit recommendations on legal reform. He also recommended that “without waiting for the Commission”, the AFSPA (1958 and 1990) should be repealed “as a matter of priority”. He did not have a single sentence on any alternatives to managing the threats India faced.

While no one is campaigning for a legal framework like that instituted by the Patriot Act in the US, against which the UNHRC makes no noises incidentally, the course of action recommended by this UN volunteer, if adopted by the Indian government, will have far reaching consequences in terms of its effects on violent protests and other activities in Jammu and Kashmir.

That particular eventuality can only satisfy the neocon aims of triggering a process for the disintegration of the Indian nation state as we know it, for it is certain that ‘success’ in Kashmir will energise similar movements in South India and elsewhere. The age-old neocon objective of divide and rule is achieved!

Thankfully, sanity prevailed and the traditionally strong professional foreign policy apparatus of India intervened to quickly revert back to the policy based on its own heritage, politely turning down the US offers. India has done well to take note of the Kissinger principle of neocon foreign policy, “America does not have friends, it only has interests.”

The decision by the UN Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns to not to submit his final comprehensive report, as promised, to the UNHRC session in 2013 may be a ‘carrot’ that is being dangled before India until the vote on Sri Lanka is over.

India needs to act smartly in its own interests, and let the Indian vote against Sri Lanka at UNHCR in 2012 be the only foul-smelling reminder of this brief, forgettable foray in to the realms of evil neocon global designs.