Posts Tagged ‘rules of procedure’

China tries but fails to disrupt a tribute at UN to Cao Shunli

March 23, 2024

Despite protests from China and its allies, human rights organisations paid a public tribute to the late activist Cao Shunli during a debate at the UN Human Rights Council, ten years after her death. A victim of ‘deadly reprisals’ against her activism, Cao died in March 2014 after months of arbitrary detention in China. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/15/joint-statement-on-the-10-year-anniversary-of-deadly-reprisals-against-chinese-activist-cao-shunli/]

NGOs and activists paid tribute to the late Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli by holding a moment of silence and applauding her name during their speaking time at the Human Rights Council.

Delivering a joint statement before the Council plenary on behalf of ISHR and 16 organisations accredited to the UN as well as 20 NGOs without consultative status, a human rights defender from the Chinese mainland concluded her intervention with a short silence and a call to States and NGOs to mirror the courage of human rights defenders and always stand in solidarity with them.

After the intervention, in a sign of respect to Cao Shunli, the room was filled with applause from NGOs and a handful of governments in honour of Cao and in solidarity with victims of reprisals for cooperation with the UN.

‘It is unacceptable to normalise reprisals,’ the human rights defender from the Chinese mainland said. ‘Cao’s courage inspires defenders globally, so let her legacy and name resonate in this room until there is accountability for all victims of reprisals,’ she emphasised.

In an attempt to silence the activist, the Chinese delegation raised a point of order protesting against the statement. This mirrored their 2014 response to ISHR and other NGO’s attempt to hold a moment of silence at the Council after Cao’s death, during which Chinese diplomats disrupted the session for over an hour. This time, Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russia supported China in their attempt to silence activists’ right to speak at the United Nations. 

In response to China’s attacks, Belgium on behalf of the 27 states of the European Union, supported by the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom, took the floor to defend NGOs’ right to speak freely.  

‘We cannot allow Cao’s story and her work to be forgotten,’ said Raphaël Viana David, China Programme Manager for ISHR. ‘Ten years on, no one has been held to account for this emblematic case of tragic State reprisals. UN experts called for an inquiry in 2014, 2019 and once again last week. Governments cannot let Beijing off the hook: they must push for accountability for Cao’s fate and for that of all activists who have been persecuted for cooperating with the UN in standing up for human rights.’

ISHR and its civil society partners urge the international community to hold the individuals and institutions responsible for Cao’s death to account and to end all acts of reprisals and repressive measures seeking to restrict civil society space and prevent activists from engaging with the UN.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/china-fails-in-disrupting-tribute-at-un-to-cao-shunli-ten-years-after-her-death-in-custody

Posted in Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

South Africa disappoints terribly in the Human Rights Council: support for China’s silencing the silence

March 27, 2014

A column in the South African City Press under the title “A chilling point of order for SA” written by Juliette De Rivero on 26 March 2014 makes a punchy statement about the disappointment felt all though the human rights movement when South Africa opted to support China’s point of order in the UN Council of Human Rights. In my post about this ‘court drama’ (reference below) I did not list all the countries coming out against allowing a moment of silence for the deceased Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli and indeed the position of South Africa was in many way the most surprising, in de Rivero’s words: “…The South African delegate took the floor and warned that allowing the activists to proceed with the moment of silence would “create a dangerous precedent” that the council would not be able to sustain in the future.He noted that the action was “irregular and incompatible with the rules of procedure of this council”.South Africa’s choice to stand with the government that prevented Cao Shunli from participating in the UN came as a blow to the activist community – a community that was willing to stand up for Cao just as it had been willing to denounce the injustice of apartheid.South Africa’s concern that the moment of silence – not the death of the activist – was setting a bad precedent in the UN body sent such a chilling message to the human rights community that it should not be ignored…”

Let me add: That silence is a way of speaking should be clear to all, including South Africa, e.g. when on 6 December 2013 the General Assembly held a moment of silence to honour the memory of Nelson Mandela (“Madiba”).

full piece in:  A chilling point of order for SA – City Press.

background in: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/

Posted in HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China in the UN Human Rights Council manages to silence Cao Shunli as well as NGOs

March 20, 2014
Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody.
(Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody (c) Photograph: Reuters)

For those with an interest in how the UN Council deals with criticism – in this case of China – should follow the debate on the UN webcast (or see the video on demand later)  [http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/25th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/2178978642001/#]. What happened in short is that during the debate on the adoption of China’s UPR report on 20 March, the International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) called for a few moments of silence to remember Cao Shunli, the human rights defender who recently died in detention (see references below). China then invoked a point of order saying that speakers should make general statements and that did not include asking for silence. During a long procedural debate many views were expressed – mostly supportive of China – but some others clearly stating that freedom of speech included the right not to speak. The interpretation of the rules of procedure then seemed to lead to the conclusion that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) should not be ‘politicized”….and that from the eminently political entities called Governments! Sensing that a majority would support it, China insisted on a ruling by the Chairman that this kind of intervention needs to be ruled out for the future. The big majority of States, fearing a ‘precedent-setting’, rejected even the compromise proposal by the Chair to discuss the issue further in the Bureau (at a later time) with a vote of 20 against 13 (and 12 abstentions). The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the second NGO to get the floor, then continued the request for a minute of silence for Cao Shunli. This was of course again interrupted. So, the Council ended up supporting China’s tough stance, in spite of several other NGOs and a few countries coming out with strong support for the moment of silence.

When the FIDH then let one its member organisations (including the Campaign Against Tibet) speak on its behalf, the Chinese delegation (perhaps emboldened by its earlier success) decided to interrupt again asking that the FIDH only identifies itself and not its members. This led to another procedural debate on whether NGOs with consultative status are allowed to mention other NGOs that have no such status (a standing practice I should add, which was established far back in the 80s when Argentina tried – in vain – to stop the ICJ from letting an Argentinian lawyer, Emilio Mignone, to speak about the disappearance of his own daughter).

Perhaps there will be further debate on these procedural aspects, but it is unlikely that the UPR comes out of this as a serious innovation in dealing with human rights violations.

https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/what-will-chinese-authorities-have-to-say-about-cao-shunlis-death/

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Amnesty international, FIDH, HRW, human rights, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ, ISHR, UN | 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,