SOCIAL COMMITTEE SAYS PARTIES TO SUDAN CONFLICT SHOULD STOP USE OF WEAPONS AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATION

Press Release
GA/SHC/3569

SOCIAL COMMITTEE SAYS PARTIES TO SUDAN CONFLICT SHOULD STOP USE OF WEAPONS AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATION

General Assembly also Asked To Urge Free Access For Humanitarian Agencies, End to Recruitment of Children

The General Assembly would urge all parties to the continuing conflict in the Sudan to respect and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms by a draft resolution approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), this afternoon. The resolution, also calling for an immediate end to the use of weapons, including landmines, against the civilian population, was approved by a vote of 81 in favour to 28 against, with 42 abstentions (see Annex II).

By the text, as orally revised, the Assembly would also urge all parties to the continuing conflict in the Sudan to grant safe and unhindered access to international agencies and humanitarian organizations, so that they can deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians. Those parties would be urged not to use or recruit children under the age of 18, and to fulfil their commitments concerning the protection of war-affected children. Furthermore, all parties would be urged to allow for an independent investigation of the case of four Sudanese nationals who were killed while in the custody of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement/Army after being abducted on 18 February while accompanying a humanitarian mission team from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The representatives of the Sudan, United States, Iraq, Norway, Libya, Japan, Russian Federation, Iran and Eritrea made statements.

By another action of the Committee this afternoon, the General Assembly would urge the Commission on Human Rights to take fully into account the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, including the enactment of national laws and their extraterritorial application. Also by the terms of that draft -– approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 47 against with 6 abstentions -- all States would be urged to refrain from any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with all their extraterritorial effects (see Annex I).

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3569 55th Meeting (PM) 22 November 1999

The Committee decided to postpone until later today action on a draft resolution on enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights. The representatives of Finland and South Africa made statements in connection with that draft.

The Committee will meet again at 8 o’clock tonight, when it is expected to act on further draft resolutions and to complete its work for the current session.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) meets this afternoon to consider a range of issues and draft resolutions before it -- mainly related to human rights -- and to take action on drafts. (For fuller summaries of draft resolutions, see Press Release GA/SHC/3567 of 19 November.)

The Committee has before it the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (document A/54/18), describing activities at its fifty- fourth session (1-19 March) and its fifty-fifth session (2-27 March). The addendum containing programme budget implications (document A/54/18/Add.1) is expected to be approved as part of the report.

The Committee also has before it the report of the Economic and Social Council (document A/C.3/54/L.100) containing the organization of work of the Third Committee and the draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for 2000-2001, which the Committee is expected to approve before the end of its current session.

The Committee has before it a number of draft resolutions on which action is expected. One of those concerns human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/54/L.62), by which the Assembly would call upon the international community to recognize and respect cultural diversity and uphold the principle that all peoples and nations have the right to hold, develop and preserve their cultures. Amendments (document A/C.3/54/L.101) to the resolution concern the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations, to be held in 2001, and the issue of human rights and cultural diversity, enphasizing the role of States.

A draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/54/L.71/Rev.1) would have the Assembly underline the need to analyse the consequences of globalization for the full enjoyment of all human rights, and would request the Secretary-General to submit a report on the issue.

By a draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/54/L.79), the Assembly would urge States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures that are not in accordance with international law and the Charter. It would urge the Commission on Human Rights to take fully into account the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures in its task of implementing the right to development.

A draft on enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/54/L.84) would have the Assembly call on the United Nations system and intergovernmental organizations to carry out inter-cultural dialogue as a salient part of the dialogue among civilizations and to continue consultations to enhance understanding and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By a draft text on the right to development (document A/C.3/54/L.85), the Assembly would express deep concern at the gap between the developed and developing countries remaining unacceptably wide. It would urge States to eliminate all obstacles to development at all levels by promoting and protecting all rights, and by implementing comprehensive development programmes at the national level. It would also recommend consideration of the humanitarian effects of sanctions.

By terms of a draft on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/54/L.63), the Assembly would welcome numerous improvements in the situation of human rights in that country, including the Lusaka Agreement and the appointment of a Human Rights Minister by the Democratic Republic. The Assembly would express concern at the adverse impact of continuing conflict in the eastern part of the country, as well as the excess of small arms and the persecution of human rights defenders and their organizations.

By terms of a draft on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/54/L.81), the Assembly would express concern at the impact of the current armed conflict on the situation of human rights and the civilian population, particularly women and children. It would urge all parties to the conflict to respect and protect human rights, fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law, and call upon the Government to comply with its obligations under international human rights instruments, and also to investigate the abduction of women and children taking place within the framework of the conflict in southern Sudan. An addendum to the draft would note the effects of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan by the United States on 20 August 1998.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Kosovo (document A/C.3/54/L.82), the Assembly would demand that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) comply with requests regarding missing and detained persons of Kosovo, stressing the responsibility of all parties to create a secure environment to allow refugees and displaced persons to return to Kosovo. An amendment to that draft (document A/C.3/54/L.97) would change the title of the draft to read, "The situation of human rights in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and a preambular paragraph would reaffirm commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and other States.

By a draft on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (document A/C.3/54/L.86), the Assembly would urge all States and parties to the Peace Agreement to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the International Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible of serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory since 1991.

Part I of the draft, on Bosnia and Herzegovina, would acknowledge progress but would condemn, in the strongest terms, the complicity by local governments in perpetrating violence against minority refugees and internally displaced persons returning to their homes.

By Part II of the text, on the Republic of Croatia, the Assembly would note and welcome initiatives to improve the situation of human rights, but would express deep concern that Government commitments to improve freedoms remain unfulfilled.

By Part III of the draft, on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Assembly would strongly condemn the presence of indicted war criminals in the hierarchy of the Government, and would demand that the Government hand them over to the Tribunal. It would insist that the Government support activities of the international community and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo to rebuild and facilitate a multi-ethnic society.

An amendment (document A/C.3/54/L.96) to the draft would reaffirm the territorial integrity of States in the region.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee took up the draft on “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures” (document A/C.3/54/L.79).

The representative of the United States requested a recorded vote.

The Committee approved the draft by a vote of 101 in favour to 47 against, with 6 abstentions. (For details of vote see Annex I.)

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution entitled “The situation of human rights in the Sudan” (document A/C.3/54/L.81), together with an addendum containing amendments (document A/C.3/54/L.98). The following countries were added as co-sponsors: Andorra, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia.

The representative of Finland made oral revisions to the text. Operative paragraph 3b should read: “To stop immediately the use of weapons, including landmines, against the civilian population which runs counter to principles of humanitarian law, and urges in particular the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army to stop immediately using civilian premises for military purposes.” In operative paragraph 3g, the words “travelling with” should be deleted and replaced by the following: “accompanying a humanitarian mission”. In operative paragraph 4d, after the word “end” the following should be added “and to prevent”. In operative paragraph 4k, the words “deprived of their liberties” should be deleted. In operative paragraph 6, the words “in the country” should be deleted. In operative paragraph 8 the word “examination” should be replaced by “its consideration”. Also in that paragraph, “taking into account new developments and additional elements” should be replaced with “in the light of further elements”.

The representative of the Sudan said his Government would withdraw its amendments to the draft.

The representative of the United States requested a recorded vote.

The representative of Finland, speaking for the European Union, said he deeply regretted that a recorded vote had been requested Requesting a vote undermined the hard work put into the draft, which sought to continue taking appropriate measures to counteract human right violations in that country.

The representative of the Sudan said the United States had ignored all the positive developments in his country. “This in itself confirms the underlying politically-motivated objectives, which this country is pursuing under the disguise of caring for human rights”, he said. The respect for human rights in his country did not depart from his country’s values, beliefs, cultures and religions. All of his country’s laws and legal systems had affirmed that. He said the United States had made allegations of violations of human rights in his country without a single proof to support those allegations. It had committed the gravest violation of human rights when it bombarded the El Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum. Destruction of the factory had deprived Sudanese people, in particular women, children and the elderly, of life-saving medicines.

He said the Sudan had accepted approval of the draft by consensus so that States would not have to explain their vote. No country was completely free of violations of human rights. The United States wanted the draft to include religious persecution. However, there was no such persecution in his country. It was important to understand that the Vice-President and Minister for Foreign Affairs were Christians. In the United States, the Muslim religion was the fastest growing. He wondered whether there was a single Muslim in the United States Congress or a mid-level official in the United States Administration.

He said allegations concerning restrictions on humanitarian relief flights were not true. “The United States is totally aware that the obstacles facing the flow of relief in the country are basically financial in nature, as reflected in the reports of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs”, he said. Furthermore, the United States Administration was under pressure from a non- governmental organization which stated there was slave trading in his country. Allegations of the bombardment of civilians by his Government had been refuted by its unilateral declaration of a ceasefire. Such declaration had been welcomed internationally, including by the Secretary-General and the European Union.

Since a recorded vote was being taken, he would -– for those reasons -- vote against the draft resolution. He thanked the European Union for its support in putting together the draft.

The representative of the United States said the draft was flawed. The findings by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan were not reflected in the draft. Human rights abuses such as torture and arbitrary detention continued in the Sudan. Direct reference to religious persecution was needed in the draft. Also, starvation as a tactic to war had been used by the Sudanese Government. The draft resolution was deficient and did not do justice to the victims of human rights. He would abstain.

The representative of Iraq said that because of his country’s inability to meet its financial contributions to the United Nations it had been deprived of the right to vote. However, if it had had such a right, it would have voted against the draft, since it was politically motivated and had nothing to do with human rights. The Committee approved the orally revised draft by a vote of 81 in favour to 28 against, with 42 abstentions (Annex II).

The representative of Norway said she had voted in favour of the draft resolution, but she wished it had been written more clearly to give a clearer message to the Government of the Sudan. Her Government had deep concern over the human rights situation in the Sudan and hoped the conflict there would end soon.

The representative of Libya said human cooperation on issues related to human rights required objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity. The Sudanese Government had welcomed the visits of the Special Rapporteur and other United Nations mechanisms concerned with human rights and humanitarian issues. It had respected human rights and the rule of law. The Committee had continued intervening in the internal affairs of the Sudan under the guise of “human rights”. It was not under the Third Committee’s mandate to do so.

The representative of Japan said he voted for the draft, and regretted it would not be approved by consensus. He welcomed the cooperation and commitment of the Sudan with regard to protecting human rights.

The representative of the Russian Federation, on a point of order, requested that the vote be checked on the resolution concerning unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/54/L.69). He had pushed the green button but his vote had not been recorded.

The representatives of Iran and Eritrea said they had missed the vote on the same resolution and requested that their votes in favour of the resolution be registered.

The Committee then took up the resolution on enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/54/L.84).

The representative of Finland said he was surprised that the draft resolution was being presented at this time. He had asked for clarification and had not received a response to his questions. The title of the draft was “international cooperation”. He would be happy to hold a dialogue on the issue because certain agreed-upon language had been built into the resolution since its first introduction in 1988, but this year substantial changes had been made. Since he was still willing to discuss the outstanding issues with the main sponsor, he asked for a postponement of action on the draft.

The representative of South Africa said no progress had been made in the negotiations on the draft. However, because it was important to have consensus on the resolution, he agreed to postponing action.

On behalf of the Committee, the representative of Ecuador paid tribute to the work of Kate Starr-Newell, the Committee Secretary during the session.

ANNEX I

Vote on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/54/L.79) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 47 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya. Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine.

Absent: Afghanistan, Dominica, Eritrea, Gabon, Honduras, Iran, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Sudan

The draft resolution on the situation of human right in the Sudan (document A/C.3/54/L.81) was approved by a recorded vote of 81 in favour to 28 against, with 42 abstentions.

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam.

Abstain: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, India, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.

Absent: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

* *** *