Andrey Yurov: All that is happening with the connivance of the excellent democracies…

fl.ru

Why has negligence of the international law become habitual and can this trend be changed?

Disdain of the international law and international structures has recently become a widespread phenomenon. For example, at the international level Belarus can support many undertakings that don’t directly concern Belarusan problems. But as only the subject touches upon initiatives that concern the behavior of the official Minsk the Foreign Ministry ignores them at best. This is happening with Miklos Haraszti, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, whose mandate isn’t recognized by the Belarusan Foreign Ministry. The official Minsk has similar reaction to other UN’s and any international structure’s initiatives that can show Belarusan authorities to the worst advantage.

However, not only Belarus demonstrates such selective approach to the international law. What is the use of the international structures? Can we make so that the decisions of such organizations are respected and implemented?

The answers to these questions “EuroBelarus” Information Service got from Andrey Yurov, a member of the Russian Presidential Council for Human Rights, during his first visit to Minsk after a long break. Let us recall that in 2011 Belarusan authorities prohibited Yurov, who was then the hear of the International Observation Mission of the Committee on International Control over the Human Rights Situation in Belarus, to enter our country for two years.

- The actions of the Belarusan authorities were criticised and reproached in different international structures at different levels. But now Lukashenka is meeting Merkel, Holland, and is continually ruling the country, not caring a straw about criticism and reprimands. Ho long could such format of relations last and can it be changed?

- This is a long and complicated conversation. I have a number of thoughts about it and I’m going to tell about them briefly now.

Structural indifference

When we are talking about international structures, we need to understand that these structures are units of the existing states, not some suprastate structures. The main organ in the Council of Europe is the Cabinet of Ministers, where ministers gather and talk; in the UN – the General Assembly and the Security Council, where ambassadors for countries gather and talk, not some wise men that think about the humanity. They are representatives of concrete states with their own geopolitical, economical, and, usually, utilitarian interests of their own transnational corporations, regardless whether we talk about “Gazprom” or Shell. And it is at least weird to expect that these politicians will start thinking about the humanity and get distracted from the interests of their own countries and their own electoral campaigns. I often hear that the PACE delegates are most of all concerned about the votes of their electors, which depend on what the delegates are saying in PACE. So it is naïve to expect that they will be absolutely unbiased, objective, and think about the whole Europe, all the more that now politicians have become petty and more pragmatic if compared to the 60s. At the same time, we understand that politicians, who are basically working as technical managers, cannot think globally.

As a result, we have the following situation. A Special Rapporteur is appointed let’s say, in Ruanda. 30 countries – not people – out of 40 voted for his or her appointment in the UN Human Rights Council, but Rwandan authorities don’t want to recognize the Special Rapporteur and let him or her into the country. What should the heads of 30 states do in this situation? First of all, they have to announce boycott to the Rwandan representative, suspend his or her vote in the UN, demand the entrance of the Special Rapporteur, and threaten with the complication of the situation right up to break of diplomatic relations. But no one does that. And it is not only the question of reaction towards grand powers that have decisive vote in the UN Security Council; none of the countries get that kind of reaction.

Thus, we can talk about double standards. On the one hand, they say: “How awful! A dictator!” but on the other, well, guys, how do you behave? Why have you let get the situation in the world get out of hand? All that is happening with the connivance of the excellent democracies. As if the head of Ruanda can behave in such a way, it means that the heads of Libya, Egypt, and Belarus can do the same.

For that reason we need real political will and political consolidation of states that really want to strengthen standards in he sphere of international law, no matter whether it is the East or the West.

And the West’s behavior is weak, even though the situation with human rights there might be good. But the thing is that the West seems to have abandoned the idea of strengthening international law. I.e. the EU wants to strengthen these laws, but not outside Europe.

Universal jurisdiction

Second aspect has to do with the fact that a number of some states should decide to introduce laws on universal jurisdiction. What is that? In Spain a case against Pinochet for murder of the Spaniards was opened, and when Pinochet entered Spain with his diplomatic immunity, he was arrested as a criminal. I wish at least some countries could adopt laws on universal jurisdiction re a number of the most important things: right to life, right to freedom from torture, right to freedom from slavery, and right to liberty and security. It would me much more fascinating than the endless lists of banned from entry. But no one is hurrying to introduce universal jurisdiction, as this is scary: today it affects citizens of some other countries, tomorrow it affects you. Besides, I am very doubtful that the US will recognize any universal jurisdiction apart from their own one. Although the US could give such example, all the more that it is democratically developed countries that should be first in universal jurisdiction. Besides, Ukraine today has a unique opportunity to introduce universal jurisdiction at least to 2-3 most interesting clauses so that Kiev would be able to file a criminal lawsuit against any person in any country right in Kiev.

This is an interesting way to go and it might change the approach to the international law in general.

Humanitarian Rapid Deployment Force

Besides, it is absolutely obvious that there is lack of Humanitarian Rapid Deployment Force, not armed peacemakers. While OSCE decided on its observers, coup d'état has already happened in Kiev. Maidan suffered a huge number of losses including those killed by the law enforcement. It is clear that at that time a lot of observers from international structures should have been there; but there weren’t. I am sure that if the police acted differently then we would be having a different Ukraine today. But there was no one to stop police then, as no real teams of international observers could be deployed.

And it means that some Humanitarian Rapid Deployment Forces under the auspices of the OSCE, UN, Council of Europe or any other structures are needed.

Human Rights “Red Cross”

It is but obvious that there are no such civil society organizations either. It would be great if there were an organization similar to the “Red Cross” that would be deployed so that to monitor and avert conflicts. But there is no analogue of the Human Rights “Red Cross” that would be able to send, say, 500 observers to a country where no open armed confrontation is happening yet, to a country where clashes with police are happening.

I.e. we see that a lot of actions would be possible even without reformation of the UN. We can invent new mechanisms, new structures within the current frames. But we need strong will for that, both from politicians and from the civil society. But I see no such will.