UNITED NATIONS INQUIRY INTO POSSIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN EAST TIMOR SOUGHT BY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

Press Release
ECOSOC/5879

UNITED NATIONS INQUIRY INTO POSSIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN EAST TIMOR SOUGHT BY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

Panel to Review Situation Since January 1999 Decision on Popular Vote; Indonesia, Opposing, Says National Fact-Finding Mission Already Under Way

The Economic and Social Council endorsed the call for the Secretary-General to establish an international commission of inquiry to gather information on possible human rights violations in East Timor since the January 1999 decision to hold a popular vote there, by the terms of one of two draft decisions approved this morning.

The Council took that action by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 10 against (China, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Viet Nam), with 11 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see annex.)

By further terms of the decision, the Council endorsed the call to provide the Secretary-General with the conclusions of the inquiry commission, with a view to enabling him to make recommendations on future actions, and to make the report available to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights at its next session.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Indonesia recalled his country’s rejection of the draft decision when it was adopted in September at the Fourth Special Session of the Human Rights Commission. That session had been convened under “highly controversial” circumstances and only because “the rules had been bent”, he said. His country had upheld its commitment of 5 May and had honoured the result of the ballot, he said. A national fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations in East Timor had begun.

On the other draft decision, taken without a vote, the Council decided, as in interim measure, to invite those non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that were accredited to the World Summit for Social Development to attend the thirty-eighth session of the Commission for Social Development.

In other action, the Council elected Hungary to the Executive Board of the World Food Programme (WFP) for a two-year term beginning on 1 January 2000.

Economic and Social Council - 1a - Press Release ECOSOC/5879 50th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1999

At the start of the meeting, Council members observed a minute of silence in memory of the 24 people who died in the World Food Programme plane that crashed in Kosovo on Friday, 12 November.

Also today, the Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, Patrizio Civili, reported on the work of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC). He said it had had a productive session; in particular, the launch of the ACC web site would facilitate dissemination of inter-agency information and provide delegations with access to up-to-date information on the ACC.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Bangladesh, Malaysia, India, Portugal, Canada, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Japan, India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba and Venezuela.

The Vice-President of the Council, Percy Metsing Mongoaela (Lesotho), also spoke.

The Council will meet again at 10:30 a.m. on 9 December to conclude its work for its resumed 1999 substantive session.

Council Work Programme

The Economic and Social Council met this morning, in a resumed substantive session, to consider two draft decisions: on the situation of human rights in East Timor; and participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Commission for Social Development at its thirty-eighth session.

The Council was also expected to hear a briefing by Patrizio Civili, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, on the work of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC).

Also today, the Council was expected to elect one member of the Executive Board of the World Food Programme.

Draft decisions before the Council

According to the draft decision on the human rights situation in East Timor (document E/1999/23/Add.1.) the Council would endorse the call of the Human Rights Commission for the Secretary-General to establish an international commission of inquiry, with adequate representation of Asian experts, in order, in cooperation with the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights and thematic rapporteurs, systematically to gather and compile information on possible human rights violations and acts which might constitute breaches of international humanitarian law committed in East Timor since the decision in January 1999 that a popular vote be held.

The Council would also endorse the call for the Secretary-General to be provided with the conclusions, with a view to enabling him to make recommendations on future actions. It would also endorse having the report of the commission of inquiry made available to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-sixth session.

By a related provision in the text, the Economic and Social Council would take note of the decision of the Human Rights Commission to request that the Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteurs on the question of torture and on violence against women, its causes and consequences, as well as the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, should all carry out missions to East Timor and report on their findings to the Human Rights Commission at its fifty-sixth session, and on an interim basis, to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.

The Council would also request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a comprehensive programme of technical cooperation in the field of human rights, in cooperation with other United Nations activities, focusing especially on capacity-building and reconciliation with a view to a durable solution to the problems in East Timor.

The draft decision on the participation of non-governmental organizations accredited to the World Summit for Social Development (document E/1999/L.60) would have the Council decide, as an interim measure, to invite those non-governmental organizations that were accredited to the World Summit for Social Development to attend the thirty-eighth session of the Commission for Social Development, provided that they had started the process of applying for consultative status in accordance with Council decision 1996/315 of 14 November 1996. The President, FRANCESCO PAOLO FULCI (Italy) expressed heartfelt condolences for those lost in the flight which went down over Kosovo. They had died, he said, on a mission of peace and reconstruction to one of the most troubled areas of the world. Over the years, he observed, more than 50 members of the World Food Organization had lost their lives in the course of their duty. The Council observed a minute of silence for the 24 victims of the latest tragedy.

PATRIZIO CIVILI, Assistant-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, briefed the Council on the work of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC). He said an ACC web-site had recently been inaugurated, which was intended not only as an instrument for sharing and disseminating inter-agency information among the secretariat of the system, but also as an instrument for interested delegations to access and obtain up-to-date information on developments in the work of the Committee and its subsidiary machinery.

He said the recent session of the ACC had been productive, reflecting a good balance between addressing and sharing views on current developments and ensuring the necessary degree of continuity in thematic discussions. The main element of continuity was on the institutional and programmatic capacity of the system to respond flexibly and effectively to the challenges of the next century.

He said the ACC had sought to elaborate the shared values that defined the common identity of the system, and to identify the main gaps confronting that system. Key challenges in closing those gaps revolved around several main points: the system’s own contribution to effective international governance; the contribution that the system could make to bringing the benefits of globalization to people and countries left out, and the basic capacity of the system to promote and strengthen the rule of law globally. Discussion had focused a great deal of attention to a critical assessment of both the strengths and main weaknesses of the United Nations system in relation to these challenges, he said. Broad areas for common action were identified that were pursued in subsequent consultations, including the need to set clear goals and to work towards them collectively, with clear benchmarks to measure the results. The commitments made and targets set at recent global conferences needed to be brought together to provide a common agenda for the future work of the system.

He said much attention had been devoted to reviewing initiatives under way within the system -- from the “Roll Back Malaria” initiative of the World Health Organization to the “Elimination of Urban Slums” initiative of the World Bank -- and to how they could best be reinforced by the system as a whole. The ACC members strongly reiterated that poverty-eradication should continue to be the overarching goal.

He said the Committee recognized that the process of promoting coalitions involving a broad range of actors, far from placing the United Nations system in a marginal role, could and should mean a key role for the United Nations system in identifying public policy issues that required a global commitment. In further discussions related to the follow-up to the Beijing Platform of Action, he said, the ACC also concluded that gender concerns were still far from being adequately addressed in macro-economic policy, and agreed that the gender dimensions of globalization were a key area for further study. The challenge was to explore and identify policy interventions that would ensure the most positive outcomes for women from the process of globalization and to minimize its risks.

Underlying much of the policy discussion in the ACC on the state of co- ordination within the system, he continued, was a strong sense that the reforms that both the Committee and the Economic and Social Council had been launching should reinforce each other in enhancing the capacity of the system to meet the challenges. The ACC had launched a future review of its own methods of work that would be pursued next spring. The interactions between the ACC and the Council were one of the main themes of a Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report that would shortly be before the Council, prior to its consideration by the General Assembly. He hoped the report would provide a further opportunity to address ways to further strengthen the dialogue between the ACC and the Economic and Social Council, which was a key to the effort of strengthening the overall effectiveness of the system.

ANWARUL CHOWDHURY, (Bangladesh) asked Mr. Civili to elaborate on the ways the reforms undertaken by the Economic and Social Council had impacted on the work on the Administrative Committee on Coordination, and also to elaborate on what exact steps the Committee was taking with regard to the International Year for Culture of Peace.

Mr. Civili said the Council would have the opportunity to pursue issues referred to in the Joint Inspection Unit report on the functioning of the ACC, which focused on the interaction between the ACC and Economic and Social Council. The report highlighted how the reforms of the Council and the Committee had been proceeding, mutually reinforcing and creating an atmosphere of mutual confidence. He added that the summary and conclusions of the ACC meeting contained a proposal that the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) should define the main expected results regarding the declaration on Culture of Peace.

The Chairman said he believed it was time to initiate a review of the compensation offered to family members of United Nations staff members killed in the line of duty. He said that all too often those family members were left without any care whatsoever.

The representative of Bangladesh pointed out that the process for compensation was very slow, and that only 29 States had ratified the convention on the safety of United Nations personnel. United Nations personnel throughout the world delivered the action on resolutions taken at Headquarters, and he wished all the Council members would remind their respective governments to come back quickly and ratify that document.

PERCY MANGOAELA,(Lesotho) reported on the results of informal consultations to find a consensus behind a draft decision of the Commission on Human Rights at its Special Session on the situation of human rights in East Timor. He said two informal meetings had been held to attempt to rally support for a draft calling for an international commission of inquiry to gather information on human rights violations in East Timor, including torture and violence against women and involuntary and forced disappearances. The consultations had been unable to form consensus, however, and he had no choice but to put the matter back to Council.

The Chairman agreed that in view of a lack of consensus, they would proceed to a vote by show of hands, unless there was a request for a roll call made.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) requested a roll-call vote on the draft decision.

Statements:

MOHAMED KAMAL YAN YAHAYA (Malaysia) said that in order to perform its important duties, the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights needed to maintain its credibility by following established rules and procedures. He regrets that the Commission’s Special Session had been convened against the wishes of his country and others. Even though the session had been requested by a Member State, this request arose from the Office of the High Commissioner itself, which showed a lack of impartiality.

He said procedures taken diverted from the existing rules regarding the manner in which the Office determined consensus. This did not reflect well on the integrity of the Office. Diversion from its own procedures could only erode trust. Was it even appropriate for a special session to be convened when the same matter was being taken up by General Assembly and actively considered by the Security Council?

He said he was concerned and disappointed by the lack of objectivity and transparency in the handling of the fourth Special Session last September. Such actions should not be condoned or accepted in the future, and he supported the proposal that the draft be rejected, on ground that it was the result of an improper process contrary to the rules of procedure.

ANTONIO MONTEIRO (Portugal) said he had not intended to speak before the vote, but he could not be silent after the intervention by the Malaysian representative, with which he had totally disagreed. Given the hoped-for consensus on the issue, his delegation had been willing to give time to the Indonesian delegation to adapt to the changed situation in the country, in order that it might accept and collaborate with human rights investigations in East Timor. Unfortunately, it had not been possible to reach a consensus.

Concerning the legitimacy and credibility of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, he said the reputation of that office was well-established, and it was one of the bodies of which he was very proud. He entirely disagreed that there was a lack of impartiality; the High Commissioner was doing a very important job, for which everyone should be very grateful. The Economic and Social Council, more than any other body, should support the Commissioner’s work.

He said the Special Session had been convened because of the existence of gross human rights violations. In the global information world, everyone knew what was happening in East Timor. The Special Session was therefore appropriately convened. The United Nations as a whole, and not just the Human Rights Commission, must defend human security.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said he also had not intended to intervene, but had felt compelled to respond to the comments made by the Malaysian representative. The High Commissioner had a crucial and broad mandate to promote and protect internationally-recognized human rights and work against any violations. The Office and the Commissioner herself had been fully consistent and in keeping with their mandate. The respect of his delegation for the integrity of that Office had compelled him to make that point, and had compelled members of the Council, as the corporate body, to refrain from calling into question the objectivity or impartiality of that Office or of any other in the Secretariat.

ANTTI RYTOVUORI (Finland) on behalf of the European Union, said that like the previous two speakers, he also had not intended to intervene, but would reiterate the Union’s view on the mandate of the High Commissioner, which was similar to the one just expressed by the representative of Canada. In accordance with the principle of the universality of human rights, assessing the situation in individual countries was part of the work of the United Nations, and the Commissioner was an appropriate forum in which to do so.

Action on Draft Decision

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Mr. Wibisono (Indonesia) reiterated his country’s rejection of the draft decision when it was adopted at the Fourth Special Session of the Human Rights Commission. That session had been “highly controversial”, he said, in terms of its legality and the procedural matters in which a decision had been reached to convene it. It was the first time that such a session was held without any support from the countries of the region concerned. As the issue was already being taken up by two main United Nations organs –- the Security Council and the Secretary-General -- the validity of the session had been widely questioned. The issue was also on the agenda of the General Assembly.

He said that during the four-day voting period for the convening of the Special Session, the required simple majority had not been achieved. On that point, the Rule of Procedure was clear: only written responses received by a certain date could be counted. Yet, the Office of the High Commissioner had initiated a second round of voting to determine whether written responses received after the deadline could be counted. The States members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Group had maintained the view that the required majority to convene the session had not been achieved, and thus its convening was not in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Further, the High Commissioner had also initiated the Fourth Special Session by campaigning for it and lobbying Member States, he said. That partiality had clearly violated the United Nations Charter. In addition, the High Commissioner had requested the expedient convening of the Special Session, even though the Commission’s report and the document containing the programme budget implications had not been made available. Also, in the High Commissioner’s “zeal”, she had requested the Economic and Social Council Bureau to authorize an international commission of inquiry to start early functioning. Only the Council, however, had the authority to take such a decision, and not the bureau.

He said the Human Rights Commission had drawn its credibility from the strength of its moral position; at all times, the Rules of Procedure must be followed. The convening of the Special Session, held only because “the rules had been bent”, had damaged the spirit of trust and confidence so essential for the effective functioning of the Office of High Commissioner. The concern of the Asian States regarding lack of objectivity, transparency and impartiality in handling the process for the Special Session must be placed on record. He cautioned against further error.

He said his country had upheld its commitment of 5 May 1999 and had honoured the result of the ballot. It had taken the requested measures to sever the links with East Timor and transfer authority of the territory to the United Nations. It had proceeded with a national fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations. That mission had begun its work and would make known its findings and hold accountable those responsible for such abuses. His Government had demonstrated its full cooperation by participating in those decisions.

The Indonesian Government, he said, had objected to the Special Session because it had been convened under a “legally defective” process, which could prejudice the work of the Commission. Should the Council wish to play a constructive human rights role concerning the situation in East Timor, the issue should be considered in the light of the current situation. Both East Timor and Indonesia were ready to move forward in that regard. Hopefully, the Council would express its displeasure with the “flagrant” violation of the rules and procedures, which could set a bad precedent for the future work of the Commission.

KUNIO UMEDA (Japan) also drew attention to what he called the “serious irregularities” in the decision-making process leading to the convening of the Special Session. He said he had understood that the High Commissioner herself had already stated in Geneva that she had learned a very important lesson on procedure. He hoped her Office would consult closely with Member States based on the lessons learned.

Turning to the substance of the decision, he said that the common goal was to clarify the whole picture of human rights violations in East Timor and bring those perpetrators to justice. In order to achieve that common goal, the cooperation of the Indonesian Government was very important, as decided in the draft decision itself. Of deep concern was the possibility that the investigation of the international commission of inquiry might be incomplete and incomprehensive if it was conducted without an established cooperative relationship with the Indonesian Government, which had been determined to deal with the human rights situation seriously.

In East Timor and Indonesia, he went on, a new, dramatic history had been developing. The international community should try to evaluate calmly the efforts being made by the Indonesian Government in the area of human rights. In that respect, there was a lack of trust and a spirit of cooperation among Member States. From that point of view, his delegation would abstain in the vote on the draft decision. Hopefully, the Office of the High Commissioner and the new Indonesian Government would make further efforts to establish a cooperative relationship, in order to achieve the common goal.

SATYABRATA PAL (India) said he would vote against the draft due to grave procedural irregularities by the Secretariat. The special session had been convened through “skull-duggeary,” and thus its decisions could not be entertained. He respected the integrity of the Secretariat, but it needed to abide by the standards set for it, and it was the duty of Member States to point out lapses.

Furthermore, the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation into actions which constituted breaches of international humanitarian law. What happened in East Timor after the referendum did not fall into the category of breaches in international humanitarian law, and thus the mandate was flawed. That mandate also called on Indonesia to conduct an inquiry, which was already under way. Requesting a second inquiry was a waste of time and money, and for these reasons, he would vote against the draft text.

WENZHE YU (China) said that according to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the convening of the special session was problematic both from a procedural as well as a legal point of view, and he would therefore vote against its recommendations.

The Council adopted the draft decision by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 10 against (Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russian Federation, Viet Nam, China) with 11 abstentions.

The representative of Viet Nam said he had seriously considered the matter, but was not in a position to support the draft based upon the recognition of efforts of Indonesia to investigate human rights in East Timor. Viet Nam desired a constructive attitude towards the creation of a durable peace in that part of the world.

The representative of Cuba said it was essential to maintain impartiality in all bodies of the United Nations and respect for the relevant procedures.

The representative of Venezuela said his country had constructively participated in the debate which led to this draft decision, and that he looked forward to a future without recriminations from the past.

The representative of Indonesia said his Government had voted "no" on the draft and was therefore not legally bound by the decision just adopted by the Council. However, his Government remained committed to fully cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanism, as well as to holding accountable those who perpetuate human rights abuses.

The representative of Portugal said the cooperation of Indonesia was essential and could open a new era in the region. He believed the decision was very good for the future of East Timor, and would allow for reconciliation to take place. Procedural issues should not come before substance, and he hoped that in the future, the Commission could work with the full cooperation of democratic Indonesia.

In other action, the Council went on to elect Hungary, which had been endorsed by the Eastern European group, to serve on the executive board of the World Food Program for a term beginning from 1 January 2000 and extending to 31 December 2002.

Mr. Mangoaela (Lesotho) then reported on the results of informal consultations on the draft submitted by Spain on the participation of non- governmental organizations (NGOs) in the thirty-eighth session of the Commission for Social Development. He said a similar decision had been adopted each year to allow NGOs to participate in the Commission’s work. Following consultations on the draft decision, he announced that consensus had been reached.

Action on Draft

Acting without a vote, the Council then adopted the draft decision on the participation of NGOs.

The attention of the Council was drawn to a letter dated 19 November from the Secretary-General to the Council President (document E/1999/121) concerning the implementation of the 19 April advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on a question relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission. The President said it had been decided to take up the issue at the next meeting of the Council, but a number of delegations had indicated that they had required more time on the matter. He would therefore propose that consideration of the issue take place at the next meeting.

A final meeting for the year was tentatively scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, 9 December, he said. The meeting would be devoted to a discussion with the “Committee of 24” on issues related to the United Nations system of assistance to dependent territories, which had asked for such meetings. Remaining issues, including the Joint Inspection Unit report on the ACC, could also be considered, as well as the meeting of International Experts on Tax Matters, the programme of the Committee for Development Planning and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the question of the Special Rapporteur, which had just been mentioned. Informal consultations on all of those issues would take place in the days preceding the meeting.

He recalled that at the beginning of 1999 he had proposed a seven-point programme for restoring the identity and authority of the Economic and Social Council. During the year, six of those points had been accomplished. A beginning –- “only a beginning” –- had been made on the seventh point, related to strengthening the Council’s role as the central coordinating body of the United Nations system, as envisaged in the United Nations Charter. Joint bureau meetings had been organized with the functional Commissions, including one by way of a video conference with Geneva, and concrete recommendations had been made for harmonizing their work.

It had been discovered that “the right hand did not know what the left hand did”, he said. Much more needed to be done to facilitate the Council’s relationship with the various Funds and Programmes, and Special Agencies, in order to devise practical ways for the Council to carry out its coordination functions. He proposed that a thorough study on coordination be undertaken by a small group of five goodwill ambassadors, who had the time. Those ambassadors, who could be designated following consultations with Council members, could report to the Council’s session in July.

Since there were no objections, the President said he had understood that the proposal had been accepted by Council members.

(Annex follows) ANNEX

Vote on commission of inquiry for East Timor

The Economic and Social Council approved the draft decision on a commission of inquiry for East Timor (document E/1999/23/Add.1) by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 10 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Against: China, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam.

Abstain: Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Djibouti, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Turkey, Venezuela.

Absent: Comoros, Gambia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Zambia.

* *** *