SOCIAL COMMITTEE, CONTINUING HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW, IS TOLD PREVENTION STRATEGY NEEDED ON RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE

Press Release
GA/SHC/3550

SOCIAL COMMITTEE, CONTINUING HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW, IS TOLD PREVENTION STRATEGY NEEDED ON RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE

Schools in Some Nations said to Have ‘Virtual Hymn to Intolerance’ -– Proclaiming Country’s Own Religion as Only One

A strategy of prevention was urgently needed to curb religious intolerance, the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this morning as the Committee met to continue considering human rights issues. The Committee is reviewing questions related to 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.

The strategy of prevention, the Special Rapporteur continued, should focus on education and dialogue. The only way to eradicate intolerance was to change people’s mindset. Prevention efforts should begin with children. The school curricula in some states contained “a virtual hymn to intolerance” by not mentioning other religions, or by presenting the country’s own religion as the only one.

He said dialogue was the second critical factor in inculcating tolerance and in light of that, he said his mandate as Special Rapporteur should be changed to focus not on “intolerance” but rather on “freedom of religion an opinion”. That would make it a positive mandate and would make subjects less reluctant to meet with him.

Upon introducing his report, the Special Rapporteur engaged in a dialogue with representatives.

In the general debate on human rights, the representative of Japan noted a number of points on the right to development, saying it referred to the human person rather than the individual state and should not be confused with the right to economic assistance. Realizing the right would require greater cooperation between developed and developing countries and a step-by-step approach should be adopted.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3550 36th Meeting (AM) 8 November 1999

The right to development should be treated as separate from other rights, said the representative of Bangladesh. He urged development of a convention on the right to development.

The representative of Sudan said it was regrettable that some countries purported to protect human rights and yet did great damage. He rejected the “politicizing” of human rights situations, and said countries should not impose their standards on others on a whim.

Also addressing the Committee this morning were the representatives of Iraq, Angola, Algeria, Finland (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Myanmar, San Marino, Chile, Tunisia, Nepal, Croatia, United States, Senegal, Czech Republic, New Zealand and Ecuador.

The representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) also addressed the Committee.

The Committee meets again at 3 p.m. today 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 High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning 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 Releases GA/SHC/3546 and GA/SHC/3547 of 4 November.)

Statement

NIZAR HAMDOON (Iraq) said the report on his country introduced by the Special Rapporteur was a fallacy and a distortion of facts by focusing on the Memorandum of Understanding. That completely distorted the responsibility concerning human rights in Iraq. Numerous sources had reported the ill effects of sanctions on human rights, including the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the working group on sanctions. Citing a great number of adverse effects that had been documented by outside agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), he said the cumulative effect of the sanctions régime was the deterioration of the social fabric. The ICRC Commission had noted the lack of medical care and United Nations Children Fund had commented that a whole generation of Iraqis were growing up isolated from the world. How could the Special Rapporteur overlook the effect of comprehensive sanctions? Further, he asked, how could he not pay attention to the aggression that had been unleashed by the United States, the radium from which continued to affect children?

He said, the smart missiles of the United States and Britain were more gross violations of human rights. How did the Special Rapporteur turn a blind eye to those human rights violations? He said control of the machinery in concluding contracts was slowing implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding, since those two States suspended many contracts for humanitarian assistance on the basis of flimsy excuses.

Further, the Special Rapporteur had commented on grave violations of civil and political rights, such as summary executions, which he himself admitted were only allegations. The Special Rapporteur’s information was not impartial and therefore it was unreliable. He had no business addressing the issue of missing Kuwaiti persons and he had overlooked many aspects of Iraq’s cooperation with the United Nations through correspondence. Some Rapporteurs on human rights issues had visited Iraq but if cooperation meant deploying monitors all over, then Iraq rejected the idea because that was interference in internal affairs. If the Special Rapporteur wanted an invitation from Iraq, he should change his biased modus operandi. Iraq would work with any Special Rapporteur who did not use his position for political ends. The distortion in the report represented manipulation for purposes of some in the international community.

Report on Religious Intolerance

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, said two urgent appeals had been sent out, one to Iraq regarding the assassination of a religious person and another to Iran concerning arrest of Iranian Jews. Both had been addressed by the States involved. Since finalization of his report, many more responses had been received from States, some of them in gratifying detail. No replies had been received from Israel or the Russian Federation in response to requests for visits. However, he would visit Bangladesh, probably next year. In addition to those visits and correspondence with countries, initiatives had been undertaken to promote tolerance, particularly in schools. The question of schism and defamation of religion were part of his mandate.

It was appropriate and timely to change his mandate now, he said. The focus should no longer be on intolerance but rather on freedom of religion and opinion, which would make it a positive mandate and would make subjects less reluctant to meet with him. Resources for all Special Rapporteurs should be increased, as should measures for protecting them. At this point, more attention should be paid to the religious rights of women. He said a plan of action should be adopted as soon as possible on how to insure their right to practice their religion. Also, a strategy of prevention was urgently needed, one that focused on education and dialogue to prevent religious intolerance. Also to be addressed in a sober way and without partiality was “the so-called sects issue”. Freedom of religion and opinion should not be used to limit the freedoms of others, he went on. States should adopt legislation reinforcing tolerance, the pillars of which were dialogue. The only way to eradicate intolerance was to change the mindset of people.

ANTONIO LEAL CORDERO (Angola) said his Government could not entirely support the report of the Special Rapporteur on Religious intolerance. His Government was fully committed to protecting and promoting all the rights of its citizens. His country’s constitution provided for the separation between the State and religion. It also provided for the respect and protection by the States of all religious groups and creeds.

He said about 90 per cent of the population of Angola was Christian. Their religious institutions continued to play an important role, especially in the social field. They provided assistance and care to the most disadvantaged, and contributed in the efforts toward the restoration of peace and national reconciliation. References alleging violations of physical integrity and health of Christians in the Special Rapporteur’s report were unfounded and surprising. His Government respected the freedom of religious groups, he emphasized.

The representative of Algeria requested information regarding talks about the change of the name of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. She also wondered about the increase in extremism.

The representative of Finland, also speaking for the European Union, asked which was the most urgent situation with regard to religious intolerance. There seemed to be an overlap between religious intolerance and racial intolerance. He also asked if the Special Rapporteur had any plans for the conference on racism.

The representative of Myanmar said the Special Rapporteur’s report needed the full support of the international community and it needed to be based on facts. He said he rejected allegations made against his country that there was discrimination against the religious beliefs of minorities. There was a harmonious balance in his country regarding religious beliefs. Allegations made by a Christian community had been exaggerated and there had been a “trivial misrepresentation”. Problems with a Christian community had been adequately settled; it had been an isolated case of administrative failure.

The Special Rapporteur said he usually received much information on religious intolerance from different countries. He did not make a judgement based on that information but rather referred to them as “allegations”. He then continued to inquire about about those allegations. In the south of Angola there were few credible non-governmental organizations. “We are not facile in our approach”, he emphasized. There was no country which was completely safe from intolerance.

With regard to the change of the naming of his mandate, the aim was to make it more positive and to incorporate preventive measures. Intolerance had not diminished and managing a problem did not mean there was no work to be done. Preventing the problem of discrimination by stressing education was essential. The wording of his mandate would be in tune with his work, so that it also covered the prevention of intolerance.

There was extremism, he said, in every religion and it was an insult to human intelligence. Extremism could be eradicated through education. The Special Rapporteur had proposed that States should agree on a minimum of principles and rules of behaviour concerning extremism. Extremism continued to develop so rules were necessary.

With regard to the Conference on Racism, he said, there was a link between racism, religious and ethnic intolerance. As for the sources of his information, there was usually “no smoke without fire”, he said. When there was an allegation, he pursued an investigation. Discrimination could be just a matter of a misunderstanding or an administrative mistake; however, he hoped those misunderstandings and mistakes were corrected.

The representative of San Marino asked for more information on the preventive aspect of promoting religious tolerance.

Chile’s representative commented on methods of changing attitudes and asked for the Special Rapporteur’s view.

Tunisia’s representative asked for more clarification on monitoring.

The representative of Nepal gave an explanation for an incident mentioned in the report that he said was inaccurate.

Mr. AMOR said prevention amounted to making an impact on people’s minds, which began with children’s minds. Information from States had indicated that many school curricula contained "a virtual hymn to intolerance". In some countries, for example, other religions were unmentioned or the country’s religion was presented as the only one. Dialogue was the second ingredient for inculcating tolerance. The humanitarian work carried out by societal workers was an important aspect of religious work, but proselytizing should be carefully monitored. People must not be exploited because they were poor and needy.

Religion should never be a question of having to listen to someone’s views or believing in someone else’s religion in order to eat, he continued. With regard to monitoring, all the human rights bodies were under-resourced. But Special Rapporteurs or Experts had one qualification that ensured their effectiveness, which was independence. They maintained freedom from the influence their own countries, they refrained from endorsing non-governmental organizations and they avoided inappropriate contacts. In response to the representative of Nepal, he said he was pleased to receive feedback and would consider the information.

Statements

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said some serious obstacles persisted with regard to the international protection of human rights. The main ones were twofold: the isolationism of some States and the misuse of human rights for specific political ends. “Isolationism exists in the form of rebuffing international concern for human rights under the arguments of protecting national sovereignty”, he said. The misuse of human rights also occurred when human rights issues were used for specific political interests.

It was the responsibility of the international community to fight both isolationism and the misuse of human rights issues, he continued. “It is extremely important to establish impartial, fair and objective procedures in the field of human rights that will, in turn, result in further acceptance of international law on human rights and mechanisms for their full national implementation”, he added. His Government was still awaiting the issuance of an overview on the human rights situation in his country since 1991. The Special Rapporteur’s report on his country did not demonstrate that it had accepted all six United Nations core treaties in the field of human rights and had fulfilled most of its reporting obligations.

NANCY RUBIN (United States) said there continued to be credible reports of slavery and the slave trade in Sudan. The Government there must use its authority to stop the practice of slavery and trade in human beings. Also, religious freedom was not guaranteed and the persecution of Christians and others continued. Buildings belonging to the Catholic Church in Khartoum had been destroyed and permits for new church structures were routinely refused. Reports of attempts to force conversion of military recruits and others were common. She urged all parties to negotiate seriously at the talks held under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development.

She said Nigeria’s human rights record had improved greatly over the past 16 months. She urged the Government there to rescind all remaining repressive political decrees including that which allowed the Government to arrest and detain persons without trial or access to legal counsel.

Her Government was also concerned, she said, with reports of harassment, intimidation and detention of journalists, NGO personnel and opposition political figures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Also, despite some improvement, the government’s human rights record in Iran left much to be desired. Systematic abuses there included extra-judicial killings and summary executions. She said the human rights situation in Iraq remained alarming. “The Shi’ite Muslim majority, comprising over 60 per cent of the population, faces severe and ongoing persecution”, she said. That regime had used civilians, including small children, as “human shields” against military attack. It neglected the health and nutritional needs of its children, and discriminated against religious minorities and ethnic groups.

She also called attention to the human rights situation in Afghanistan, Burundi, Burma, China, North Korea, East Timor and Cuba.

IBRA DEGUÈNE KA (Senegal) said his country’s human rights policy was based on the principle of the interdependence, universality and indivisibility of all rights, including the right to development. The eradication of poverty was a moral, social and economic imperative. Promoting human rights would bring stability to Africa, where crises often arose because of an abuse of rights. National institutions for protecting human rights should be strengthened. Two modules on human rights were now part of the curriculum for the armed forces in his country. Mentioning numerous steps his country had taken towards protecting and promoting human rights, he said there were no legislative impediments to human rights. Further, institutions and mechanisms had been established to better integrate treaty obligations into the practical lives of people. A rapid response mechanism to crises should definitely be developed.

RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan) said practical approaches should be taken toward the improvement of actual human rights situations. That should occur through dialogue, cooperation and a clear expression of views, including through bilateral dialogue. It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the dialogue in the Committee was to promote and protect human rights, not to level accusations. Clear messages should be sent about violations and about positive actions.

Japan was very concerned with promoting human rights, and would continue to host the Symposium on Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific region, which in January would focus on trafficking in persons. Concerning specific situations, he said the Khmer Rouge leaders should be brought to justice. His country would assist in a trial as soon as Cambodia and the United Nations reached agreement on a mechanism guaranteeing the international standards of the trial. He welcomed positive developments in Myanmar and said much remained to be done. In East Timor, those responsible for the violence after the referendum should be brought to trial.

On the right to development, he said it should be kept in mind that the right referred to the human person rather than the individual state. The right should not be confused with the right to economic assistance. Realizing the right would require greater cooperation between developed and developing countries, and a step- by-step approach should be adopted. The rule of law, good governance and basic human needs should be prioritized. Economic experts should be involved.

MARTIN PALOUS (Czech Republic) said that in today’s “globalized” world, cases of human rights violations had ceased to be a local matter and had become the concern of the international community as a whole. Also, an initiative critical of the human rights situation in any part of the world, could be fruitful only if it used the available channels and mechanisms addressing human rights problems and if it worked in a spirit of cooperation. The effectiveness of economic sanctions as a means of pressure on Governments violating certain human rights was limited. The credibility of human rights efforts depended on true political dialogue.

His Government’s main human rights problem concerned the Roma community. He welcomed an international dialogue on that topic as well as criticism. However, “criticism must mobilize and not demobilize those who are trying to do something”, he said. It needed to be constructive and open for dialogue and cooperation.

ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said that in future human rights related reports, the right to development should be treated in a separate section instead of clustering it with other rights. Also, more transparency was necessary with regards to the integration of human rights references in the Common Country Assesment and the guidelines of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework. In addition, in the absence of an instrument relating to the right to development, not all efforts for its implementation had an agreed basis. The follow-up mechanism established to give effect to implementation of the right should weigh the viability and relevance of elaborating a convention.

Poverty constituted the worst threat to the effective enjoyment of human rights, he said. Effective and independent national mechanisms were the best safeguards against human rights violations. Governments must build national capacities so that violations were addressed early and thus prevented. Human rights education from an early stage could contribute to the prevention of violations.

MUBARAK HUSSEIN RAHMTALLA (Sudan) said battling human rights situations at the international level was indispensable but national action was also required. Sudan had moved to constitutional legitimacy in protecting human rights by adopting a new constitution last year. It had also set up mechanisms for reinforcing the protection of rights at the practical level. The Government had taken steps to bring about a permanent cease-fire in the south. The international community should pressure the rebel movement into accepting a peaceful solution to the conflict.

It was regrettable that some countries purported to protect human rights and yet did great damage, he said. He referred to the destruction by the United States of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. What greater human rights violation could there be? he asked. Further, food and economic measures should not be used as weapons, such as was done against many developing countries through sanctions.

He said he rejected the politicizing of human rights situations and the existence of double standards in implementing measures for the right to development. Also, capital punishment was a contentious, controversial matter on which there was no consensus. Countries should not impose their standards on others on a whim. The real litmus test was the level that a country had achieved in protecting human rights. That should be measured without rejecting any cultures. He rejected the United States listing the countries having human rights situations when it had not included itself on the list.

MICHAEL POWLES (New Zealand) said there was a growing need for global acceptance of human rights standards, for translating the standards into legal protection and for that protection to be upheld by States. As the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expanded, the question of funding came into relief. Adequate resourcing for effective operation of the treaty bodies was vital, as was the strengthening of responsiveness and effectiveness of the human rights mechanisms. The open-ended working group established under the Commission of Human Rights was welcome, as were the positive dynamics that had characterized the first meeting of the working group in Geneva in September and October.

He said the establishment of national human rights institutions was encouraging, as was the subsequent growth of regional human rights arrangements. His country continued to support the development of such institutions under its Official Development Assistance (ODA) programme. He said New Zealand was an early co-sponsor of a draft resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty because that penalty was a violation of the most fundamental human rights. Of particular concern was its application in disregard of accepted international standards and without due process.

MARIO ALEMAN (Ecuador) said that if a matter was dealt with by domestic jurisdiction as well as by international jurisdiction, it no longer pertained exclusively to domestic law. For example, when South Africa sought to qualify apartheid as a domestic affair, the international community rejected the interpretation. That State had signed the United Nations Charter and had therefore undertaken to respect human rights without any discrimination. Also, many dictators and autocrats had sought to protect their policies through the right to self-determination in order to justify their inhumane acts. However, that had been rejected by the international community. There was no question that the United Nations Charter had the obligation to encourage the respect for human rights and freedoms, he said. A collective concern to protect human rights had become more solidly founded since the individual had become the fundamental objective of international law. His country had ratified the main human rights conventions and covenants. Individuals in Ecuador had the right to resort to international law and international tribunals if they thought their rights had been violated.

WAVIAVA MBUGUA, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), said that in many areas critical to the Vienna and Cairo programmes of action on population issues, progress was still slow. Women and girls continued to suffer systematic and wide-scale violations of their most basic human rights, in particular, those rights related to their sexuality and reproductive health. For example, 350 million women could not exercise their right to plan the size of their families by using modern, safe and acceptable methods. Also, 585,000 women in developing countries could not exercise their right to safe motherhood and died as a result of pregnancy.

She said the UNFPA continued its unrelenting efforts to eliminate gender-based discrimination against women and girls through respecting human rights. Those efforts were taking place at the national, regional and international levels and included: advocating for the integration of women’s reproductive rights in all human rights treaty bodies; strengthening policies and the provision of adequate legal frameworks to protect and promote women’s and girls’ reproductive rights; advancing safe motherhood through empowering women to make choices in their reproductive lives with the support of their families and communities; and protecting the rights of older women, in particular widows, who were vulnerable to abuse due to their dependence on male relatives.

* *** *