One is left
wondering:
what kind of
human rights
visit is it,
not listing
meetings
with civil
society
representatives
but only the
government?
While
some groups
now say they
met with Zeid,
and it's appreciated,
the question
remains: why
not in its
OHCHR briefing
notes mention
US rights
groups, as
OHCHR does in
/ for other countries?
Zeid's
announcement
emphasizes
that his is
"the first
official visit
by a UN Human
Rights Chief
to Washington
D.C. to meet
senior
U.S
administration
officials and
Members of
Congress since
2007, when
former High
Commissioner
Louise Arbour
made a similar
visit."
The
Commissioner
in between, of
course, was
Navi Pillay,
to whom US
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon only
gave half of a
second term.
But Pillay on
her visits met
with civil
society. How
should this
lack on Zeid's
official visit
be viewed?
What about,
just for
example, the
issues of police
brutality as
raised in the
UN Committee
on Torture
and predatory
and
discriminatory
lending,
raised for
example in the
UN Committee
on the
Eradication of
Racial
Discrimination?
What of human
rights issues
like torture
and spying?
There are
non-governmental
experts -- and
victims -- a
UN High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights should
meet with, and
elsewhere
would, if the
past is any
guide. We'll
have more on
this.
Back on
November 21,
Inner City
Press which
has previously
praised Zeid
for example on
Sri Lanka and
other issues
reported that,
protesting
layoffs and
lack of
transparency,
staff at the
UN Office of
the High
Commission for
Human Rights
were
petitioning
then-new
High
Commissioner
Prince
Zeid for
due process
and
accountability.
Inner City
Press obtained
the petition
and exclusively
put it online
here.
In it,
the OHCHR
staff call for
“transparent
and
comprehensive
information on
prospective
cuts and
restructuring,
detailing
their impact
on savings and
OHCHR’s
overall
financial
situation...
tangible
accountability
measures by
attributing
responsibility
for the
present crisis
and taking the
requisite
action to
prevent
another
financial
crisis of this
magnitude in
the future and
a meaningful
dialogue and
truly
consultative
decision-making
on ongoing
financial
including
putting
decisions on
hold.”
The
staff complain
to Zeid that
“the lack of
transparency,
consultation
and
information on
who, where or
how, not to
mention why,
some of us are
affected is
deplorable and
unacceptable.”
The
lack of
transparency
in the current
OHCHR extends
from Geneva to
New York,
where the Office
anonymously
spun its
Ukraine report
to hand-picked
scribes then
refused when
asked to
explain the
basis.
Inner
City Press on
behalf of the
Free
UN Coalition
for Access asked
at
the November
20 UN noon
briefing that
the New York
representative
of Prince Zeid
hold a press
availability
about the
report,
including
incongruities
in report on
labor issues
such as the
cut-off of
pensions, click
here for that.
On
accountability,
the staff
complain that
the “senior
management
level
evidently
bears much
more
responsibility.
Yet, it is
other
individuals at
lower levels
who are paying
the price for
this
mismanagement.”
Also
on
accountability
at the OHCHR,
as Inner City
Press has
twice
reported, document
leaks from
inside the UN
have
identified
improper
service of
Morocco,
on the
question of
Western
Sahara, by a
current
staffer at the
OHCHR, Anders
Kompass, and
by another who
has recently
left.
Prince
Zeid still not
publicly
addressed this
scandal,
though Inner
City Press
understands
that no only
is their an
investigation
by the UN
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services, but
also inquiry
from member
states such as
Sweden.
Inquiry on
them was not
permitted at Zeid's one
press
availability
that
week in New
York.
Zeid's
spokesman has
indicated
there will be
no comment at
all until
OIOS'
"investigation
is completed."
Since the OIOS
process is far
from
transparent --
it has become
even less so
-- this is the
way the UN
system tries
to make issues
go away, but
it is even
less
appropriate at
the UN's human
rights office.
Zeid should
address this
scandal - and
his Office's
staff. Watch
this site.