RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT NEEDS RECOGNITION ALONGSIDE OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD

Press Release
GA/SHC/3551

RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT NEEDS RECOGNITION ALONGSIDE OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD

Delegates Warn of Risks in Economic Globalization, Urge Efforts to Bridge Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor Countries

The impact of the process of globalizaion could be destructive for the basic principles of human rights, the representative of Cuba told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this afternoon as it continued considering human rights issues.

He said that in order to benefit mankind, the process of globalization must go together with a new world order which included the active participation of developing countries in global decision-making processes. The process needed to be accompanied by a transformation of the international monetary system, and the bridging of the growing gap between rich and poor countries from poor ones.

Warning that social and cultural rights had been reversed under globalisation as poverty had continued to increase rampantly, the representative of Algeria said the first guarantee should be that of the right to life which came down to the right to development.

Painful experiences from the financial and economic crisis had taught his Government that economic performance could not be measured in terms of rates of economic growth alone but that efforts should be devoted to fully realize the right to human development, the representative of Thailand said.

The representative of Colombia said that as a developing country undergoing an internal conflict, the full enjoyment of human rights was restricted but it remained an objective. Internal displacement was a serious consequence of the armed conflict and a plan for managing it had been drawn up, but it could be years before a political solution to the internal conflict was negotiated.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liechtenstein, Ukraine and Tunisia. The Observer of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross also made statements.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3551 37th Meeting (PM) 8 November 1999

The representatives from the following countries made statements in the exercise of the right of reply: Kuwait, the Sudan, Iraq, Democratic Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

Also today, the Committee received a draft resolution on “Measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, Tuesday 9 November at 10:00 a.m. 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 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 releases GA/SHC/3546 and 3547 of 4 November.)

The Committee was to receive a draft resolution sponsored by Guyana on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/54/L.26). By its terms the Assembly would declare that racism and racial discrimination were among the most serious violations of human rights in the contemporary world and must be combated by all available means. The Assembly would express its profound concern about, and unequivocal condemnation of, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, in particularly racial violence and propaganda or activities based on doctrines of racial superiority. The Assembly would also express profound concern and condemnation of, all manifestations of racism and stereotyping of migrant workers or their families and of persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups. Also, the Assembly would express deep concern about the increase in racial and xenophobic violence, particular in Europe and North America, where the numbers of associations established on racist or xenophobic platforms was increasing.

By the draft, the Assembly would condemn the misuse of print, media and new technology, including the Internet, for the purpose of inciting violence motivated by racial hatred. It would urge all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on racism and would call for international participation in events to carry out, promote and disseminate actions ensuring success for 2001 as the International Year of Mobilization against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in particular the outcome of the World Conference against racism to be held that year.

Introduction of Draft

The representative of Guyana, speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on “Measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. Added as sponsors to that draft were: Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The representative made oral revisions to the text. In operative paragraph three the word “welcomes” is replaced by “takes note in appreciation of”. Operative paragraph five was deleted. In operative paragraph nine, the word “and” before “racial discrimination” is deleted and replaced by “xenophobia and related intolerance”. In operative paragraph twelve, the words “Europe and North America, including” are replaced by “many parts of the world as well as”. In that same paragraph, the word “constitutions” is replaced by “charters as reflected in the report of the Special Rapporteur”. In operative paragraph twenty, the word “work” is replaced by “action”.

ANDRÉ MWAMBA KAPANGA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Special Rapporteur had used the term “warfare” to describe the situation in his country, which was due to hostilities of its neighbours. That now defined the situation as aggression by an outside force. The Security Council should condemn the expansionist activities of Rwanda and Uganda in his country. The Democratic Republic had filed a claim against those neighbours in the International Court of Justice.

He said that as the report on his country had pointed out, a great deal of progress had been made in the area of respect for human rights, particularly since the national human rights Commission had been established last year. His country had given protection to those from Uganda and Burundi, as well as to Tutsis from Rwanda. Minors under 18 had been demobilized and the Special Rapporteur had drawn attention to the conference the Democratic Republic planned to hold on that subject. With regard to the death penalty, his country had taken an abolitionist attitude. It was also revamping legislature to effectively tackle human rights violations. The good relations between his country and the United Nations system overall had made it possible to deal with violations that occurred due to the actions of some.

Although the report contained some inaccuracies, he said, he encouraged its positive approach. The warfare carried out in his country by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi was an obvious violation of human rights that the Special Rapporteur should bring to greater light. The name for those actions was genocide. The international community should awaken from its torpor to recognize that what it would not tolerate in Europe should not be tolerated elsewhere.

SUKHUMBHAND PARIBATRA (Thailand) said “painful experiences from the financial and economic crisis” had made his Government’s commitment to the cause of human rights even stronger. Those experiences had taught his Government that economic performance could not be measured in terms of rates of economic growth alone but that efforts should be devoted to fully realize the right to human development. Also, more emphasis should be placed on the human rights based approach to socio- economic development.

The main principles of human rights such as universality, indivisibility and interdependence should not and could not be compromised, he said. “Diversity must not be used as a justification for the promotion of one set of human rights in disregard or at the expense of other sets of human rights”, he continued. Unlike non-governmental organizations, which could react to human rights violations and abuses with passion, Governments were subject to many constraints. Those constraints ranged from the principle of non-interference to realpolitik.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that as a European country not a member of the European Union (EU), Liechtenstein had become a co-sponsor on the proposed resolution concerning the death penalty because the issue deserved a public debate. Overall, abolition of the penalty would contribute to the progressive development of human rights. It made sense to call on those countries that still maintained the penalty to establish a moratorium on executions. That was the only intent of the draft; it was not an overly ambitious or zealous undertaking.

He noted concerns that had been expressed. There was the argument that the draft aimed to undermine the sovereignty of States. It was true that a discussion of the death penalty was the wrong place to discuss possible new notions of the established term “sovereignty”.

Another concern was that some countries were imposing values on others who did not recognize or cherish those values. He said value at issue in the draft was that of recognizing the value of human life, a value shared by all civilizations and embedded in the consciousness of people worldwide regardless of cultural background. He would be willing to make revisions in the text to accommodate expressed concerns. He had no illusion that the open debate would bring a consensus on the issue. That was a distant goal toward which adoption of the resolution would make a long-term contribution.

OKSANA BOYKO (Ukraine) said addressing the whole complex of human rights problems should exclude an excessive emphasis upon one set of human rights at the expense of others. The absence of a proper coordination of human rights activities at the regional level and at the international level made it difficult to respond adequately to challenges. Her Government fully supported the need of a more structured relationship between the High Commissioner’s Office and its European counterpart.

Regional and international promotion of human rights could not succeed without adequate efforts at the national level, she continued. The development of the technical cooperation programme of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be encouraged. Also, the further promotion and protection of human rights required a higher human rights culture. For that reason, priority attention should be paid to human rights education.

JUAN FERNANDEZ (Cuba) said any analysis of globalizaion should also reflect and elaborate its consequences and impacts that could be destructive for the basic principles of human rights. “For globalization’s enormous potential for the benefit of mankind to come true, it must go together with a new world order which includes the active participation of the so-called Third World countries in global decision-making processes, a profound transformation of the international monetary system, as well as the bridging of the growing gap that divides the group of richer countries from the vast majority of the poor ones”, he said.

The right to development was and would continue to be an unreachable goal if the international community failed to act firmly, he continued. While the United States spent 8 billion dollars in cosmetics, the developing world invested only $6 billion on basic education. Also, democracy and universality could only be built on the basis of the true respect for the right of nations to adopt without foreign interference the political, economic and social organization that their people freely and sovereignty chose. Interference and interventionism using the term “humanitarian” were used as an excuse for the alleged protection of human rights.

ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) said universality of human rights did not equate with conformity. Cooperation in human rights should take place in an honest and open partnership; it must be free of hegemonic tendencies. Political rights had improved, but social and cultural rights had been reversed under globalisation as poverty had continued to increase. In the global village, for better or worse and because the means of communication allowed a daily view of human misery, the international community must not accept the fact that one out of every four people in the world could not satisfy their hunger.

The right to survival implied the right to eat, drink water, learn and have at least a slum in which to live, he said. Africans had suffered more than anyone under conditions of the greatest degradation due to colonialism. More than anyone, Africans understood the meaning and value of human dignity. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit held in Algiers in July had reaffirmed the right to development. The Declaration issued by the summit had called for reinforcing the rule of law. For example, it had asked governments to not recognize governments that came to power through côups d’etat.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) said that as a developing country undergoing an internal conflict, the full enjoyment of human rights in Colombia was restricted but it remained an objective. In August, the government had announced a new policy on human rights and the application of international humanitarian law. Six priority areas had been outlined: the fight against illegal armed groups; the security of human rights defenders; attention to the population displaced by violence; measures to promote humanitarian law; improvement of the administration of justice; and a national action plan on human rights.

Internal displacement was a serious consequence of the armed conflict in his country, he said. A contributing factor was the illegal targeting of the civilian population. A plan for managing the situation had been drawn up, but information and economic resources were needed to carry out the plan. Who had been displaced? How should those be handled who quietly moved out of cities for fear? Those were important elements to consider in giving victims access to legal remedies. At the same time, he went on, Colombia spent millions of dollars of its national budget on caring for the population displaced by violence and yet it was not enough. A “Plan Columbia” had been submitted to governments and international organizations to find additional funding for the challenge.

That would not be solved until a political solution to the internal conflict was negotiated, he said. The government had invested its political and economic credibility to achieve that objective. It would take years to consolidate peace, since initial conversation with the largest guerrilla group had begun just weeks before. A lasting solution would take time, patience and understanding.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said poverty was offensive to human rights. The international community needed to place social and economic rights at the same level as civil and political ones. Any attempt at giving priority to certain rights over others could risk the balance of a harmonious promotion of human rights. The right to development was at the heart of the effective implementation of human rights.

His Government had introduced reforms in its constitution which enforced a multi-party system and refused any form of extremism. Its electoral code had also been reformed in order to institutionalise the multi-party system which had helped consolidate pluralism in the deputy chamber. Also, the organisation of prisons was based on international norms. Prisons were often visited by the President of the Superior Committee for Human Rights.

FRANCOIS VOEFFRAY, the Observer for Switzerland, said the abolition of capital punishment demonstrated the respect for human dignity and the protection of life. A movement towards the abolition of capital punishment was taking place worldwide.

Human rights included economic and social rights as well as the right of development. The right to development still seemed controversial in discussion of human rights. Racism and intolerance were particularly dangerous and “ate into the tissue of society”. Protection for human rights defenders was essential since they continued to encounter restrictions and suffer tortures, threats and even arbitrary execution. There should be an international mechanism to promote their protection. Also, a post of special rapporteur for human rights defenders should be created.

SYLVIE JUNOD, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had highlighted the complementarity of their respective organizations. Within their separate mandates, both strove to safeguard human dignity. Dialogue between the two had made it possible to define areas of activity and those in which closer cooperation would bring about greater synergy between Geneva and the field, a growing necessity with the increasing complexity of situations in which humanitarian and human rights organizations had to work under deteriorating security conditions.

She said the implementation of international humanitarian law involved three complementary activities: to promote the law, to protect and assist war victims, and to denounce and repress violations. The ICRC had a specific mandate from States in the first two activities. In situations of armed conflict or internal violence, it had to convince parties to comply with humanitarian law. Its mandate of protection and assistance would be seriously hampered if it denounced violations or took part in investigations relating to persons suspected of crimes. Protecting war victims was at the heart of the ICRC’s concerns.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Kuwait referred to Iraq’s reference to 605 Kuwaitis missing in Iraq. That was not accurate, he said. Further, when the families of those still missing were taken into consideration, thousands of Kuwaitis were affected and suffering from Iraq’s actions. Iraq had resigned from the Tripartite Commission that had been set up to resolve the problem. Iraq should resume its participation, since the Commission was made up of those who had liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

The representative of the Sudan said the United States had blatantly disregarded facts about his country. That the United States continued to lack credibility and it was financially supporting the rebel movement in the south of his country. It had fueled the machine of war and destabilized peace and security in the region. It had also made false allegations regarding slavery and had affronted Islam, which was a great religion for tolerance and peace.

The United States had narrow political interests which isolated it, he continued. It failed to recognize the essence of the problem and the conflict with the south. He said the Special Rapporteur on racial discrimination had been denied a visit to the United States. His country did not mistreat Christians and it was important to realize that the Vice President and Foreign Minister, as well as other diplomats, were Christians. The United States had demonstrated cultural arrogance.

The representative of Iraq said the United States was recruiting mercenaries and training them in American camps. The United States had spent 97 million dollars on campaigns and attacks inside his country. It had been very aggressive and arrogant. It was trying to overthrow his Government and divide the country as well as block any national dialogue with the Kurdish. The dialogue was being prevented through terrorist activities.

The United States had attempted to terrorize his country and divide it along ethnic and religious lines, he continued. It had made allegations related to the Shi’ites. His Government was not persecuting its citizens and there was no discrimination. The consequences of the embargo against his country had had human rights implications. The use of depleted uranium had caused the death of many children in his country. The United States did not wish to discuss those issues because it was responsible for such violations. He said the representative of New Zealand was repeating statements without verifying issues. Reference had been made on the deportation of Kurds. Where were they being deported? Everyone knew that the north of his country was under the control of the United States and the United Kingdom, and was not under his Government’s control.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he categorically denied the hypocritical allegations made by the United States, which had never owned up to human rights violations in its own country and across the world. The streets in the United States were filled with homeless people and its prisons were full of people being tortured. Those were the human rights being violated behind the Statue of Liberty, but they were nothing compared to the slaughter and genocide that the United States had committed in Korea, for example. The allegations of the United States were a camouflage for its hegemonistic intentions. They should be checked.

Burundi’s representative said she would respond to the allegations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so as to prevent the international community swallowing them as truth. Her country respected the principle of non-interference and lived by it.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said his country did not interfere in the affairs of others. If human rights were not being violated in his country, then why was the Congo on fire? Why was blood being shed? Why would the Congo commit suicide? The answers to those questions lay in looking at whose interests were being served. That would come to light eventually. After the long night, the morning always came. In the meantime, human rights defenders would make a great contribution by revealing who crossed borders and where.

* *** *