DELEGATES STRESS IMPORTANCE OF RESPECT FOR ALL HUMAN RIGHTS –- ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, CIVIL, POLITICAL –- AS THIRD COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DISCUSSION

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Third Committee

47^th & 48^th Meetings (AM & PM)

DELEGATES STRESS IMPORTANCE OF RESPECT FOR ALL HUMAN RIGHTS –- ECONOMIC, SOCIAL,

CULTURAL, CIVIL, POLITICAL –- AS THIRD COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DISCUSSION

Draft Resolutions Introduced

On Human Rights along with Amendment to Draft on Family

Speakers stressed the need to respect all human rights -– civil, political, economic, social and cultural –- in order to effectively fight terrorism, achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and establish a culture of peace, as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) concluded its general discussion of alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of human rights, and specific human rights situations.

Several speakers, noting the tenth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, emphasized that human rights were inalienable, interrelated and indivisible.  Human rights must therefore be promoted and protected in every part of the world as a legitimate concern of the international community.  Furthermore, speakers said that the effective promotion and protection of human rights was a collective responsibility of governments, the United Nations, civil society and all individuals in society. 

Over the last few days, delegations condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, stressing that terrorism was a major obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights.  Today, the representative of Turkey said that the cowardly attack on two synagogues in Istanbul last Saturday was another sobering reminder in that regard.  Other speakers also stressed the need to ensure that States respected human rights as they carried out anti-terrorist strategies.  

The importance of the work of human rights defenders in protecting human rights and in holding governments accountable was also highlighted during the general discussion, with almost all delegations condemning the terrorist attack in Baghdad that killed the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, as well as his colleagues.  Those people were human rights defenders working to improve human rights, speakers said, stressing the need to strengthen national legislation for the protection of human rights defenders around the world. 

The need for international cooperation to allow the enjoyment of human rights was stressed by several speakers, including the representative of Kenya and Brazil, who expressed concern at the lack of progress on some of the critical issues in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly the operationalization of the right to development.  States needed to be enabled to meet the aspirations of their people through a favourable international economic environment.  The representative of Brazil was committed to the fight against poverty, since rights had no meaning if people were starving.

Other speakers over the last few days stressed the need for dialogue on human rights, rather than confrontation and condemnation of other countries.  Today, representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Indonesia, and Syria raised their concerns about the politicization and polarization of human rights issues, stressing the need for international cooperation in achieving the global enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The representative of Brazil said that human rights were too important to be seen as a tool of foreign policy and that double standards increased the risk of enfeebling the international system for the promotion and protection of human rights.  

Also today, an amendment to a draft resolution on the preparations for the observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004 was introduced by the representative of Benin.

The Committee heard the introduction of draft resolutions on human rights and cultural diversity by the representative of Iran, and on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity by the representative of Cuba. 

Also speaking today were representatives of Viet Nam, Cameroon, Haiti, Cuba, Malaysia, Uganda, Cyprus, San Marino, Greece, Armenia, Côte d’Ivoire, Jordan, Timor-Leste, Latvia, and Turkmenistan. 

Representatives of the European Community, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference also spoke today.

Exercising their right of reply were representatives of China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Colombia, Ethiopia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Greece, Eritrea, Republic of Korea, and Armenia.

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow, at 10 a.m., to take action on draft resolutions.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) will continue its consideration of human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights, as well as human rights situations and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

For further background information, see Press Release GA/SHC/3766 of 14 November 2003.

Statements

PHAM THI KIM ANH (Viet Nam) said the promotion of human rights had been adversely affected by terrorism, and her country shared the common determination to eliminate terrorism.  However, measures toward that end should not become the excuse for human rights abuses and must be pursued in compliance with United Nations principles, including the principles of respect for national sovereignty and independence.

She said Viet Nam had achieved progress in improving its legal framework for the enjoyment of human rights, including equality before the law for all, the right to freedom of religious choice and the right to freedom of expression.  In her country, nobody was detained for expressing his or her political or religious views.

Politicizing human rights did not serve well the cause of human rights protection, she added.  Viet Nam would not tolerate the selective approach and double standards, as well as the use of human rights as a tool to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

P.R.O. OWADE (Kenya) said that, with less than one year in power, the current Government in Kenya had ably demonstrated that, with political will, people could enjoy greater freedom –- an important prerequisite for prosperity.  Experience showed that legitimacy could only be derived from the people.  The Government and people of Kenya had embarked on a journey towards a broad consultative reform that was designed to enhance the dignity of every citizen.  The Kenya National Commission of Human Rights had been established by an Act of Parliament to provide for the better promotion and protection of human rights.  The Commission was the watchdog to oversee and report on the activities of the Government and its relationship with the people. 

Although political rights were paramount, the Government had recognized that other social and economic rights, such as the right to education, health and housing were equally basic and fundamental.  He said the most ambitious programme by the new Government related to health and aimed to provide a free medical scheme to all Kenyans that would be funded through contributions by the Government and individuals who were in a position to do so.  A healthy population was essential for productivity and growth. 

In addition, the Government of Kenya recognized that the administration of justice was the foundation for any economic, social and cultural development.  A radical reform of the judiciary had begun to eradicate corruption.  Furthermore, a comprehensive law reform was under way, relating to children’s rights, gender, and family protection. 

Regarding international cooperation, he expressed concern at the lack of progress in the work of the treaty bodies dealing with some of the critical issues in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. 

HAKAN TEKIN (Turkey) said the recent attack on two synagogues in Istanbul was a sobering reminder of how terrorism continued to hinder the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as did the death of the High Commissioner on Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello and other United Nations personnel, as a result of a terrorist attack on the United Nations compound in Baghdad.  Terrorism was, by its very nature, a violation of human rights -— the right to life, liberty and security and the right to freedom from fear, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

He said Turkey continued its reform process aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights.  A series of legal reforms had resulted in the lifting of the state of emergency in the remaining four provinces, which had improved the human rights climate in south-eastern Turkey.  An amendment to the Constitution had removed the clause banning those convicted for ideological activities from standing for election to the Parliament.  Reform packages had been adopted to widen freedom of expression and association, making it harder to disband political parties.  Institutional reforms had also been initiated to further protect human rights, and human rights education had been intensified to further enhance the implementation of reforms.

Turkey had become party to all of the six major international human rights treaties and had also recently become party to the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty.  He urged the international community to reconfirm its commitment to fully implement the provisions of the fundamental human rights instruments.

IYA TIDJANI (Cameroon) said that, at a time when the tenth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was being celebrated, it was encouraging to note that there had been some progress in the protection for human rights.  In Cameroon, the Government was party to several international human rights instruments and was in the process of implementing them nationally.  On a gloomier note, he also noted the terrible situation of human rights in many countries and regions of the world.

Poverty constituted a denial of all basic human rights, he said.  The eradication of poverty must therefore be one of the most important goals before the international community.  Social, economic and cultural rights must therefore receive equal consideration to civil and political rights.

He welcomed the strong support given by the international community to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).  He also stressed the importance of human rights education, in order to establish a culture of peace.  Children must be taught tolerance and respect for diversity, since they were the future.  On the national level, the Government of Cameroon was therefore promoting human rights at all levels of education, including within the police and the armed forces.  As a result of governmental efforts, there was a greater awareness of human rights within the country.  Cameroon’s commitment to human rights was central in promoting democracy.

JEAN C. ALEXANDRE (Haiti) said that, since the return of the High Constitutional Court, his country had strengthened its democracy and progressed in its efforts to re-establish the rule of law.  It had strengthened democratic institutions by adopting legal reforms and structures that were more sensitive to the rights of citizens.  Those efforts were accompanied by special attention not to neglect the rights of the most vulnerable groups, including women and children.  His Government was making efforts to provide quality education and had established a working group to increase public awareness through the media to strengthen its legal framework to combat trafficking in people.

Despite the positive effects of all these efforts, there were still problems in establishing the rule of law.  Efforts were under way to develop a long-term plan for civil society and State bodies to work towards the building of democracy.  He said significant social and political tensions remained, and he called on the international community to support Haiti’s efforts to realize the Millennium Development Goals.  He reiterated the aspirations of Haitians to live in dignity and peace as they looked forward to their upcoming fiftieth anniversary of independence in January 2004.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said there was a lack of political will of developed countries to engage in a substantive dialogue on human rights.  The former colonial powers were responsible for the fact that, every seven seconds, a child died from malnutrition and preventable diseases.  Their demagogy in dealing with armed conflicts was condemning the populations of developing countries to death and diseases, and prevented sustainable development.  What were their speeches devoted to?  They were attempts to present the current international order as fair and just, as opposed to unfair and anti-democratic.  In the United States, there was a systemic violation of the human rights of minorities under the pretext of anti-terrorism measures.  It was enough to look at the United States treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to know that human rights standards were being violated. 

He stressed that over three dozen suicides had been attempted by these prisoners from 42 countries, and asked why the European Union had not expressed concern about their human rights situation.  In addition, he expressed concern about the 1200 foreign citizens that had been detained for over two years, within the United States.  Mention was also made of the systematic use of the death penalty within the United States, as well as the fraudulent manner in which the current United States administration had arrived in power.  He condemned the killing by the United States and the United Kingdom of between 5000 and

7000 innocent civilians during their illegal invasion of Iraq.  It was noteworthy that Canada -– having condemned a list of human rights abuses –- had not even mentioned this violation of human rights.  Norway had also criticized other countries for their human rights situations, without mentioning the rise in anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiment in Norway itself. 

RASTAM MOHD ISA (Malaysia) said terrorism in all its forms must be condemned, and he called on the international community to strengthen efforts to combat it.  However, the fight must be carried out without prejudice to any religious or ethnic groups whose rights must be protected.  Terrorism must be addressed in a holistic manner, according to national and international law.  Perpetrators must be brought to justice, but attention must also be given to addressing the root causes of terrorism.

He said the gross violation of human rights by Israel against the Palestinian people continued to be of great concern.  The recent reports of special rapporteurs had provided more evidence of Israel’s inhumane policies and practices that violated the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories, resulting in 60 per cent of Palestinians living in acute poverty and completely dependent on food aid, with lack of access to adequate health care.  The construction of the wall would only cause health and education services to deteriorate further and aggravate economic collapse in the occupied territories.

The legacy of war in Iraq, which had resulted in violence and terrorism, was also of particular concern.  Social and domestic violence were major obstacles to reconstruction.  The war against terrorism should not be pursued at the expense of human rights and the loss of life.  The Iraqi people had already suffered enough under the former regime and deserved, more than ever, the full protection of their human rights.  His delegation called for increased dialogue within the international community to promote the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

FRANCIS K. BUTAGIRA (Uganda) said Uganda welcomed the successful establishment of the Transitional Government of National Unity, in accordance with the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the related Pretoria and Luanda Agreements, as well as the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.  He underlined the significance of the regional collective vision, efforts and commitment to the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement of 1999.  It was his hope that once the institutions of law and order were strengthened, the respect for human rights and rule of law would be enhanced.  An effective Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), especially in the eastern part of the country, could deal with the culture of impunity and ensure that a system be put in place to handle lawful exploitation of its natural resources.

He told the Committee that Uganda had completed the withdrawal of the UPDF forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 2 June 2003, in accordance with the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the Luanda Agreement of September 2002.  Uganda had also taken part in initiating the Ituri Pacification Commission.  His country was desirous of a more stable, secure and peaceful political environment necessary to spur regional economic development and attract investment to the Great Lakes region, and therefore looked forward to the Great Lakes Conference on Peace, Security and Development that would take place in July 2004, in the United Republic of Tanzania.

ANDREAS D. MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus) said violence, terrorism and ongoing conflicts had negated human rights and reproduced the vicious circle of instability, underdevelopment and inequality.  But poverty, pandemics and social injustice should not be considered less significant.  It was imperative to continue to work relentlessly to protect human rights.

He said his country, having suffered from grave violations of human rights as a result of a foreign invasion in 1974 and of the continuing occupation of one third of its territory, placed human rights among its top priorities.  His Government made great efforts to incorporate a human rights aspect into all its structures and institutions in the territory under its control to ensure equal opportunities and promotion of the rights of all its citizens.

He said, however, that the citizens residing in the occupied areas were prohibited by the occupying authorities from enjoying the benefits of his Government’s human rights policies.  The living conditions of people in the occupied area continued to deteriorate.  Children were denied access to education, and the Turkish policy of ethnic cleansing in the areas under its control had resulted in the reduction of the Greek Cypriot population from 20,000 in 1975 to 400 today.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees, expelled from their properties as a result of the Turkish invasion, were denied the right to return.  The partial lifting of restrictions last April had allowed refuges to see their houses and villages for the first time in 29 years, but continued to deny their right to their homes and properties.  He stressed that, while the protection of human rights was the primary responsibility of governments, the international community headed by the United Nations bore a major responsibility in monitoring human rights and in restoring them where violated.

ALEG IVANOU (Belarus) said he condemned human rights violations, wherever they took place.  The constitution of Belarus proclaimed the freedoms of people and the enjoyment of human rights as the main goal of the Government and society, at large.  Today, Belarus was a dynamic, developing European State.  The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report of last year stated that Belarus was now rated number 53 in the international community, he said.  Freedom of expression was guaranteed by the constitution, and the number of media publications in Belarus today stood at 1455.  News was published in several languages, including Russian, Germany, and Ukrainian.

The Government of Belarus had resolutely and expressly condemned terrorism and had ratified 11 international instruments on terrorism.  However, the Government of Belarus had expressed concern about using force in Iraq and did not agree with attempts to justify the decisions that had been taken.  Concerning trafficking of weapons, he said that the Government of Belarus had adopted a multi-tiered export control approach, which prevented such trafficking.

He said human rights must not be used as a pretext or for political interests.  The international community must ensure that human rights addressed issues such as, poverty and the increase in racism.

EROS GASPERONI (San Marino) said the observance and protection of human rights could not be disregarded in any circumstance, not even for security reasons.  If the level of protection of human rights were to be diminished because of security reasons, this would result in a victory for terrorism.  To effectively fight terrorism, the goals outlined in the Millennium Declaration had to be achieved.  Poverty contained an enormous destructive potential and constituted one of the main sources of instability and violent conflict.

He said San Marino gave special attention to the process of review of the treaty body system and welcomed proposals to enhance the work of that system.  The reporting burden for State Parties should be alleviated.  His Government would appreciate the introduction of less burdensome guidelines specifically conceived for small countries, whose administrations could count only on a small amount of resources, and which did not have the capability to face the agreed deadlines for the presentation of their reports.

MICHAEL C. DARATZIKIS (Greece) said his country was concerned about the persistent violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cyprus, after the invasion of the island and the occupation of 37 per cent of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkish military forces since 1974, despite numerous resolutions by the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights.  According to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Cyprus vs. Turkey of 2001, Turkey had violated 14 articles, including the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of thought and the right to freedom of expression.  Furthermore, out of 20,000 Greek Cypriots who opted, in 1974, to stay in their ancestral houses in the areas occupied by Turkey, less than 500 had managed to remain there.

He added that acts of violation against the island’s cultural heritage had been systematically and deliberately carried out, including the destruction of more than 500 Greek Orthodox churches, with others converted into mosques, vandalized or turned into hotels or restaurants, and the smuggling of priceless treasures and works of art.  The non-cooperative stance of the Turkish Cypriots had resulted in no progress so far towards a humanitarian solution of this tragic problem.  Unfortunately, political problems in Cyprus remained unsettled.  The accession of Cyprus to the European Union had created a favourable environment for a new effort towards achieving a viable and functional settlement on the basis of the Security Council resolutions.  Greece supported any effort deployed by the Secretary-General within his good offices services and with good faith believed that the gaps dividing the parties could be bridged. 

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN (Armenia) said his country had, for more than a decade, undertaken extensive reforms to build democracy and promote the rule of law and respect for human rights.  Major legislative and judicial reforms were under way, aimed at bringing national institutions in line with international norms. 

He said one aspect of Armenia’s foreign policy was to advocate democracy and human rights among its neighbours as a vital tool for ensuring peace and stability.  In the South Caucasus, it was not possible to overestimate the significance of respect for the rule of law, human rights and the rights of minorities, in order to prevent and overcome adversity. 

He urged continued international cooperation and concerted actions at all levels to translate political commitments into reality and reiterated Armenia’s resolve to continue its efforts to cooperate with all other relevant stakeholders in the work to promote the enjoyment of human rights by all people. 

SERGES GBA (Côte d’Ivoire) said his country had always opened its doors to those wishing to visit, irrespective of their origin.  Despite limited means, the Government provided access to health care and schools, and 40 per cent of the national budget was spent on education and health care.  The Government had also initiated a universal health package policy.  There had been a certain influx of people coming from other countries to Côte d’Ivoire, due to those positive policies.

He said the country was still experiencing unrest due to the fighting, and that there were many internally displaced persons on the move.  He thanked those countries that had assisted the internally displaced persons.  Countries experiencing conflict faced a particularly difficult situation, since they were often unable to provide for the needs of the people. 

The High Commissioner for Human Rights, in his report, had said that conflicts of the past years had shown the need to protect civilians to mitigate the impact of war.  The Government of Côte d’Ivoire agreed with the High Commissioner, particularly regarding internally displaced persons and refugees.  In conclusion, he welcomed the visit of a Special Rapporteur to investigate and study migratory movements and human rights in Côte d’Ivoire.  As a country of dialogue, Côte d’Ivoire was deeply attached to the respect for human rights by governments and the international community. 

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the protection of human rights, along with global peace, was one of the most urgent issues facing the United Nations.  High-handedness, arbitrariness, indiscriminate sanctions and military attacks on sovereign States were becoming more undisguised, and generating numerous problems in the field of human rights.

He stressed that his Government regarded the respect of State sovereignty and the guarantee of people’s right to life, as the most important objectives.  Sovereignty was the lifeline of a country and a nation, and its safeguard constituted a solid guarantee for protecting human rights.  The international community should not spare efforts in ensuring that the principle of sovereign equality was respected.

Terrorist acts by Japanese right-wing gangsters were committed under the connivance and furtherance of the Japanese Government, as a threat to the right to life of Koreans in Japan.  Those severe violations of human rights could neither be justified nor tolerated, he said.  His Government condemned all terrorist acts against Koreans in Japan and urged Japan to halt its anti-Chongryon campaign.

He called for an end to politicization, selectivity and double standards as the only way to properly resolve human rights issues through dialogue and cooperation, instead of confrontation.  As a socialist State, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had a policy to promote the human rights of its citizens and remained unchanged in the importance it attached to the cooperation with the international community to promote human rights.

MU’TAZ HYASSAT (Jordan) said his country believed that the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms was a pillar in ensuring more respect for the dignity of all human beings and promoting deeper understanding among nations.  In that context, the Government of Jordan had taken several progressive steps, including launching a national popular information campaign to anchor this concept in the public mind and to consolidate justice, equality and the rule of law. 

His delegation had taken note, with appreciation, of the report of Special Rapporteur John Dugard, on the question of the violation of human rights in the Occupied Arab territories.  While, condemning these violations, he expressed his deepest concern that no measures had been taken by the Israeli Government to end them and prevent their recurrence.  Even more alarming, was what the Special Rapporteur had flagged regarding the Israeli actions and practices, in particular the unlawful construction of the wall.

The Government of Jordan called upon the Israeli Government to fulfil its obligations with respect to Palestinian people and the occupied territories in accordance with international law, he said.  Jordan believed that bringing and end to such violations, as well as the violence in general, would help the Palestinians and Israelis in implementing their obligations in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and agreements, as well as the Road Map, and thus achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace agreement.

JOSE LUIS GUTERRES (Timor-Leste) said that, over the last year, his country had ratified the core universal instruments for the protection of civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.  It had also initiated an open-governance program aimed at the full participation of all citizens in the political process.

His Government had assumed responsibility for providing health services in 13 districts and was committed to increasing access to primary and junior high school, resulting in 95 per cent primary school enrollments.  His Government also recognized violence against women as an obstacle to development, and was working to strengthen national capacity to address gender-based violence.  Timor-Leste also attached special importance to the protection of children’s rights.

He said his Government was firmly committed to the full respect of human rights and freedoms and believed that only through their full enjoyment could development and prosperity be achieved.

ELIO CARDOSO (Brazil) said reports of atrocious abuses perpetrated against human beings had become all too common.  And yet, the international community found itself entangled in endless political wrangling that undermined more effective cooperation to stop human rights violations.  The time had come for the international community to adopt, once and for all, a victim-centred approach.  The victims of abuses, who were the most vulnerable and underprivileged members of societies, must occupy centre stage in debates and deliberations. 

He added that it was worrisome that, in the current international environment, human rights seemed to be used even more selectively than ever.  Human rights were too important to be seen as a tool of foreign policy of some States.  Double standards increased the risk of enfeebling the international system for the promotion and protection of human rights, he said.

Of particular importance to Brazil was the right to development, he said.  All countries needed to be enabled to meet the aspirations of their people through a favourable international economic environment.  He was aware that the lack of development could not be invoked as a justification to limit internationally recognized human rights, but development did facilitate the enjoyment of human rights.  Hence, States must cooperate among themselves in assuring development and in eliminating obstacles to development.  Brazil was committed to the fight against poverty, since rights had no meaning if people were starving.

AIGA LIEPINA (Latvia) said the protection and promotion of human rights had been the priority of successive Latvian Governments since the re-establishment of independence, not least because of the suffering brought by massive human rights violations during the Soviet occupation.  Through cooperation with the international organizations, as well as individual States, Latvia had established human rights legislation and institutions. 

She said proactive steps had been taken to prevent conflict and to ensure respect for the rights of the various ethnic groups in Latvia.  That had contributed to the successful development of harmonious inter-ethnic relations in Latvia’s multi-ethnic society.  The protection and promotion of the rights of minorities and their participation in public life were essential for political stability and social justice.  Minority groups played an active and effective role in the political life in Latvia. 

Latvia’s experience showed that it was possible to rebuild human rights standards and accomplish the peaceful integration of a society living with the legacy of occupation, deportations, crimes against humanity and totalitarianism, she said.

JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) said it was time to reflect on how effective the role of human rights Special Rapporteurs was in helping Member States to improve their human rights situations.  A Special Rapporteur must realize his or her noble mandate, rather than merely report the negative situations in a particular country.  He or she needed to focus on the more important subject of how to make the situation better. 

His delegation believed that human rights and fundamental freedoms would be more effectively enjoyed by all human beings worldwide, if there was a sincere spirit to do so.  He said Indonesia stood ready to cooperate in the field of human rights, as long as it was for the benefit of human beings, and as long as implementation was based on equality, and was neither politicized, nor used selectivity or discriminatory criteria. 

Indonesia had continued to strengthen the protection of fundamental human rights in the country as part of a reform process, he said.  A five-year national plan of action on human rights, developed and adopted in 1998, had been meticulously implemented.  The plan of action would soon be succeeded by a second five-year plan that would guide Indonesia until the end of 2009.  The Government, despite its limited capability and resources, had conducted, in cooperation with the national Commission on Human Rights, a consistent programme of socializing the populace on the basic principles of national and international human rights.

DOMINIC PORTER, of the European Community, told the Committee how the European Commission sought to further the European Union’s human rights and democratization goals in several key areas.  In addition to bilateral cooperation with third States, the European Union supported human rights projects with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international organizations across the globe, notably through the 100 million euros available annually under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.  The European Initiative was designed to act as an agent for change and supported innovative projects in several major fields, including the rule of law, good governance and democratization, the fight against the death penalty, action against torture, support for international justice and the fight against racism. 

An overarching concern was the need to work for the effective implementation of international human rights instruments and standards, he said.  Acting as an agent for change also meant support under the Initiative for training, awareness-raising and information campaigns on human rights issues.  Ensuring that the individuals, in whom rights were vested, knew about those rights was an essential part of making human rights a reality. 

One challenge was to ensure that the media was in a position to treat sensitive issues in an informed manner, he said.  That was the goal of several European Initiative projects, including a worldwide campaign by the Death Penalty Information Centre to put the case for abolition of the death penalty to the media, and a project to improve media coverage of ethnic and minority issues in the South Caucasus.  The European Initiative also provided support to domestic NGOs and regional organizations involved in election observation, so that local capacities were strengthened in support of democratic transitions.

DANIEL HELLE, representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the ICRC’s work on the problem of missing persons associated with armed conflict and violence had included a series of workshops and studies.  The initial phase resulted in a set of recommendations on legal and operational matters designed to help prevent disappearances, ascertain the fate of missing persons and assist their families.  An international conference of experts, held in February 2003, had provided an opportunity to share the outcome of that work and to further explore the scale, diversity and complexity of the problem. 

The upcoming twenty-eighth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including States parties to the Geneva Conventions, would provide an opportunity to trigger more effective action, he said.  Convinced that more can and must be done, the ICRC would pledge, at this conference, to strengthen its own operational practices.  It would also contribute to strengthening international and domestic law to ascertain the fate of missing persons and to sustain the right of families to know the fate of their relatives.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The Committee began its afternoon meeting with the introduction of draft resolutions.

The representative of Benin introduced amendments (document A/C.3/58/L.48) to a draft resolution on the preparations for the observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004 (document A/C.3/58/L.2).

The representative of Iran introduced a draft resolution on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/58/L.46), saying the resolution sought to address the significant dimensions of this issue, with a view to sensitizing the international community to the importance of and respect for cultural diversity in today’s globalized world.

The representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/58/L.47), noting such cooperation was based on the full respect of the economic and political realities in each country.

Statements on Human Rights

RANIA AL HAJ ALI (Syria) said that international legislation and instruments had safeguarded the upholding of economic, social and cultural rights on an equal basis with civil and political rights.  Some States ignored the need to care for the collective needs of peoples, such as the right to self-determination, independence and the right to development.  An objective and responsible approach needed to be the basis for human rights dialogue.  Given current negative international variables, laws had been enacted that violated human rights, particularly in relation to anti-terrorism measures.

The Government of Syria attached great importance to the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  In this context, she also stressed the need to rationalize the work of the United Nations to avoid duplication and selectivity and to ensure a respect for cultural diversity.  It was necessary to avoid politicization of human rights issues, since such practices would only marginalize the role of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights.  The double standards that were currently applied in international relations were one of the major obstacles to the promotion of human rights. 

All States were equal and sovereign within the United Nations, she said, highlighting the importance of transparency, impartiality and the non-use of force and coercive measures.  Giving priority to wider violations of human rights, such as occupations, was also necessary when discussing human rights. 

She welcomed the report of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories, as well as the reports of Special Rapporteurs that had highlighted the mistreatment of Muslims caused by anti-terrorism measures.  There was a need to distinguish between terrorism and the right to resist occupation, she said.

AKSOLTAN ATAEVA (Turkmenistan) said her country was a young independent State.  Since the first days of independence, the Government had carried out huge amounts of work, reforming the country’s political, economic and social structure and restoring forgotten cultural and historical values.  She believed that substantial progress had been achieved, including in the field of human rights.  The Government realized that not everything had been accomplished, but it was purposefully and consistently continuing efforts to ensure the building of a democratic State.  To her deep regret, that position had not been understood by several States that had sponsored resolutions on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan.

The Government of Turkmenistan had undertaken several concrete steps to further improve human rights work and strengthen its cooperation with international organizations, including the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  Today, the Government of Turkmenistan had implemented 11 joint projects with the OSCE, five of which were in the field of human rights.  The Government had also extended invitations to experts from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Turkmenistan and to provide technical assistance in the area of human rights, including in the preparation of national reports on the implementation of the international conventions on human rights.  

Unfortunately, the sponsors of the draft resolution on the human rights situation believed that their draft was needed to further aid in the promotion of human rights in Turkmenistan, she said.  Her Government did not share such a point of view.  If the sponsors had refrained from tabling that draft resolution, they would have given Turkmenistan an opportunity to carry out the current projects to work with experts and deepen cooperation in that field.

SHAHID HUSAIN, a representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations (OIC), said the OIC agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report that strategies to achieve and maintain peace must include international mechanisms to promote and protect human rights.  He noted that what was important was that these mechanisms not be oblivious to the social, cultural and religious values of different societies and that the values to be espoused should be common to all, and not exclusive to one or a few. 

He said the report’s text regarding the elimination of gender discrimination as a crucial strategy for the achievement of Millennium Development Goals was in agreement with Islam’s accordance of dignity to women and respect for women’s responsibility in the family and in society.

He pointed out that the OIC believed there was a fundamental difference between terrorism and the struggle for national liberation.  That was important because of the danger that foreign occupants might divert attention from their oppressive actions, on the fabricated excuse that they were engaged in confronting terrorism.  For that reason, it was imperative to propose the convening of an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations, which would define terrorism and distinguish it from genuine national liberation struggles. 

Statements in Exercise of Right of Reply

A representative of China, exercising the right of reply in response to statements made by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, said those countries had something in common.  They were all developed countries, and their subjects of criticism were always developing countries. 

She said the Chinese Government had always attached importance to human rights.  No one could deny the achievements and progress made in China in its consolidation of democracy and the rule of law.  China was interested in human rights dialogue but rejected baseless accusations filled with prejudice.  It was hoped that the representatives of the above mentioned countries would give up the notion that they were human rights judges.

The representative of Japan, exercising his right of reply to statements made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said his delegation wished to point out that the nomenclature North Korea was frequently used by many, and that there were no contentious connotations at all to its usage. 

Regarding property claims, he pointed out that, in the Pyongyang declaration, both sides had agreed they would mutually waive all their property claims.

Turning to the abduction issue, he said Japan did not recognize the abduction issue to have been resolved at all and called for the situation to be rectified from a humanitarian perspective.  His delegation urged the return to Japan of the abductees’ family members at the earliest possible date.  Regarding the demand of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the return of abductees, he said his delegation wished to point out that those abductees were Japanese citizens who were returned to North Korea against their will. 

He stressed that Japan was committed to the view that human rights must be protected regardless of ethnicity.

A representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, exercising the right of reply in response to a statement made by the United States, said that the statement had been a political provocation.  The political system in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been chosen by its people, who had suffered from the division of the country, external military pressures, sanctions and threats, as well as natural disasters.  Many of them suffered as a direct result of actions undertaken by the United States.

Reminding the Committee of what he termed atrocities and massacres carried out by the United States during the Korean War, he said that, after the war, the United States had continued to carry out human rights violations in South Korea.  He made particular reference to violence against Korean women.  It was clear that the United States did not really care about human rights issues.  The United States was the guiltiest criminal in the history of mankind.  The Government of the United States should think about what it had done in Korea and be duly punished.

Regarding the statement by Japan, he said that all countries of the United Nations deserved to be called by their proper names.  He was surprised about the Japanese attempts at misleading this august body.  It was also shocking that Japan had claimed that it would go to war with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea if the issue of the missing people was not settled.  He warned the delegate of Japan that he was straining the relationship between Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and that Japan must restore its credibility.

The representative of Colombia, exercising his right of reply to the delegate of Norway’s expression of concern regarding human rights in Colombia, said the State of Colombia had been constantly working for the better protection of human rights for all its citizens without distinction concerning class, age, race, political credo or any other distinction.  He noted that killings, massacres, acts of terrorism, attacks on people and infrastructure had all decreased significantly over the first nine months of this year.  Regarding the violence of illegal armed bands, he said the armed forces had yielded astounding results.

The deaths of trade union leaders, teachers and indigenous peoples caused by illegal armed groups were a matter of distress, and the Colombian Government was committed to working for the full enjoyment of human rights in Colombia.  Efforts were being made, and his Government appreciated the cooperation of the United Nations.  He invited the delegation of Norway to concern itself with the maintenance of the trend toward the protection of human rights in Colombia. 

A representative of Ethiopia, exercising the right of reply, said she was taking the floor to refute the usual misleading statement of the representative of Eritrea.  Ethiopia’s commitment to peace was well known, and all Eritrean prisoners of war had been released.  On the contrary, Eritrea had not signed the relevant peace accords. 

She pointed out that there were gross violations of human rights in Eritrea.  The Government’s policy of repressing any opposition was a violation of human rights.  Eritrea was the only country in Africa that did not have a national press.  One only needed to read reports of Human Right Watch and Amnesty reports to understand that the Eritrean Government had no respect for human rights or fundamental freedoms.  What kind of country forced 10 per cent of its population into the armed forces and waged war against all its neighbours? 

The representative of Turkey said that the statements made by the representative of Cyprus would be answered by the Turkish Cypriot authorities in due time and due form.

He said the statements made by the representative of Greece contained a litany of old accusations and distortions.  His delegation wished to highlight the objective realities regarding the question of Cyprus.  The Cyprus problem did not start as a result of a military takeover by Turkey but was triggered by a massacre of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots.  He pointed out that, during the period between 1964 and 1974, Turkish Cypriots were forced to live in enclaves in their own homeland.  Those facts illustrated that Turkey did not carry out the military operations in 1974 simply because it was a sunny day.

A representative of Azerbaijan, exercising the right of reply in response to the statement of the representative of Armenia, said he had taken note of the human rights reforms in Armenia.  The delegate of Armenia had spoken about its foreign policy as it related to elections.  He reiterated that the settlement of the conflict must stem not from electoral processes but from Security Council resolutions, which, whether Armenia liked it or not, expressed the will of the international community. 

The resolutions demanded the full and unconditional withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the full respect for Azerbaijani sovereignty, he said.  Under no circumstances would Azerbaijan change its position on the criteria for the solution of the conflict nor sacrifice any part of its territorial unity to the aggressor.  

The representative of Cyprus said that the Turkish representative’s statements that Turkey came to protect Turkish Cypriots from being massacred by Greek Cypriots were the same allegations that Turkey had repeated for many years.  Turkey had used this excuse of protecting Turkish Cypriots to justify crimes it committed during the invasion of 1974.

He stressed that responsibility for solving the Cyprus problem lay with the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey itself.  Apart from the realities on the ground, there were realities of international law to be observed.  The partial lifting of restrictions enabling Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots to cross and meet raised the critical question regarding from whom exactly they were protecting Turkish Cypriots.  They did not need this protection and just wanted a fair solution in accordance with international law.

A representative of Greece exercised the right of reply in response to a statement made by the representative of Turkey.  Before that, he expressed deep condolences to the delegation of Turkey for the terrorist attacks that had taken place in Istanbul over the weekend and had killed and injured many people. 

He said that the United Nations had repeatedly condemned Turkey for its illegal military occupation of Cyprus.  In addition, international courts had described Turkish practices as human rights violations.  Despite the above decisions and appeals and the continuing efforts of the Secretary-General, Turkey refused to implement the resolutions of the United Nations and the decisions of international judicial bodies.

The representative of Japan said Japan was a peaceful and peace-loving country.  His delegation wished to reiterate that the Japanese abductees had been abducted by North Korean agents, and that was a blatant violation of human rights.  He urged North Korea to return the remaining family members of the victims without delay.

The representative of Eritrea, exercising his right of reply, stressed that Ethiopia, by rejecting the Algiers peace agreement, had become a grave threat to peace.  The Security Council had said it regretted Ethiopia’s rejection of the Algiers agreement and had called on Ethiopia to observe the agreement.  Ethiopia wished to make a distinction between the Border Commission decision and the Algiers agreement, but demarcation was fundamental to the resolution of the peace process.

He noted the Secretary-General had said that the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) personnel had lodged a strong complaint against Ethiopian militia for pointing weapons within the temporary security zone in violation of the agreement.  Regarding land mines, UNMEE still awaited further clarification from Ethiopia on the types of mines still present.

He said the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia had been through many hardships because of war.  Both Governments had the responsibility to ensure their people’s enjoyment of the right to peace.

A representative of the Republic of Korea, exercising the right of reply in response to a statement made by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that the latter’s statement had made several references to the Korean People.  She stressed that South Korea did not share the views contained in his statement.

A representative of Armenia, exercising the right of reply in response to a statement made by the representative of Azerbaijan, said she had not questioned the legitimacy of elections in Azerbaijan.  She was disappointed that the representative of Azerbaijan had been defensive, rather than thoughtful and cooperative in spirit.  With regard to the constantly repeated United Nations resolution provisions by the representative of Azerbaijan, she said Armenia’s position was well known.

The representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right of reply to statements made by Armenia, said his Government believed that the resolution of the conflict did not depend on the electoral processes taking place in his country.  It was not up to Armenia to outdate resolutions of the Security Council, which were still in effect, and his delegation would repeat that until Armenia respected these resolutions. 

A representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, exercising the right of reply in a response to a statement made by the representative of the Republic of Korea, said he was shocked by the statement made by the latter.  He had wanted to reiterate that Korea was one nation.  The cases and allegations raised by him about the practices of the United States during the war were true, and he believed that the world knew that.  The South Koreans were also Koreans, but they really were the puppets of the United States.

The representative of Armenia said the representative of Azerbaijan had applied the Security Council resolution selectively and in a self-serving manner.  Armenia had done what the Security Council resolution had called on it to do.  Azerbaijan had acted in violation of resolution by refusing to engage in negotiations with representatives of Nagorno Karbakh.

A representative of the Republic of Korea, exercising the right of reply in a response to a statement made by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said it was presumptuous that he believed that he was speaking for the entire Korean peninsula, particularly since his opinions were not shared by South Korea.  She reiterated that her delegation did not agree with the allegations made by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea responded by saying that these were human rights violations of concern to all and that such concern would help the discussions in the region.

* *** *