HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONDEMNS ISR"LI SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES AND VIOLATIONS AGAINST PALESTINIANS
Press Release
HR/CN/835
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONDEMNS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES AND VIOLATIONS AGAINST PALESTINIANS
19980330 Continues Debate on Indigenous Issues(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 27 March (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon condemned Israeli abuses against Palestinians in the occupied territories and reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference.
Voting on a number of measures concerning the situation in the occupied Arab territories and the right to self-determination, the Commission called on Israel to end immediately practices such as the wounding and killing of Palestinians; detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial; and confiscation of Palestinian lands. It further expressed grave concern at the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, and strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, calling upon all parties not to allow any such acts to affect the ongoing peace process negatively.
The Commission also called on Israel to cease illegal imposition of its laws, jurisdiction, and administration on the Syrian Golan and to desist from changing its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status.
Reacting to the measures, the observer for Israel said the texts of the resolutions ritually adopted at the Commission had this year gone from bad to worse, a reflection of the fact that there was no way that Israel could get a fair hearing. Israel was the only country to have a whole agenda item devoted to it, he said, adding that even the faintest criticism of gross Palestinian violations was absent from the unbalanced texts approved.
The representative of the United States, the only Commission member to vote against the resolutions on the situation in the occupied territories, said it was not for the Commission to interfere with or prejudge what Israel and the Palestinian Authority would do in their peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, the observer for Palestine said the Secretary-General had told Israel two days ago that it must cease taking United Nations resolutions so lightly. The resolutions were based on the principle of "land for peace", a principle the Israeli Government rejected, he added.
In other measures adopted this afternoon, the Commission urged Morocco and the Polisario Front to implement fully and faithfully their agreements reached during direct negotiations for a settlement plan for Western Sahara. It also urged all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries.
Following action on the resolutions, the Commission continued its consideration of indigenous issues, hearing statements from the delegations of Cuba, Brazil, Guatemala, Philippines, Australia, Bolivia and Switzerland.
The following non-governmental organizations also spoke on indigenous issues: Minority Rights Group, Saami Council, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Pax Christi International, Transnational Radical Party, and International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education.
China exercised its right of reply.
Action on Resolutions
In a resolution on the question of violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (E/CN.4/1998/L.3), the Commission condemned the continued violations, in particular the continuation of acts of wounding and killing, detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial, confiscation of Palestinian lands, the extension and establishment of Israeli settlements thereon; the confiscation of Palestinians' property and expropriation of their land; the demolition of homes and the uprooting of fruit trees; the opening of a tunnel under the Al Aqsa mosque, the revocation of identity cards of the citizens of the Palestinian city of Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to end immediately those practices; reaffirmed that all Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 were illegal and should be dismantled; condemned the use of torture against Palestinians during interrogation; called upon Israel to cease immediately its policy of enforcing collective punishments; and called upon Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories in accordance with United Nations resolutions.
The above resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of 31 in favour to 1 against, with 20 abstentions. The results of the vote were as follow:
- 3 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda.
Against: United States.
Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
YOSEF LAMDAN (Israel) said the texts of the ritualistic resolutions about to be voted on had this year gone from bad to worse, a reflection of the fact that there was no way that Israel could get a fair hearing at the Commission. Israel was the only country to have a whole agenda item devoted to it. That lack of balance was evident in the draft resolutions, where even the faintest criticism of gross Palestinian violations was absent. Israel also regretted that L.7 had been submitted by the countries of the European Union: they had not only hardened the language, but also gutted the text of what few elements of balance it used to have. Israel believed the resolutions were the ultimate in politicization of a complex and extraordinarily difficult topic which deserved a different form of treatment.
NANCY RUBIN (United States) said the Secretary-General had said two days ago that it was time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the United Nations. That was true. It was not for the Commission to interfere with or prejudge what Israel and the Palestinian Authority would do in their peace negotiations. Other parties were involved; all should work together; that was the only realistic way to get the peace process moving again. The United States viewed the building of new settlements in the West Bank as unhelpful, and had called for a "time out"; nonetheless, one-sided rhetoric and interference in the peace process at the Commission, were likely to make matters worse. The United States could not support resolution L.3 or other related resolutions. It also felt item 4 of the agenda should be eliminated and Israel should be dealt with as were other countries whose human-rights records were in question. To have a separate agenda item for only one country was truly a double standard.
AUDREY GLOVER (United Kingdom) said the European Union regretted that it was not possible to support draft resolution L.3 this year. The Union much appreciated the cooperative approach by the co-sponsors and their willingness to consider certain changes to the text. Unfortunately, the time available had been insufficient to allow detailed consideration necessary for the Union to change its position.
- 4 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
NABIL RAMLAWI, observer for Palestine, said the Secretary-General had told Israel two days ago that it must cease taking United Nations resolutions so lightly. The resolutions were based on the principle of land-for-peace, a principle the Israeli Government rejected. The Israeli delegation just now had not denied Israel's many violations of the human rights of Palestinians. The representative of the United States had referred to the peace process, but she understood as well as anyone that the Israeli Prime Minister was the one who had brought down the peace process.
In a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (E/CN.4/1998/L.5), the Commission called upon Israel to cease illegal imposition of its laws, jurisdiction, and administration on the territory and to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure, and legal status of the Golan; emphasized that displaced persons of the region must be allowed to return to their homes and recover their properties; called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on Syrian citizens in the occupied region and to desist from repressive measures against them; and called upon member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions taken in these cases by Israel.
The above resolution passed by a roll call vote of 33 in favour to 1 against, with 19 abstentions. The outcome of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela.
Against: United States.
Abstentions: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
AUDREY GLOVER (United Kingdom) said the European Union regretted not being able to support the resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan. Time available for consultations had been too short to permit the proper exchange with the view to change the resolution so that the Union could support it. The language of the resolution was too strong and went beyond resolution 52/68 passed by the General Assembly last year with the support of the Union.
In a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories (E/CN.4/1998/L.7), the Commission expressed grave concern at expansion of the
- 5 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
settlements, installation of settlers, expropriation of land, demolition of houses, confiscation of property, expulsion of local residents and construction of bypass roads which changed the physical character and demographic composition of the territories, and recognized that such acts were illegal; strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, whilst calling upon all parties not to allow any acts of terrorism to affect the ongoing peace process negatively; and called upon Israel to comply fully with previous Commission resolutions on the subject, to match its stated commitment to the peace process with concrete actions to fulfil its obligations, and to forego and prevent any new installation of settlers in the occupied territories.
The above resolution was adopted by a show-of-hands vote of 51 in favour to 1 against.
In a resolution on the situation in occupied Palestine (E/CN.4/1998/L.4), the Commission reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference; and called upon Israel to comply with its international and United Nations obligations and to withdraw from the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and other occupied Arab lands, which it had occupied since 1967 by military force.
The above resolution was adopted by roll call vote of 34 in favour to 1 against, with 18 abstentions. The result was as follows.
In favour: Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela.
Against: United States.
Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
YOSEF LAMDAN (Israel) said the statement made by Israel under previous resolutions applied to the resolution L.4 as well. This attempt to score political points outside the normal agenda item and outside the peace process struck Israel as even more blatant.
NABIL RAMLAWI, observer for Palestine, said he had just heard Israel saying the draft resolution might hamper the peace process. The Israeli delegation, indeed the whole world, must be aware that if the Palestinian people were unable to exercise their right to self-determination, there would
- 6 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
never be any peace in the region. The draft resolution affirmed the right of people to self-determination, in particular the Palestinian people.
AUDREY GLOVER (United Kingdom) said the European Union regretted that it was not possible to support this resolution this year. It appreciated the cooperation shown by other delegations over the language of the measure, but the time available was not sufficient for the Union to conclude dialogue sufficient for it to consider changing its position. However, it found those negotiations a promising starting point for possible compromise next year.
In a resolution on the question of Western Sahara (E/CN.4/1998/L.6), adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Morocco and the Polisarion Front to implement fully and faithfully their agreements reached during direct negotiations for a settlement plan; urged the two parties to continue their cooperation with the Secretary-General and his personal envoy and to refrain from anything that would undermine implementation of the settlement plan; reaffirmed the responsibility of the United Nations towards the people of Western Sahara; and reiterated its support for a referendum for self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
In a resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (E/CN.4/1998/L.8), the Commission urged all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries and to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and their nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training, and transit of mercenaries for activities designed to destabilize or overthrow the Government of any State or to threaten the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign States; called upon States to sign or ratify the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the topic for three years.
The above resolution was adopted by roll call vote of 35 in favour to 9 against, with 8 abstentions. The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, United Kingdom, United States.
- 7 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
Abstentions: Argentina, Belarus, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Ukraine.
NANCY RUBIN (United States) said issue of mercenaries had received sufficient consideration by the Commission in previous years. The United States had consistently been against the use of mercenaries and its position did not reflect on the special rapporteur on the issue. However, this item should no longer claim resources better spent on other matters and should no longer be given a priority by the Commission.
BALE RAYMOND SERGE (Congo) said the use of mercenaries as a way of violating fundamental freedoms was becoming more and more frequent and more and more effective as a way of interfering in the stability and sovereignty of States. The use of such mercenaries in the conflict affecting the Congo was one reason the attempts to resolve it had encountered such difficulty.
OLEG MALGUINOV (Russian Federation) said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. However, it wanted to note that the resolution, to a certain extent, was overloaded with references to documents, not all of which were connected to the problem. Some of the wording of the resolution was imprecise, in particular concerning the aims of the peace process. The Russian Federation attached importance to the fact that the peace process should get out of the deadlock as soon as possible. It did not have enough time to complete its work on the wording of the draft, and hoped that next year, more progress could be made in that respect. The Russian Federation also hoped that next year there would be more appropriate wording on the resolution on the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, on which it abstained, and the resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, which it supported.
Statements in Debate
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said increasing marginalization, social exclusion, and scant opportunities for preservation of their cultures were a growing threat to indigenous peoples. Meetings had been held, groups created, standards set for protecting the rights of such peoples; but it was worth stressing the importance of the task of setting new standards in these fields -- those adopted so far were insufficient; even the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not provide much protection for such peoples, in part because they were written and adopted without the participation of indigenous peoples. Extinction or near-extinction of some of these peoples was now coming to pass; one such case recently had occurred in the United States. To cover all the issues involved -- their rights to ancestral lands, for example -- it was necessary to go outside the existing, fairly narrow framework of human rights instruments;
- 8 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
also, abuse of the term "indigenous peoples" by some groups who were not "indigenous" was beginning to cause problems.
CARLOS ALBERTO SIMAS MAGALHAES (Brazil) said the Brazilian Government recognized that the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people was an essential part of human rights. The Brazilian Government was fully determined to defend the indigenous people against any acts of violence and to demarcate their lands. The demarcation process had made important progress in 1997; the Government had also established the Brazilian Indigenous Council. The main challenges faced by the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples would be to find a common platform on which all nations might rely to promote the recognition and enjoyment of indigenous rights. The definition of the mandate of a permanent forum for indigenous populations would depend to a large extent on the scope of the final text of the draft declaration.
LUIS ALBERTO PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said the country had had an internal conflict in the past in which indigenous peoples had been involved; however, peace negotiations coordinated by Jean Arnault, who now headed the United Nations mission in the country, had allowed the two sides to sign a peace agreement; it was only with the country's 1985 Constitution that there was recognition that Guatemala was a multi-ethnic, multilingual nation, and were steps taken to support and appreciate the country's indigenous peoples, including the Maya. Steps also were taken to remove discrimination against indigenous peoples, and to increase their participation in Government and social and political affairs. Many joint commissions had been established to support indigenous languages, rights to land, and indigenous education. Guatemala had participated extensively in United Nations activities on behalf of indigenous peoples; it was to be hoped that funding for any permanent forum for such peoples within the UN would be reliable and that the forum would have sufficient representation of indigenous peoples; rapid progress was essential at this point, and discussions also should be completed soon on the draft declaration on indigenous rights.
MONINA CALLANGAN (Philippines) said the country's Constitution was profuse in its recognition of the rights of the indigenous peoples. In addition, the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Law covered rights to ancestral lands and domains including natural resources found therein; rights to self-governance and empowerment; protection of cultural integrity, and recognition of cultural diversity. The Government was aware that while laws enhanced the promotion and protection of rights, concerted policies and programmes were needed for the realization of rights. In that regard, the Government had made the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their welfare a part of its social reform agenda and its programme for environment protection and sustainable development. However, the implementation of various programmes required huge resources that the
- 9 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
Government could not fully provide. The Philippines was therefore highly appreciative of the assistance extended by various Governments and international non-governmental organizations in the implementation of its programmes for indigenous peoples.
JOHN B. CAMPBELL (Australia) said his country recognized the disadvantages indigenous peoples continued to suffer in many parts of the world, not least in Australia. The Prime Minister of Australia had said it could not be argued that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not profoundly disadvantaged. On the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, Australia believed that the issues concerning it were complex and continued to require careful consideration by all interested parties. Australia was aware that much work lay ahead if the international community was to have a declaration which was of practical meaning to the indigenous peoples.
JAVIER LOAYZA (Bolivia) said indigenous issues were of particular relevance to his country, as they were a major part of the new socio-economic plan developed there, based on the idea of sustainable and integral development that might put an end to poverty. Indigenous peoples were part of the country's heterogeneous population; the plan gave them power to participate fully in the country's diverse life. The plan gave them legal power to protect their cultures and protect their communal lands. Bolivia had begun a dialogue to promote cooperation with indigenous peoples, to increase their economic standing and augment their involvement in the country's affairs. The country favoured quick establishment of a forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations and was encouraged by progress on the draft declaration.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY, observer for Switzerland, said the establishment of the permanent forum for indigenous peoples would allow those peoples to make known to the international community their rights. The representatives of the indigenous peoples could also use the forum to coordinate their actions in all fields concerning them within the United Nations. The second objective in the field of indigenous rights would be the adoption of the draft declaration on those rights, as the existing instruments were not sufficient to guarantee the physical and cultural survival of the indigenous peoples; a political commitment in their favour was urgent. A step forward was made in that direction last autumn when two articles of the draft declaration were accepted. It was a favourable sign, but it was imperative that the rhythm be accelerated -- the problem of the unfinished discussion concerning the use of the terms "indigenous peoples" or "people", and "self-determination", must be overcome quickly.
ANNE BOUVIER, of Minority Rights Group, said the Group wanted to highlight the situation of the peoples living in the land west of Papua New
- 10 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
Guinea, or West Papua. Since the 1960s, there had been an armed conflict between the main political and guerrilla movement of West Papua and the Indonesian armed forces. Unless a just solution was sought, the situation could perpetuate itself with no other result than more human rights violations and suffering. The Government had embarked on a policy of transmigration towards West Papua to reduce the population level of the islands of Bali, Java and Sulawesi. This would have devastating consequences for the indigenous peoples of West Papua; for one thing, the consequences of the process went against their traditional system of land ownership. Mining and logging carried out on the islands were also very harmful to the indigenous peoples. Minority Rights Group urged the Indonesian Government to halt its policy of transmigration immediately and to give due regard to the demands and needs of the indigenous peoples of West Papua.
RAUNA KUOKKANEN, of The Saami Council, said there had been broad consensus among States for a number of principles of the draft declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, even if only two articles had been adopted at the last session of the working group. The Council was confident these seven articles would be adopted during the next session of the working group; the Council supported the joint proposal of indigenous peoples that the Commission should draft a concrete proposal for establishment of a permanent forum within the United Nations system for indigenous peoples; such a proposal could then be submitted to the Economic and Social Council. Any ad hoc group created to elaborate such a proposal should not be limited solely to human rights issues but should cover all issues affecting such peoples, such as cultural, civil, economic, development, education, and environmental issues. The Commission also should appoint a Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples. Review of the progress of the international decade should be done carefully and with participation of indigenous peoples.
EVA CASTANEDA, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the indigenous peoples of Mexico were undergoing a situation of genocide, repression and exploitation as a result of Government policy. The massacre of 45 indigenous peoples in Chiapas on 22 December 1997 was yet another example of human rights violations by the authorities of Mexico. More than 60 per cent of Mexico's electricity came from the Chiapas region, although the indigenous peoples of the region did not benefit from the resources of their lands. Furthermore, new constitutional reforms did not take into account the interests of the indigenous peoples.
W. LITTLECHILD, of Pax Christi International, in a joint statement with Ka Lahui Hawaii, said they were addressed the issue of indigenous peoples for three reasons: first, the United Nations had declared this the Decade on Indigenous Peoples; second, 1998 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had issued general recommendations which found that it
- 11 - Press Release HR/CN/835 30 March 1998
was aware of the fact that in many regions, indigenous peoples were still being deprived of their human rights; third, they were concerned that States attending the 1997 meeting of the inter-sessional working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples refused to approve it and continued to oppose the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples wanted to exercise that right.
ROD TOWNEY, of the Transnational Radical Party, said it was important to enter into meaningful dialogue on the principles of the draft declaration before trying to agree on text; proposals based only on text was premature and ran the risk of impeding rather than accelerating progress; the indigenous groups were concerned with the inclusion at the end of the working group's report of a series of annexes containing detailed proposals in relation to amendments to the text of the draft declaration adopted by the Subcommission; many indigenous groups were not aware any agreement had been made for such annexes, either formally or informally, during the two weeks of working group meetings. Most indigenous groups felt the gist of these amendments gave a disproportionate emphasis to the views of a small group of countries. In other countries, much progress was being made, and Australia, to its great credit, had been among these countries; however, some national decisions now were threatened by a political backlash which had led to proposals for legislative action which could erode indigenous peoples' human rights.
CARMEN YAMBERLA, of the International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education, said there was a growing need for the protection and promotion for the rights of the indigenous peoples. An appropriate body from which the indigenous peoples could benefit should be established. In Ecuador, indigenous peoples were struggling for their rights and interests to be recognized. Their lands were taken away by petroleum exploiters by force; the paramilitary forces were at the service of those petroleum companies and for that reason were taking repressive measures against the indigenous peoples. Those who defended the environment and their rights were put in prison.
Right of Reply
WANG MIN (China) said this session of the Commission had witnessed changes in its atmosphere. Delegations from many countries, guest speakers and the High Commissioner for Human Rights had addressed the importance of dialogue and cooperation. Such positive changes were the fruit of the concerted efforts of all the delegations and would have a positive impact on the work of the Commission. However, a few speakers, knowing little about the situation in China, had made irresponsible comments about China's human rights record. China had exercised restraint, but this did not mean that it did not have anything to say in reply. It was in response to the Chairman's appeal for calm and dignified comportment for the overall interest of the protection of human rights worldwide that China did not respond. Confrontation in the Commission would lead everyone nowhere; dialogue and cooperation were the only way to promote and protect human rights.
* *** *