SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD INTERVENTIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Press Release
GA/SHC/3554

SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD INTERVENTIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Agreed, Says Australia, but International Action Merited When Violations Disregard Universally Accepted Standards

The dual nature of human rights as both universal in character and specific to the national context was the subject of debate this morning as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met to continue considering human rights issues.

In particular, the Committee was considering 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 entire issue of humanitarian intervention had to be addressed by the international community through the United Nations, the representative of Malaysia said. Armed intervention, causing hardship and sufferings to many people and violating their rights, as well as the rights of State sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, should be examined. Human rights violations occurred in all countries, only in different degrees.

The representative of Australia said the concept of humanitarian intervention sat uneasily with notions of sovereignty and national interests. However, national interests were well served by policies conforming to universally accepted human rights norms. When those norms were disregarded and widespread human rights violations occurred, the international community benefited by responding effectively.

Sustainable national capacity to implement international human rights standards needed to be built and measures to prevent widespread violations of human rights had to be devised, the representative of Viet Nam said. Human rights issues themselves must be addressed in a global context respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity. To use human rights as a pretext to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign States was deplorable.

The representatives of Moldova, Rwanda and Greece also addressed the Committee, as did the Observer of the Holy See.

The Committee meets again at 3 p.m. today to continue its consideration of human rights issues.

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 3547 of 4 November.)

Statements

LE HOAI TRUNG (Viet Nam) said human rights were both universal in character and specific in the method of being implemented in the national context. It was important to build sustainable national capacity to implement international human rights standards and it was necessary to devise measures to prevent widespread and systematic violations of human rights. At the same time, he went on, human rights issues must be addressed in the global context by means of a constructive, dialogue-based approach and in a manner that was objective, non-selective, impartial and transparent, and which respected national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It was deplorable to use human rights as a pretext to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign States.

He said that by a reform of Viet Nam’s constitution 10 years ago there were efforts to better promote equality, solidarity and mutual assistance among all ethnic groups. Racial discrimination or division was prohibited and the right to follow any religion was guaranteed. There were nearly 20,000 places of worship in Viet Nam for Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and followers of Cao Dai and Hoa Hao. The Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance had visited last year, and Viet Nam continued to cooperate by providing documents and information.

RENATO MARTINO, Observer of the Holy See, said religious freedom was the heart of human rights. It was based on the dignity of the human person. The concrete liberty of inner reflection, as embodied in religion, was the expression of conscience and the foundation of human nature itself. Often religion had played a role in awakening people to the search for freedom and development.

However, he said, there were nations in which individuals, families and entire groups were discriminated against and marginalized because of religious beliefs. The fact that people were different was often a threat to others; recourse to violence in the name of religious belief was a perversion of the teachings of all major religions. No authentic human progress was possible without respect for the natural and fundamental right to know the truth and live according to the truth. No one had the right to impede religious freedom, which was a cornerstone of human rights and the most profound expression of a free conscience.

ROHANA RAMLI (Malaysia) said the international community, through the United Nations, must address the issue of military intervention for “humanitarian” purposes which not only caused hardship and suffering to a large number of citizens, but was also a violation of the rights of State sovereignty and of non- interference in internal affairs. Human rights violations occurred in all countries; the difference was only in degree. No country could claim that its human rights record was perfect.

She said improvements in human rights situations could more effectively be pursued through dialogue and cooperation. “No country has the right to appoint itself as the high judge of human rights violations of another country”, she said. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights were indivisible and interdependent. An excessive pursuit and promotion of one set of rights to the exclusion of others only built up a confrontational atmosphere. Also, the right to development was a fundamental and inalienable human right and needed to be translated into action.

PENNY WENSLEY (Australia) said the concept of humanitarian intervention sat uneasily with notions of sovereignty and national interest. However, one of the challenges for the United Nations was to promote acceptance of a broad view of national interests. National interests were well served by the adoption of policies which conformed with universally accepted human rights norms. When those norms were disregarded and widespread human rights violations occurred, it was in the interest of the international community to be in a position to respond effectively.

The Indonesian Government deserved credit and recognition for the initiatives taken in East Timor, so that people there could determine their own future, she said. Australia welcomed Cambodia’s recent agreement to extend the mandate of the Cambodian Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights until March 2002. Also, China’s movement towards greater transparency and accountability in its administrative and legal system, was encouraging.

In addition, she said, the Government of Burma should be urged to enter into genuine consultations on political reform as soon as possible. Algeria’s efforts towards reconciliation and the restoration of peace should be encouraged. Cuba’s restrictions placed on political parties, the media, non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens needed to stop.

She applauded the Government of Papua New Guinea for reaching a negotiated settlement on Bougainville. Her Government was concerned with the human rights situations in Afghanistan, the Great Lakes region, the Sudan and Iran.

VITALIE ROBU (Moldova) noted legislative changes introduced in his country to better protect human rights. In 1995 it had abolished the death penalty. It had created the National Committee for Human Rights Education, as part of its observation of the Decade lasting from 1995 to 2004. It had established a Centre for Human Rights that reported directly to the Parliament. Despite those steps, the situation was no more perfect in Moldova than in any other country.

There were challenges in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, and there were also problems in implementing the new legislation being passed to bring about improvements. For example, the Statute on the Regime of Refugees and the Statute of Internally Displaced persons would grant refugee status to people based on the spirit of humanity, hospitality and solidarity towards Moldovans seeking peace and shelter in their own country. However, separatism continued in the eastern part of the country, under the control of a secessionist regime depriving people of their right to participate, make judicial appeal or join in privatization and economic reforms. With the support of international organizations, Moldova had provided a peaceful resolution to the problem by awarding autonomy to that part of the country.

JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said the people of Rwanda had endured violations of human rights and, from their perspective, conditions had improved. Those conditions would improve even more if national efforts were understood and supported by the international community, which continued to miss opportunities to redeem itself for having failed Rwanda on many occasions.

He said the current Government of National Unity was consolidating peace and stability. It was promoting unity and reconciliation through an authorized channel for improving human rights through two bodies, the independent National Commission of Human Rights and a Commission for National Unity and Reconciliation.

He said it was a contradiction to point to those institutions as progress while at the same time expressing concern about continued human rights violations, particularly without specificity. Crowded prisons did not constitute a human rights violation. Harbouring criminals in the social security system or ignoring the pleas of victims and yielding to those of their killers were human rights violations.

Rwanda was a sovereign country, he went on, with laws and institutions taking into account recent failures. It had no lessons to be learned from by those who failed it.

CONSTANTIN RHALLIS (Greece) said that after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 25 years ago, 200,000 Greek Cypriots had been forced to abandon their homes and were still refugees in their own country. The demographic composition of the occupied part of the island had been altered by the establishment of tens of thousands of settlers. Also, ethnic cleansing had started in Cyprus long before it acquired the connotation it carried today.

“No one should be allowed to feel that a continuous display of total disrespect to human rights can be condoned simply because time, inevitably, goes on”, he said. Such an approach could only encourage other violations, by conveying the wrong message as well as by undermining the credibility of international organizations.

* *** *