China must not be allowed to use procedural rules to cut off debate on its human rights performance, Human Rights Watch said today. In a statement delivered today at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva, Joanna Weschler, U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch, urged the Commission to act to prevent governments from abusing its procedures.
Weschler noted that in the past, members have used a technical procedure known as a "no-action motion" to prevent the Commission from voting on resolutions examining the human rights situation in particular countries. China will introduce such a motion on Friday to preempt discussion of a U.S.-sponsored resolution critical of its human rights practices. Weschler called this use of the no-action motion a violation of Commission principles, including freedom of expression, and said it dilutes the Commission's integrity and effectiveness.
The resolution that China will try and kill on Friday recognizes "the significant transformation Chinese society has undergone" and the progress it has made in bringing its legal system in line with prevailing standards, but it expresses concern over continuing violations. It also cites restrictions on free expression, assembly, association and religion and fair trials.
Human Rights Watch says that China has arbitrarily detained citizens peacefully opposing government policies, given long prison sentences to political activists trying to form an opposition political party, tortured and imprisoned Tibetans agitating for autonomy or independence, fined Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists who refuse to accept state control of religious activities, and attempted to close down Internet sites and muzzle newspapers permitting relatively free political discussion.
The full text of Ms. Weschler's remarks follows.
Madam Chair,
Human Rights Watch considers the effective functioning of United Nations human rights mechanisms to be essential to the advancement of human rights. The most important of these mechanisms, obviously, is the Commission on Human Rights itself. Therefore, Madam Chair, allow me to share with you a serious concern and let me call on member states to address this situation.
The Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of the Economic and Social Council foresee a possibility of taking a vote on a motion to take no decision on a proposal submitted to the commission. Such a vote is typically appropriate when more than one proposal is submitted on the same issue or when amendments are added to an existing text.
In the last several years, however, this procedure, commonly known as a "no action motion," has been repeatedly used to prevent the Commission from voting on resolutions examining the human rights situation in particular countries. The decision not to hold a vote on a country resolution (or any other resolution, for that matter) has the effect of preventing the Commission from debating the resolution's subject matter. As such, it stands in violation of several important principles the Commission has repeatedly stood by and defended so far, such as non-selectivity, impartiality and freedom of expression.
Madam Chair, this use of the no action motions promotes selectivity. It is simply wrong for the Commission to tolerate a situation in which a country that is powerful enough to generate sufficient number of votes or abstentions can block the Commission from holding a debate on an important issue or situation. This practice has serious consequences for the Commission and erodes its integrity and effectiveness.
Madam Chair, Human Rights Watch urges members of the Commission to reject any no action motions regarding a whole issue (as opposed to an amendment or alterative proposals) that might be presented during the current session and, by doing so, to reaffirm the important principle of non-selectivity.
We further suggest that the Commission seek reinterpretation or modification of its rules of procedure in order to prevent similar misuse of this rule in the years to come.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
