GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASKED TO REAFFIRM RIGHT OF PALESTINIAN PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION, SEEK SUPPORT FOR THAT OBJECTIVE

Press Release
GA/SHC/3547

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASKED TO REAFFIRM RIGHT OF PALESTINIAN PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION, SEEK SUPPORT FOR THAT OBJECTIVE

Committee Text Includes ‘Option of State’; Human Rights Officials Present Reports on Afghanistan, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo

The General Assembly would urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination, under the terms of a draft resolution approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this afternoon by a recorded vote of 119 in favour, to 2 against (Israel, United States) with 2 abstentions (Uganda, Uruguay). (For details of the vote see Annex.)

By the terms of the draft, the Assembly would also reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the option of a state.

The Committee continued its discussion on human rights issues, receiving reports on the situation in a number of countries. Stating that immediate life- saving and life-sustaining needs had to be addressed, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Afghanistan called for the creation of a human rights-based programme in that country, in order to meet the basic needs essential for survival.

Warning that the situation of human rights in Myanmar continued to raise the most serious concerns, the Special Rapporteur on that country called on the Government to abandon its hostile policies and engage in a genuine political dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the people. He welcomed the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and United Nations agencies were able again to alleviate the conditions of people subjected to the regime’s policies and practices.

The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo said fighting that had been an internal conflict now included foreign armed groups. While the Lusaka agreement had been a positive step, the Government needed to establish sound measures enabling the process of democracy to take off.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3547 33rd Meeting (PM) 4 November 1999

Statements were made by the representatives of Syria, Canada, Australia, Israel, Russian Federation, Finland (also speaking on behalf of the European Union), the observer for Palestine, Afghanistan, United States, Myanmar, Japan, Libya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Libya.

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of a draft resolution on the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People 1995-2004.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 5 November, at 10 a.m. to continue its consideration of issues related to human rights questions. Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives will continue presenting their reports.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of human rights issues, including alternative approaches for improving human rights; human rights situations; follow-up to the Vienna Declaration; and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background information, see press release GA/SHC/3546 of today’s date.)

In addition to the documents already before it, the Committee has a report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/54/499). In it, the Secretary-General recalls that his role in Myanmar is one of good offices, in contrast with the fact-finding mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The Secretary-General’s Representative for Political Affairs visited Myanmar in October and held consultations. As a result, says the report, the Secretary- General welcomes the visits of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to prisons.

A note by the Secretary-General transmits to the members of the General Assembly the interim report on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/54/467). According to the report, the peace process in that country, which is currently under way, should include a human rights component with a view to reflecting the aspirations of all segments of Sudanese society. During the period under review (since August 1998), there have been a number of significant positive steps which,the report says, must however be placed within the framework of a situation which in general continues to give rise to grave concerns.

Nevertheless, the report goes on, the Government of the Sudan has adopted some measures deserving recognition and international support. These include: authorization for the United Nations to undertake a needs assesment mission to the Nuba mountains; the creation of the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children; and the fielding of a needs assessment mission from the High Commissioner for Human Rights to determine priority areas in which the Sudan needs assistance in the field of human rights. These measures need to be accompanied by a strong political will and appropriate measures in order to redress what continues to be a grim picture, in which government policies and institutions are frequently adversaries to the enjoyment of human rights, both in the war zones and in areas controlled by the State.

According to the report, the war in the Sudan has had a disproportionately high impact on the civilian population, particularly women and children. The violations of human rights and humanitarian law by the parties to the conflict have had a number of tragic human consequences, such as forced displacements, killings, rape, and the abduction of women and children for forced labour and slavery-like purposes. The conflict has been aggravated during 1999 by the developments in the oil zones. The progress of the peace efforts of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development were insufficient. The use of torture and arbitrary detention have been reported. The new constitution and transition to democracy are important developments, but energetic legal and political measures should be implemented to ensure a transition from a de facto emergency regime to a more open and democratic system based on the rule of law.

Also before the Committee is a draft resolution on the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People 1995-2004 (document A/C.3/54/L.45). It would urge governments to participate actively in the open-ended inter-sessional ad hoc working group that the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1999/52 of 27 April 1999 decided to re-establish from within existing overall United Nations resources. The group would be charged with completing its task of submitting one or more concrete proposals on the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system.

Also by the terms of the draft, the Assembly would decide that the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations should be used to assist representatives of indigenous communities and organizations to participate in the deliberations of the open-ended inter-sessional ad hoc working group of the Commission on Human Rights. Governments would be encouraged to support the Decade by: preparing relevant programmes, plans and reports in relation to the Decade; by seeking means of giving indigenous people greater responsibility for their own affairs and an effective voice in decision on matters that affect them; and by contributing to the United Nations Trust Fund for the International Decade for the World’s Indigenous People, among other actions. Also by the text, the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session the item entitled “Programme of activities of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People”.

The draft is sponsored by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

In addition, the Committee is expected to take action on a draft resolution (document A/C.3/54/L.29) on the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination. By the terms of the draft, the General Assembly would urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in their quest for self- determination.

The draft is sponsored by: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chile, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Quatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe and Palestine.

Introduction of Draft

The representative of Denmark introduced the draft resolution on the programme of activities of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/C.3/54/L.45). She revised operative paragraph 8 to read, “…the possible establishment of a permanent forum”. The following were added as co-sponsors: Armenia, Guyana, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, United Kingdom and the United States.

Action on Draft

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/54/L.29). The representative of Egypt, as the main sponsor, said India and Brazil had joined as co-sponsors. Suriname, Gabon, Liberia, Congo and Zambia became additional co-sponsors.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 120 in favour, two against (Israel and United States) and two abstentions (Uruguay and Uganda). (See Annex.)

Explanations of Vote After the Vote

The representative of Syria said she had voted in favour of the draft. The great majority it had achieved was an affirmation of support for the struggle of the Palestinian people. Israel stood alone as an obstacle. Peace would be achieved when Israel complied with resolutions and withdrew from Arab territories.

The representative of Canada said he had voted in favour of the draft. The option of a Palestinian state was subject to negotiation. A resolution of the question should be reached by September 2000.

The representative of Australia said he had voted in favour. The phrases in paragraph 2, “the right to self-determination” and “not subject to veto” were redundant. They should have been deleted.

The representative of Israel said he had voted against the resolution. He supported the right of self-determination for people and their right to govern themselves; his country had recognized those rights in the peace process. The merits of self-determination were not in question but the inclusion of the phrase “the option of a state” in operative paragraph 1 was either superfluous or redundant with regard to self-determination. The challenge was to take the issue forward, including the right of the Palestinian people to decide on their own fate. The timing for that decision had already been determined. Pending resolution of the permanent status issue, all attempts at conjecture on the outcome would have the opposite effect.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that as a co-sponsor of the Middle East peace process, the Russian Federation had always called for a separate Palestinian state. He was ready to continue work with other agents in the peace process to create the right climate for negotiations.

The representative of Mongolia said she would have voted in favour and would do so in the plenary.

The representative of Finland, speaking for the European Union, said a negotiated solution should be sought on the basis of the existing framework, which was not subject to any veto. Israel should implement interim measures and continue forward with the negotiations.

The observer for Palestine said approval of the draft resolution was a very important step towards the right of sovereignty for the Palestinian people. It was linked with the “absolute right” of the Palestinian people to establish self- determination. The overwhelming vote in favour of the draft was proof of that right. The Palestinian people had the right to establish their own independent state. It was regrettable that the United States had voted against it. Israel, by opposing to the draft, had failed to recognize the right of the Palestinian people and threatened the continuation of the peace process. The right to self- sovereignty of the Palestinian people was a natural and inalienable right.

The representatives of Senegal, Oman and Burkina Faso said that if they had been present during the vote, they would have voted in favour.

Reports by Special Rapporteurs

KAMAL HOSSAIN, Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, said the Afghan people continued to be victims of gross violations of human rights. They were virtual hostages in their own land. It was essential that the country initiate a process of transition towards a broad-based representative government. Such a government would need to represent the 3-4 million Afghan refugees forced to live outside their country.

A large-scale military offensive had been launched by the Taliban on 27 July 1999 across the Shamali plains, he said. Forces which engaged in the offensive included non-Afghans of different nationalities. The offensive had resulted in a massive displacement of the civilian population, in particular women and children from the Shamali plains. First-hand reports indicated that there were house and crop burnings, forced deportations, family separation, the separation and deportation of women, and arbitrary killings in southern Shamali.

Restrictions imposed by the Taliban included discrimination against women and girls, he continued. The Taliban policies were directed towards the removal of women from public life. In addition, their lives were also affected by poverty, low literacy rates, traditional customs, lack of appreciation of their health needs and lack of adequate numbers of female health care personnel. In regard to health, women of child-bearing age constituted the most vulnerable group.

“A human rights-based programme should be given the highest priority in order to meet the basic needs essential for survival and the right to life”, he said. The approach to human rights there must be shaped by addressing immediate life- saving and life-sustaining needs, while simultaneously pursuing measures focused on strategic long-term objectives.

RAVAN FARHÂDI (Afghanistan) said the Taliban were perpetrating crimes against humanity. The Special Rapporteur had failed to classify those as such. There was a foreign occupation force in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan were captive in their own land and without the consent of the people. The non-Afghans standing with the Taliban were Pakistani armed forces. The Special Rapporteur had not noted that sending armed forces into another country was an act of aggression. Civilians were the targets. Houses were torched and vineyards destroyed. Those acts were subject to punishment in other parts of the world. Pakistan Taliban forces were committing crimes against humanity. They must be named.

Also, he said, various Muslim groups had coexisted until the Taliban had exported hostility along with their Pakistani mentors. Further, women had formerly held high occupational posts in Afghanistan. The Special Rapporteur had not travelled to the north of the country to witness the plight of those forced from their homes. Those people needed assistance against a harsh winter. The Afghan people were virtually under house arrest. Western observers had noted that the Taliban had brought peace to Afghanistan in the same way as Hitler had brought peace to Warsaw.

The representative of Finland, also speaking on behalf of the European Union, inquired about immediate measures to help women in Afghanistan. Also, what possibilities did displaced people had to return home?

The Special Rapporteur said access to education, employment and health by women had been requested in Afghanistan. There should be strict monitoring to see if there was an improvement. Only a government that would represent the Afghani society as a whole could make monitoring possible. With regard to the displaced persons, life-saving assistance was necessary. Significant steps towards peace needed to be made. Unless peace was restored, it was difficult for people to be rehabilitated.

The representative of the United States asked about the attitude of the Taliban with regard to criticism of them on their human rights policies. How could humanitarian assistance be provided so that it would not be misused?

The Special Rapporteur said the Taliban had expressed “anxiety for international recognition”. They had indicated that there was a comprehension gap which existed in regard to a divine system of laws. The Taliban had adopted policies which led them to impose a certain regime which constrained the way they responded to the Rapporteur’s questions. Women teachers collected their salaries but were unable to teach. There had been a slight improvement of available health care. As for humanitarian assistance, there was a clear need for that. Delivery systems could be developed without having to go through the central authorities of the Taliban. Food for communities could be provided and it was difficult to misuse that. Fuel could be misused for military purposes, however. On the abduction of women, as a tradition, one had to pay for a bride in Afghanistan. In order to avoid the latter, women were being abducted and forced to marry. Also, there was a large number of displaced persons.

RAJSOOMER LALLAH, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights in Myanmar, introduced his report by saying that despite his efforts and those of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Myanmar had not acceded to his request for a visit to discharge his mandate. Two welcome developments had been the resumption of work by the ICRC and the effects of humanitarian programmes being carried out by United Nations agencies. Those were alleviating the conditions of people subjected to the regime’s policies and practices.

Other than that, he said, the situation of human rights in Myanmar continued to raise the most serious concerns. Political repression continued to grow. Forcible, large-scale displacement of the population appeared to be a policy of the Government in ethnic areas. Women, children and the elderly were not immune from the policy. Myanmar had failed to take measures ending forced labour.

The experience of the last four years indicated a very sad fact, he concluded. At the very worst, Myanmar was a country at war with its own people. At the very best, it was holding its people hostage. The Government should abandon its hostile policies. It should engage in a genuine political dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the people.

KYAW WIN (Myanmar) said that despite previous bad experience with rapporteurs, his Government had not ruled out a visit by the Special Rapporteur. However, the present rapporteur’s latest report was as highly biased and derogatory as before. He had ignored the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report containing news of positive developments for Myanmar, whose position on the Human Development Index had moved up from the category of countries with low development to that of those with medium development.

Much of the latest report on human rights violations was a rehashing of previous reports, he said. As usual, the report made allegations using seemingly realistic details that could hoodwink the unwary and arouse sympathetic emotions for imaginary victims. For example, individual witnesses were identified without details to support their credibility and without independent confirmation of their views.

Detailing other such failings in the report, he said the conclusions and recommendations of the interim report reflected the rapporteur’s determination to trivialize the positive, accentuate the negative and portray an image of Myanmar in an entirely negative light. The purpose was to maintain the unfair pressure of powerful countries on Myanmar and to echo the allegations circulated by armed insurgents and dissidents abroad.

The representative of the United States asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the unwillingness of the Government of Myanmar to establish a human rights mechanism. Also, how was the situation of ethnic minorities?

The representative of Japan said the report focused on civil and political rights and not much was said on economic and social rights. He requested more information on forced labour since the International Labour Organization (ILO) had not made an assesment in that regard; was more time needed to judge whether there had been an improvement?

The representative of Finland, for the European Union, asked how to improve the situation of ethnic minorities in Myanmar.

The representative of Libya said information collected in the way in which it had been was not that reliable. The State of Myanmar had refused the Special Rapporteur’s visit. That Government probably had a reason to reject such a visit. Usually, the latter occurred when governments feared negative exposure and did not expect to be recognized in a positive light. How could that situation be improved, she asked.

The Special Rapporteur said he had made many requests to visit Myanmar but his efforts had been unsuccessful. In relation to the ethnic areas, a large number of refugees had returned but thousands were still in Bangladesh. He had not visited the border areas but had informed himself after being in touch with the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. It was very difficult to conclude for sure that the forced labour situation had improved without visiting the country. However, he had relied on reports from the World Bank there. He did not know about practical steps that had taken place as a result of the ILO resolutions. A visit to the specific country in order to report on it was essential. The latter was also essential in order to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms established there.

Mr. WIN (Myanmar) reiterated that his country had not ruled out a visit by the Special Rapporteur. However, it should be noted that the allegations in the report were the same as those being aired by insurgents who had lost their armed struggle for control. That was one reason for the Government’s reluctance to have the Rapporteur visit. Also, the ethnic fighting in the country was a result of the divisive practices of former colonialists. It was not a situation created by the Government.

Mr. LALLAH, the Special Rapporteur, said there were more than 100,000 refugees on the Thai/Myanmar border. He had gone to selected refugee camps and had talked with ordinary people. His information did not come from propaganda.

Mr. WIN said those unfortunate victims were created by ethnic conflict and not by the Government. The Government, in fact, was working to resolve such separatists’ war.

ROBERTO GARRETON, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said there were 18 armed groups fighting in the Democratic Republic and civilians had been targeted. He had defined the problem previously as an internal conflict. However, with the foreign elements now involved, such as Rwandan and Ugandan forces, the character of the fighting had changed. The fighting, in fact, appeared to be a mix of internal and external clashes. The Lusaka agreement had been a positive step but the international community had not taken appropriate follow-up actions. The ceasefire had not been honoured. In areas controlled by the Congolese Grouping for Democracy, there were violations against human rights against foreign journalists and non-governmental organizations workers. In rebel areas, the situation was worse.

The Government should establish sound measures enabling the process of democracy to take off, he said. It should liberate all those arrested for their opinions. The Congolese Grouping for Democracy and its foreign allies should cease aggression against civilians and it should avoid all action alluding to separation of the country. The international community should stop arms sales and all military assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, making a clearer definition of the forces fighting there while remaining inflexible on the inviolable borders of the country.

IKONDI BASELE (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Special Rapporteur’s report did reflect some part of the reality in his country. The significant progress in human rights had been noted in the current report which the previous ones had failed to do. He requested the international community to do what it could so that Burundis, Ugandans and Rwandans would leave the territories of his country so that the situation there would improve. There were hundreds of ethnic groups in his country which his Government supported.

The representative of Uganda said the report of the Special Rapporteur was “a bit derailed” with regard to his country. The comments were very general and not factual. They should have been more specific. The Ugandan armed forces were under strict instructions to give particular attention to human rights issues. He said the peace agreement had been agreed to by all parties. He asked for clarification on violations committed referred to by the Special Rapporteur.

The representative of Libya said her country would cooperate in order to establish peace and security in the region.

The representative of Finland, also speaking for the European Union, asked about the Ministry of Human Rights, and requested information on the future of the ceasefire agreement and on the situation of women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Special Rapporteur said his report was not about war itself, so a specific appraisal on that was difficult. As for the statement of the representative of Libya, he supported any efforts towards peace; however, some of the parties to the conflict had not signed all the pertinent agreements in order to make progress in that area. The Minister of Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had expressed a real concern for bringing about conditions to fully respect human rights. During his two visits to that country, he had met with him. The Minister had attempted to persuade the Government to sign human rights instruments. However, they had not been signed at the end. In regard to the developments in the Lusaka agreement, it was difficult to foresee its future. President Kabila should insist on holding a national debate.

The situation of the defenders of human rights was a sensitive one, he continued. In the west, people had been threatened with death. They did not want to speak out because of fear. With regard to the situation of women, there were cultural as well as legal factors that came into place. The economic crisis had worsened the situation of women. For example, fathers who did not have enough money to pay for the education of all their children preferred to educate their sons rather than their daughters. He could not blame the Government for that. Reports of rapes committed by troops had been brought to him.

The representatives of Azerbaijan, Ghana, San Marino, Poland, Croatia and Venezuela said they would have voted in favour of the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

(annex follows) Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3547 33rd Meeting (PM) 4 November 1999

ANNEX

Vote on Right of Palestinians to Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination (document A/C.3/54/L.29) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: Uganda, Uruguay.

Absent: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Croatia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

* *** *