SOCIAL COMMITTEE APPEALS FOR UNIVERSAL ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENANTS

Press Release
GA/SHC/3553

SOCIAL COMMITTEE APPEALS FOR UNIVERSAL ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENANTS

Assembly Also Asked to Stress Need to Avoid ‘Erosion’ of Rights

The General Assembly would strongly appeal to all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and political rights, as well as to accede to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by the terms of a draft resolution approved without a vote, this afternoon, by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

Also, by the terms of that orally revised draft, the Assembly would stress the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation. Furthermore, States would be urged to fulfil in good time such reporting obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights as may be requested.

Also today, by a draft resolution also approved without a vote, the General Assembly would urge governments to participate without a vote, the General Assembly would urge Governments to participate actively in the open-ended inter-sessional ad hoc working group that the Commission on Human Rights decided to re-establish, from within existing overall United Nations resources, with a view to completing its task. In addition, the General Assembly would decide that the United National Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations should also be used to assist representatives of indigenous communities and organizations to participate ion the open-ended inter-sessional ad hoc working group of the Commission on Human Rights

The Committee received a draft resolution on issues related to the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and another on the implementation of human rights instruments as the Committee continued to discussion on human rights issues, many delegates referred to the problem of double standards and selectivity in dealing with human rights issues.

Tolerating the “politicization” of human rights would only be tantamount to the encouragement of arbitrariness, said the

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3553 39th Meeting (PM) 9 November 1999

representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The representative of Syria said that using human rights issues in a selective way ran counter to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which called for the equal sovereignty of all Member States.

Exploiting human rights for political purposes and the selective targeting of individual countries promoted confrontation and undermined cooperation in the field of human rights, according to the representative of Kenya. The representative of India said human rights reports often conveyed special pleading and seemed to promote a limited and often political agenda.

Statements were also made by the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, San Marino, Brazil, Venezuela, Cyprus, Lebanon, Myanmar and Belarus. The European Commission and UNESCO also made statements.

The representatives of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Malaysia, Iraq, Sudan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Syria, Iran and Burundi intervened in exercise of the right on reply.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 10 November at 10 a.m. to continue its consideration on issues related to human rights questions.

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 has before it a number of draft resolutions expected to be introduced. One is a 13-power draft on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (document A/C.3/54/L.28/Rev.1). By the first of four parts to the draft, the Assembly would urge all Governments to take necessary measures to combat new forms of racism, as one way of implementing the Programme of Action for the Third Decade. The Assembly would also urge all States to become parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and to limit reservations lodged against it. Further, it would urge worldwide implementation of the Programme of Action, with particular attention to indigenous people, strongly underlining the importance of education as a significant means of eradicating racism and racial discrimination.

By part two of the draft, concerning the World Conference against racism and related intolerance, the Assembly would decide that the World Conference and the sessions of its Preparatory Committee should be open to participation by all States members and specialized agencies, regional organizations and commissions, as well as to other organizations and bodies who would participate as observers. It would also decide that the conference would be action-oriented, focusing on practical measures to eradicate racism, including through measures of prevention, education and protection and with remedies that took into consideration the existing human rights instruments.

Also, by part two of the draft, the Assembly would request the High Commissioner for Human Rights, among others, to undertake preparatory activities for the World Conference, also requesting the Preparatory Committee to begin drafting a final document containing specific goals, objectives and timetables. The Assembly would welcome the offer by the Government of South Africa to host the conference in 2001, appealing to all Member States to contribute generously to the Voluntary Fund for the conference and also calling for the holding of national and regional meetings and other initiatives raising awareness about the conference.

By part three of the draft, the Assembly would strongly reaffirm the proclamation of 2001 as the International Year of Mobilization against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, calling for observance of the Year, including through programmes of action. By part four of the draft, the Assembly would consider the item of elimination of racism and racial discrimination as a matter of high priority.

The draft is sponsored by Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Guyana (on behalf of the group of 77 developing countries and China) Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and United Kingdom.

By a 19-power draft on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (document A/C.3/54/L.53), the Assembly would express its deep concern at the growing manifestations of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and inhuman or degrading treatment directed against migrant workers in different parts of the world. It would call on Member States to sign and ratify the Convention, requesting the Secretary-General to provide all facilities and assistance to promote the Convention through the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights and the programme of advisory services in the field of human rights.

The draft is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Uruguay.

Also before the Committee were two draft resolutions on which action was expected. One was a draft on the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (document A/C.3/54/L.45). By that draft, the Assembly 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 working group is to hold a meeting before the Commission’s next session with a view to 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 that draft, the Assembly would decide that the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations should also 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 great 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 that draft, 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”.

That text is sponsored by the following: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Iceland, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden United Kingdom and United States.

By a draft on the International Covenants on Human Rights (document A/C.3/54/L.52), the Assembly would strongly appeal to all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as to accede to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to make the declaration provided for in article 41 of the Covenant.

Also by that draft, the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation would be stressed. In addition, States parties would be urged to fulfil in good time such reporting required obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights at the national level.

The draft is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, German, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Venezuela.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Guyana, also speaking for the Group of 77 and China, introduced the draft resolution entitled "Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance". The following sponsors were added to that draft: Australia, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg and Norway.

Next, the representative from Mexico introduced the draft resolution entitled “International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families".

Action on draft resolutions

The Committee took up the draft resolution entitled "Programme of activities of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People" (A/C.3.54/L.45). The Russian Federation, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Solomon Islands were added as sponsors to that draft. The draft has programme budget implications.

The Committee approved the draft without a vote.

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution entitled "International Covenants on Human Rights". The representative of Sweden orally revised that draft; in operative paragraph seventeen, the word "parties" was deleted. The following countries were added as sponsors to that draft: Ecuador, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia and Luxembourg. The draft has programme budget implications.

The draft, as orally revised, was approved without a vote.

Statements

LIDIJA TOPIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that this month her country would celebrate the fourth anniversary of the Dayton-Paris peace accords. That represented four years of peace in the complex, multifaced situation. Talking of human rights in the process of post-conflict peacebuilding in her country required objectivity and impartiality.

She said the Special Rapporteur had noted the international community’s failure to realize its political goals in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He had said the International Crisis Group had confirmed that view. The Group had prepared a report prior to the Dayton implementation review, offering five key policy options that international policy-makers could take. The Group had basically raised questions and offered solutions; take those words as confirmation of international failure in Bosnia and Herzegovina was to take them out of context.

Perhaps the situation was one of looking at a glass as half-empty or half- full, she said. But those in her country were encouraged by the many positive changes and developments taking place, however much remained to be done. The country had vision and it understood its priorities. Membership in the Council of Europe was a political goal. The Stability Pact for South-East Europe had outlined a comprehensive approach toward development, in the region with an eye toward integration into the structure of Euro-Atlantic States.

MARINA FAETANINI (San Marino) said that to choose peace through dialogue, education and acceptance of differences was neither naïve nor Utopian, but rather a matter of survival. It was necessary to identify elements conducive to violence, hatred and intolerance, and then to transform them. Strategies to reverse the negative stereotypes of religion must be devised to dismantle an association of religion with human rights violations and terrorism. Abuses such as violence, hatred, intolerance and discrimination, particularly against women and minorities, had nothing to do with religion. They were simply human rights abuses.

She said the United Nations had for too long resisted engaging in a study of religion. It was time to develop studies, research and activities in the field. It was no longer possible to ignore the damage that religious extremism was creating throughout the world. Possible solutions were to actively engage in inter-religion and inter-civilization dialogues and seminars. Awareness campaigns must focus on happy stories as well as on situations needing to be rectified. Children could learn war; just as easily, they could learn peace instead.

MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI (Brazil) said there was great need to prevent disasters in the field of human rights. Many forgot that human rights were interdependent and universal. Human rights, democracy and development were interlinked. The work of the Rapporteurs was important; they were necessary whenever systematic violations of human rights occurred.

She said her Government was deeply involved in promoting democratic values and the respect for human rights. A human rights national programme had been created, and a law which considered torture a grave crime had been passed. Financial assistance for families that kept children in school was also available and social programmes were in place. Despite that progress, there were still great inequalities among the population.

TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said the issue of women and their rights in society could not be overlooked. His Government paid special attention to the rights of women since no country could prosper unless women performed their role in society.

He said by occupying the Arab territories, as in his country, Israel was violating human rights. It violated the rights of those who exercised their right to self-determination. Many non-governmental organisations had revealed the Israeli actions. Israel was violating human rights in the southern part of Lebanon; great injustice was being inflicted on the Lebanese, especially in a prison in the south of Lebanon. Israel had not permitted any international fact- finding mission or non-governmental organizations to go into that prison, not even journalists.

He said some States used human rights issues in a selective way. That ran counter to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Those countries should understand the equal sovereignty of all Member States of the United Nations. Double standards were not acceptable when dealing with human rights. Racial practices, particularly ethnic cleansing, were unacceptable. States should not interfere in the affairs of others.

FARES KUINDWA (Kenya) said he commended the increased focus on promoting and protecting human rights, and on early warning and prevention of abuse. To enhance public awareness of rights and freedoms, Kenya had established a Standing Committee on Human Rights, which had already submitted a bill to make the Kenyan human rights commission autonomous and independent. The Bill would also seek full powers for the Commission to investigate human rights abuse complaints against public officials and charges of abusing power.

He said the Standing Committee was basically a consultative mechanism composed of all key governmental departments dealing with human rights; such a mechanism was a prerequisite to achieve the highest respect and promotion of human rights and freedoms. However, any attempt to use human rights as a political weapon for foreign policy and development cooperation would be rejected. Exploiting human rights for political purposes, and the selective targetting of individual countries for extraordinary considerations, promoted confrontation and undermined cooperation in the field of human rights.

CARLOS BIVERO (Venezuela) said his government had made great progress in promoting human rights, as a result of a combination of national and international initiatives. It intended to create a culture of human rights so that all would feel protected and secure. The application of human rights was tied to development and democracy, and to the development of those mechanisms and institutions that strengthened it. His government had incorporated measures of the international instruments into its constitution. Tribunals would preside in situations of purported human rights violations. The death penalty would be absolutely prohibited.

He said he fully supported bilateral and multilateral agreements helping to bring about advances in the field of human rights. However, in light of all the positive advances, it was even more evident that unilateral measures intended to coerce countries toward particular actions were wrong.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said impunity led to arrogance and to a false sense of invincibility. Crimes needed to be punished, otherwise violations of human rights would continue. The constant denial of the rights, both individual and collective, of 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees who had been expelled from their homes during the Turkish invasion was unacceptable. Refugees were denied the right to property; Greek and Maronite Cypriots were being discriminated against, and demographic alteration was taking place through the importation of Turkish colonists.

He said the problem of missing persons in Cyprus was still unresolved despite efforts by his Government. For twenty-five years, the families of the missing continued to live without knowing the fate of their loved ones. He appealed to all those who were in a position to help solve that problem. It was tragic to note that the daily life of the Greek and Maronite Cypriots in the occupied areas was characterized by a multitude of adverse circumstances. They could only attend primary education since no secondary education schools for them were available. The demands of the Turkish side to recognise the existence of two states in his country were unacceptable.

MOHAMAD ISSA (Lebanon) said that since the Israeli occupation of the south of his country and the western Bekaa in March of 1978, gross violations of human rights had taken place. He hoped for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Israel should respect the human rights of persons living in those areas. The refusal of Israel to cooperate could not continue. The rights of Lebanese in Israeli prisons continued to be violated. He hoped for the liberation of prisoners and for the end of tortures. Also, his countrymen were being forced to migrate, to leave their own country.

KYAW WIN (Myanmar) said the discussion of his country in the Committee over the past years demonstrated that alleged human rights violations were used as a tool to try to affect internal political changes. The gradual shift of resolutions on Myanmar had grown from simple expressions of concern over certain alleged violations to outright demands for specific political measures. Notably, so-called grave concerns had never translated into real-life negative events, which brought into question the accuracy and credibility of the predictions.

Human rights was a legitimate concern of the international community, he said. However, it was a country’s responsibility to realize human rights privileges for its citizens. For a developing country struggling to keep its economic development afloat for that difficult task, international assistance was needed more than the piling up of criticisms. Assessments of a country’s human rights situation should meticulously observe the principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, especially if the concerns and rhetorical exercises were to be non-counter-productive and were to translate into genuine progress.

Myanmar was steadily moving toward its political goals, he said. It was preparing the ground and sowing the seeds for a firm and healthy plant of democracy, suited to its environment, tradition and culture. A smooth and peaceful evolution rather than a disruptive revolution was the aim. Myanmar was entitled to the right to development, he said. In the international perception, that right should weigh equally with the allegations of perceived rights violations. The humanitarian objective to raise the living standard for the majority of the world’s people should not be forgotten.

STANISLAV OGURTSOV (Belarus) said his country was making consistent slow steps forward. It was one of the few countries of the former Soviet Union where blood had not been shed over social issues. He reviewed the legislative changes being made for the protection of women, children and workers, among others. He said a monitoring group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had been stationed in Minsk.

Belarus was creating an open society, he said. It was party to instruments on human rights. There was no future in using human rights considerations to advance political ends. Advancement of rights was a collective effort that was to be freely undertaken.

KIM SONG CHOL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said certain countries resorted to their preponderance of strength to force their political and economic systems upon others, which maintained different political systems. Furthermore, they used political and economic coercive measures and even military force against “disobedient countries”. Double standards and selectivity in dealing with human rights severely infringed upon the sovereignty of independent countries, including small ones.

It was essential that big countries refrained from “camouflaging their domestic human rights violations and those of their allies”, he continued. Those countries should not internationalize human rights issues in order to pressure and coerce smaller countries. “If such politicization of human rights is tolerated or permitted, it would only be tantamount to the encouragement or instigation of high handedness and arbitrariness”, he added.

PRATAP VAIDIK (India) said most of the human rights reports dealt with their “subjects only in the context of developing countries”. It was not difficult to see why the reports often conveyed special pleading and seemed to promote a limited, and often political agenda. Programmes and activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights needed to be looked at carefully, and the current bias towards monitoring or prevention needed rectification by putting stress on the promotion of human rights.

He said his Government was disappointed with the report by the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. His country was a multi-ethnic, multi- religious democracy. “We do not accept any actions by Indians, or others, to set ethnic or religious groups against each other”, he said. “The harshest action permissible under law was taken against the offenders”. While early warning for prevention of natural disasters was a useful activity, undertaken by national governments, stretching that concept into the area of human rights could increase divisiveness and accomplish little. He said India would not accept the High Commissioner for Human Rights, or other United Nations bodies, assuming a supra- national monitoring role in those areas.

DANIELA NAPOLI, the European Commission, said human rights education was essential for promoting mutual understanding, tolerance and peace. Without education, the universality of human rights could not be realized. The United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, which had begun in 1994, called for increased involvement in human rights education and urged the establishment of education programmes as recommended in the Plan of Action for the Decade. In the framework of the priorities set by the European Union, she said, the European Commission took the call to action very seriously.

European Union funding contributed to the development of teaching, research and education, principally by supporting the establishment of information networks and centres of research, she said. Projects with an education component in Africa and Central America had highlighted the interdependence of peace, human rights and democratic principles. Training of human rights officials was also supported.

ANITA AMORIM, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that since its inception, UNESCO’s normative action through standard-setting instruments had aimed to promote and protect human rights within its field of competence, which concerned education. The consolidation and full implementation of existing human rights provisions was a priority for UNESCO. For years, UNESCO had been looking at advances in biotechnology and its impact on human rights.

In the last few years, she said, UNESCO had focused on strengthening human rights education capacities at the national and international levels, and on development of educational materials. An effective networking system was being developed among institutes involved in human rights. A plan of action for the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education provided for the establishment of a comprehensive, effective and sustainable programme for human rights education. She said she wished to draw attention to the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its abolition, which had been proclaimed to be observed on 23 August.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Saudi Arabia said the European Union had failed to understand his country’s regulations, which urged respect for human beings and accorded a high position to women, which could be said to be even higher than that of men. It was well known that all citizens were Muslims. His Government respected the right to privacy and did not interfere in what people did inside their homes. The Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance had praised his country for respecting religious freedom. The allegations of the European Union were false, contained erroneous information and distorted his country’s reputation.

The representative of Algeria said allegations made by the European Union were “astonishing and dissapointing”. His country had real democratization and respected the freedom of individuals. He wondered why the European Union had allotted a whole section of its address to his country. Algeria was committed to respecting human rights, and was against terrorism and violence. It had never failed to comply with its commitments and obligations and had always presented requested information to United Nations bodies.

The representative of Malaysia rejected allegations made by the European Union. He said his Government prohibited any type of hatred or hostility against any individual or groups of people. The criticism was “uncalled for”. Her Government did not control the media; it fostered the freedom of expression. Allegations by Canada were probably made because of the ongoing case against a Canadian journalist. The European Union treated her country as if it had no laws; actually it had laws inherited from the colonial period.

The representative of Iraq said he wished to bring attention again to the role of the European Union with regard to human rights. The European Union had not even mentioned sanctions in relation to the violation of human rights in Iraq. It created skepticism to completely ignore that grave aspect of the human rights situation in Iraq.

The representative of Sudan said he appreciated Canada’s assistance, but took exception to the linking of Sudan with activities related to slavery. Canada did not have representation in Sudan; it should not make such astounding allegations when a delegation had been invited to look into the situation and had not yet returned with results. Sudan had also invited a Security Council delegation to look into the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory by the United States; that delegation had not yet made a visit.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he was disgusted by the stereotyped presentation of his country by Finland on behalf of the European Union. Those countries had plenty of human rights violations, such as extreme xenophobia and racism. Also, they kept quiet about violations of their ally, a superpower, while picking on small countries. Were they ready to admit they were protecting and promoting human rights by the sweat of small countries over which they once had suzerainty?

The representative of Indonesia said he wished to respond to the statements made by the European Union and Canada. Human rights violations in East Timor were still going on, he said, and no conclusions had been reached in that regard. The humanitarian situation in East and West Timor had improved significantly. Efforts to take care of internally displaced persons there were being pursued. A Memorandum of Understanding had been signed by his Government and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in order to help East Timor. More and more displaced persons had returned to their homes in East Timor. A forum to discuss ethnic violence was being established.

The representative of Syria expressed his astonishment in reference to the address made by the European Union. He said Syria’s Constitution gave sovereignty to the law and independence to judicial authorities. No one was detained except when it was proven that a person had commited a crime. He said the situation of prisons in his country was similar to that elsewhere. Prison officials were punished if they committed crimes. Medical care in prisons were good. They were places for reformation and prisoners could even get university degrees while spending time there. Mechanisms of applying law in his country needed to be respected by other countries; those who had appointed themselves as “human rights protectors” should not have turned an eye away from issues such as foreign occupation and genocide.

The representative of Iran said the European Union and the United States had spoken of human rights violations in his country. He said freedom of expression was improving greatly there. His Government supported the free expressions of opinions by students. The police commander involved with the demonstration referred to had been arrested. He said the statement of the European Union had not been supported by people of other religions living in his country. Muslim girls had been prevented to walk into schools in many European nations. The United States delegates did not like any country to refer to theirs as one which tolerated repression and discrimination, but they continued pointing a finger to others. The United States had a double standard.

The representative of Burundi said the European Union contradicted itself in its statements on the protection of people in his country. The relocations of civilians were not forced displacements. The protection sites where they were located were provisional, to protect them from the rebels. Of course, the people would be better off in their own environment, but the government was responsible for protecting them. Negotiations were under way to find the best resolution for people across the country. Also, a legal commission was just this week being set up to investigate the deaths of two United Nations workers. He said he appreciated the recognition by the European Union of progress in his country.