Sixty-first General Assembly

Third Committee

31^st Meeting (PM)

PROGRESS TOWARDS SOCIAL SUMMIT GOALS SLOW, UNEVEN, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD,

AS IT APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

Committee Hears 10 Speakers in Continuing Discussion of Human Rights Issues

The General Assembly would reaffirm the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and the corresponding Programme of Action, adopted in 1995, under the terms of a draft resolution approved today by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

Speaking as the main sponsor of the text, the representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said that progress towards achieving the goals of the World Summit for Social Development had been slow and uneven, and that there was a need to focus on accelerating the achievement of agreed targets.  The draft resolution addressed the three core priorities of the Programme of Action, which were poverty eradication, full employment and social integration.  It stressed that an enabling environment was a critical precondition for achieving equity and social development, and that international cooperation was crucial, she said.

Also, under the draft’s terms, the General Assembly would urge developed countries, in accordance with their commitments, to make concrete efforts to meet the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their GNP to least developed countries.  The Assembly would call for enhanced support for the work of the Commission for Social Development, which had the primary responsibility for follow-up to the Social Summit and the Assembly’s twenty-fourth special session on social development.

Speaking after the draft was approved without a vote, the representative of the United States said her delegation was pleased to join the consensus on the text, but wished to point out that her Government had far exceeded its pledge made at Monterrey regarding Official Development Assistance (ODA).  The United States had consistently opposed numerical aid targets for two primary reasons.  Firstly, because it believed that aid should be increased to those countries committed to governing well, it should be tied to results, not to an arbitrary formula.  Secondly, she pointed out that private economic resources dwarfed official development assistance, so the focus on such a small percentage of funds for development was ineffective.

The Committee then returned to its thematic debate on human rights questions, hearing statements from the representatives of Switzerland, Ecuador, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Niger, Colombia, Venezuela, the Republic of Korea and Cuba.

The Committee will meet next at 10 a.m. on Friday, 27 October, to continue its discussion of human rights questions.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue its general discussion of human rights questions.  (For additional background, please see Press Releases GA/SHC/3856, GA/SHC/3857, GA/SHC/3858, GA/SHC/3860 and GA/SHC/3861 of 17, 18, 19, 23 and 25 October, respectively.)

The Committee was also expected to take action on a draft resolution on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/61/L.5/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly reaffirm the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and the corresponding Programme of Action, adopted in 1995, as well as the further initiatives for social development, adopted by the Assembly at its special session in 2000, as part of the basic framework for promoting social development for all.  The Assembly would recognize that the implementation of commitments made during the first United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (1997-2006) had fallen short of expectations.  Also, under the draft’s terms, the General Assembly would call for enhanced support for the work of the Commission for Social Development, which had the primary responsibility for follow-up to the Social Summit and the Assembly’s twenty-fourth special session.

The Assembly would recognize that the broad concept of social development, affirmed by the Social Summit and the Assembly’s twenty-fourth special session, had been weakened in national and international policymaking.  While poverty-eradication was a central part of development policy, further attention should be given to other commitments agreed to at the Summit, particularly those concerning employment and social integration.  The Assembly would reaffirm that each country had the primary responsibility for its own economic and social development, while stressing that the international community should enhance its efforts to create an enabling environment for social development and poverty eradication, including through increased market access for developing countries and a comprehensive solution to the external debt problem.

Also by the draft, the Assembly would underline the responsibility of the private-sector, at the national and international levels, for the developmental, social, gender and environmental implications of its activities.  It also would emphasize the need to take concrete actions on corporate responsibility and accountability, including for the prevention and prosecution of corruption.

The Committee also was expected to take action on a draft on international cooperation against the world drug problem (document A/C.3/61/L.8/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly urge all States that had not done so to ratify the relevant international conventions on illicit drugs, as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols.  The General Assembly would urge all States to implement the outcome of the 20^th special session of the Assembly on the world drug problem, held in 1998, and to strengthen national efforts to counter the abuse of illicit drugs.  Bearing in mind that the ten-year assessment of the implementation of the goals of that special session was scheduled for 2008, the Assembly would urge States to implement comprehensive policies and programmes to achieve a significant and measurable reduction of drug abuse by that time.

Further, the Assembly would call on States to strengthen international cooperation among judicial and law enforcement authorities, in order to combat illicit drug trafficking and to share best practices, including by establishing and strengthening regional mechanisms.  The Assembly would urge all Governments to provide the fullest possible financial and political support to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime by widening its donor base and increasing voluntary contributions.

Action on text

The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, made several oral revisions to the draft resolution on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/61/L.5/Rev.1).  She also took note of two discrepancies between the document sent by the Group of 77 and the one produced by the Secretariat.  The draft resolution addressed the three core priorities of the World Summit for Social Development; poverty eradication; full employment and social integration.

Progress towards achieving the goals of the Social Summit had been slow and uneven and there was a need to focus on accelerating the achievement of agreed targets, she said.  The draft aimed also to strengthen the role of the Commission for Social Development, which had the primary responsibility for follow-up to the Summit.  It stressed that an enabling environment was a critical precondition for achieving equity and social development, and that international cooperation had a crucial role to play in achieving the desired outcomes.

The Committee then approved the draft, as orally revised, without a vote.

Speaking afterward, the representative of the United States said her delegation was pleased to join the consensus on the draft resolution, but wanted to explain its position on two key points.  Referring to a paragraph in the draft that would have the Assembly urge developed countries, that had not yet done so, to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their GNP to least developed countries, she noted that the United States had far exceeded the pledge made at Monterrey regarding Official Development Assistance (ODA).  The United States had consistently opposed numerical aid targets for two primary reasons.  Firstly, because it believed that aid should be increased to those countries committed to governing well and should be tied to results, not to an arbitrary formula.  Secondly, she pointed out that private economic resources dwarfed ODA, so the focus on such a small percentage of funds for development was ineffective.

She also referred to the paragraph welcoming innovative financing mechanisms that contributed to the mobilization of resources for social development.  As far as the United States was concerned, the sources for financing such initiatives came from the traditional sources of ODA; the taxpayers.  The main innovation seemed to be the increased lack of transparency in the transfer of those resources, she said.

Turning to the next item on the agenda, the Secretary regretted to inform the Committee that the draft resolution on international cooperation against the world drug problem (document A/C.3/61/L.8/Rev.1) was not cleared for action today, as the Secretariat had not received information regarding its potential programme budget implications.  He requested that action on the draft be deferred to a later stage.

The representative of Mexico said she was surprised by the news, as the revised draft had been submitted on time.  She asked the Secretariat to make necessary arrangements, so the draft could be adopted as soon as possible.

The representative of Cuba then raised his delegation’s concern about a number of “irregularities” with the work of the Secretariat, noting problems with documentation and with interpretation.

The Secretary took note of the comments by Cuba and Mexico and said he would endeavour to rectify the situation.

Statements

NATALIE KOHLI ( Switzerland) said that the question of the relationship between the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council, particularly the distribution of labour between them, remained unresolved.  With the Council going through a period of consolidation, it was too early to have a definitive answer.  However, there had to be an appropriate balance between the two, in order to avoid duplication and to make the system as effective and credible as possible.  The double presentation of special procedure reports before the Committee and the Council -- within a matter of some weeks -- represented a duplication of effort; other solutions should be considered.

General Assembly Resolution 60/251, she said, set out two points of contact between the Council and the Assembly: recommendations by the Council on the development of international law, and the Council’s annual report to the Assembly.  Given the current transitional phase, the compromise proposal presented by the Philippines -– which envisaged a mixed allocation between the Plenary and the Third Committee –- correctly reflected the interaction between the Council and the Assembly.  However, the Council had the autonomy to adopt certain decisions and recommendations and to take initiatives, for which Assembly approval was not required.

Country situations had to be addressed, she said.  Not to do so would be incomprehensible and dangerous.  In the framework of reforms, however, the manner in which country situations were treated should be changed.  Preference should be given to a cooperative approach, aimed at strengthening national protection systems.  The universal periodic review was not the only instrument that could be used; country situations, otherwise addressed, should involve several stages of discussion.  Initial discussions could lead to initial recommendations, and a second phase of more substantive discussions could, if necessary, lead to the drafting of specific recommendations on technical cooperation.  Special sessions would examine the totality of violations committed, without selectivity, in a balanced, law-based manner.  Establishing a system and practice that suited everybody required further reflection in a constructive spirit and with a desire to achieve real change.

Ms. MOREIRA ( Ecuador) stressed that a human rights-based approach to migration was essential.  Her delegation believed that urgent measures were needed to protect the human rights of victims of illicit human trafficking and smuggling.  She welcomed the recent high-level dialogue on migration as a unique opportunity for debate on the issue, which also recognized the positive contributions of migration.  She highlighted the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; that social and economic factors were both causes and consequences of migration.  Her delegation regretted that many countries did not recognize the demand for migrant workers and that the lack of awareness had contributed to human rights violations, especially of women and children.

She reiterated her country’s position that migration conditions in receiving countries were not consistent with the free market and the free movement of individuals.  In some cases, policies were very restrictive and led to irregular migration.  When there was a legitimate need for workers, the best results for all could be obtained by looking for legal means for their employment and guaranteeing their rights.  She noted that Ecuador was both a country of origin and destination for migrants, and that it increasingly received displaced individuals from other nations.  Her country had developed new programmes and policies to respond to the needs of migrants and relied on the continued cooperation of the international community to sustain such efforts.  She urged all States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Mr. FAKHROO ( Qatar) said the challenges that States faced vis-à-vis human rights would lead them to define responsibilities, and thus find a correct strategy.  Human rights had legal standards and norms that were binding.  A host of human rights organizations had been put into place.  Qatar supported the universality of human rights, but such a concept should not undermine the diversity of cultures.  Effective development policies at the international level were required, because development, human rights, peace and security were inter-related.

Domestically, Qatar had assigned a special place to human rights, creating a set of institutions to promote them, he said.  International initiatives had been consolidated and Qatar had participated in a number of world conferences on human rights.  The United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region had been established in Qatar, which would also host an international conference on new democracy, beginning on 6 November.  This was an example of how high Qatar held the ideas of human rights in relation to international cooperation and development.

RASHIDOVA SAYERA ( Uzbekistan) highlighted the steps that had been taken in her country to establish effective mechanisms to protect and promote the rights and freedoms of its citizens, especially judicial reform and new democratic institutions.  A feature of those reforms had been their gradual and progressive introduction, in order to address several challenges, such as the rule of law and social justice, an effective system of State organs and an independent judicial system.  Preconditions for legal reform had been set forth in the Constitution, which defined the distribution of authority.  The office of a parliamentary ombudsman had existed since 1995, with a new ombudsman law introduced in 2005.  Practical work had been done to educate the people about the law and to develop international cooperation.

A national human rights centre had been serving as a coordinating body and had in 10 years submitted periodic reports for consideration by United Nations treaty bodies, she said.  Outreach and human rights education had been an important activity of the centre, too, and last year a national association for non-governmental organizations had been set up, together with a support fund.  Such steps had helped Uzbekistan’s transition to a strong civil society.  Uzbekistan had the lowest relative prison population in the Commonwealth of Independent States and a decree to abolish capital punishment had been signed by the President.  The power to detain individuals had, meanwhile, been transferred to the courts.  Uzbekistan resolved to pursue democratic reforms in the area of human rights protection and was prepared to engage in cooperation in this area with various human rights bodies and United Nations mechanisms.

Mr. CHABAR ( Morocco) said his country was irreversibly committed to democracy, the rule of law and good governance, based on the principles of a tolerant Islam.  The Government was committed to human rights and fundamental freedoms, which were enshrined in the Constitution.  Standing at the crossroads of various civilizations, Morocco had promoted inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue.

He noted that Morocco had ratified almost all human rights treaties and was working to meet its international obligations.  It had undertaken a number of reforms, including through the establishment of laws, national institutions and mentoring bodies.  The role of civil society was being enhanced.  The area of legislative reform was a huge work in progress, he said, but important steps had been taken, including in the areas of penal reform, family law and political participation.  Morocco also had adopted a new law on torture, in line with the Convention Against Torture.  He reviewed a series of initiatives to deal with victims of torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, and other human rights violations.  Finally, he noted that Morocco had supported the creation of the new Human Rights Council and was serving on that body as a member and vice-president.

ALOU HAOUA NA-ALLAH ( Niger) said her country had made much progress in terms of human rights, thanks to a number of measures and mechanisms that had been put into place.  Since 1991, the frames of reference in Niger had been pluralistic democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance.  Reinforcing the democratic process and the rule of law had been the guiding line of all political and institutional reforms.  A dynamic civil society had taken root in the economic, social and cultural life of the country, with human rights associations having a high profile.

An independent national commission for human rights and fundamental freedoms had as its mission the promotion and protection of human rights; it could also give its opinion on human rights issues and investigate violations, she said.  On the international level, Niger had ratified most human rights instruments.  Also, a flourishing and increasingly professional private press had been diffusing objective and accessible information to the public.

CLAUDIA BLUM ( Colombia) said her delegation attached great importance to the right to development as an essential factor for the full exercise of other rights and fundamental freedoms.  Colombia had undertaken a number of social development policies and had requested that the international community strengthen cooperation on that front.  She also noted her delegation’s concern about terrorism, and supported all international efforts to fight the scourge in a coordinated way.  A third subject of interest was migration, she said, noting that Colombia had ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Turning to the work of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, who had visited Colombia last June, she expressed her delegation’s concern that his summary contained no explicit mention of the work her Government had undertaken on that complex issue.  The Government had launched a programme for displaced persons based on upholding their dignity and the restitution of their homes.  Colombia also had worked to expand access to health and education for displaced persons.  Improved security, the massive demobilization of armed illegal groups and programmes for the protection of community leaders had resulted in a progressive reduction in the annual number of new cases of displacement in Colombia since 2002, she said.  Finally, she noted that many of the recommendations included in the Representative’s report were already being implemented in Colombia.

JACQUELINE PETERSEN ( Venezuela) said her country favoured unconditional respect for the principles of universality, indivisibility, interrelation, interdependence and mutual reinforcement of human rights.  Distinguishing between political and civil rights on the one hand, and social and economic rights on the other, was a relic of the Cold War era that no longer applied.  Talking about human rights for purposes alien to their true nature would undermine understanding between nations, the Charter of the United Nations and international peace.  Venezuela rejected any attempt to attribute competence in human rights to United Nations agencies that should not handle such matters.

The United States had failed to comply with its international obligations by failing to extradite Luis Clemente Posada Carriles, a hijacking suspect, she said.  There could not be “good” terrorism and “bad terrorism”.  Constructing a border wall between the United States and Mexico was a unilateral measure that ignored international law and the value of dialogue, besides separating people.  The sovereign right of States to regulate the entry of foreigners should be carried out in the context of humanitarian law.  Venezuela, a country of migrants, rejected any measure that would penalize migratory flows.  The reappearance of walls that, in the past, defined ideological differences, also contradicted the principles of integration.  Democracy was a universal value with common characteristics, but there was no unique model for a given country or region.

KIM PIL-WOO ( Republic of Korea) said there had been significant progress this year regarding human rights, including the launch of the Human Rights Council.  However, human rights abuses and lack of fundamental freedoms in many parts of the world had been deeply disturbing.  Darfur had been a source of deep concern.  Across the Middle East, ongoing conflicts had cast a dark cloud and there had been a dramatic escalation this year in the killing of innocent civilians.  In other parts of the world, religious misunderstanding and hatred, attacks on civilians, engagement in mass murder and torture had remained urgent issues that had to be addressed without further delay.

Despite three weeks of deliberations in its second session, the Human Rights Council had taken no decision on concrete measures to address such serious situations, he said.  For that reason, that agenda item in the General Assembly on human rights questions was even more vital.  Much of the Council’s focus in its first year had, inevitably, been on institution-building.  Still, it was being looked upon to take appropriate action to help resolve an array of challenges that urgently demanded attention.  Domestically, the Republic of Korea, a founding member of the Council, had been acting upon voluntary pledges it had made when it had presented its candidature to the Council, with necessary steps being taken to withdraw reservations to United Nations human rights instruments.

ILEANA NÚÑEZ MORDOCHE ( Cuba) said that when the Human Rights Council first met, it had seemed that a new era for cooperation on human rights had arrived.  But during the last few days, in the Third Committee, high-flown statements had been heard, with forged, incomplete and manipulated information, and with long lists of allegedly troublesome countries.  To really talk about cooperation on human rights, it was necessary to change an unjust international order, in which neoliberal globalization had condemned 80 per cent of the world’s population to exclusion from the planet’s resources.  Those who demanded that human rights be monitored exclusively in developing countries were the same as those who had denied the right of development to citizens of the Third World.

The sovereign decisions of the Cuban people had been subjected to an intense campaign of aggression that had been promoted and financed by successive United States administrations, she said.  The reason for such aggressiveness had been obvious; the Cuban example was dangerous.  No instance of extrajudicial execution or missing persons in Cuba had been proven; never in a Cuban jail had a prisoner been subjected to humiliation, or brought to his knees, seized with panic, before a dog trained to kill.  Strengthening international cooperation in human rights would not be fully achieved without the pillars of universality, objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity in place.  The future work of the Human Rights Council would only make sense if double standards, politicization and blackmail were done away with.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record