Sixty-second General Assembly

Third Committee

37^th & 38^th Meetings (AM & PM)

OUTSOURCING MILITARY FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

 

LEADS TO PRIVATIZATION OF WAR, THIRD COMMITTEE WARNED

 

Rapporteur Highlights Ongoing Resurgence in Racist, Xenophobic Incidents

Warning that outsourcing military functions to private contractors would lead to “the privatization of war”, the Chairman of the working group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, José Luís Gómez del Prado, today suggested that an optional protocol to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries be drafted to address the growing use of private security firms in conflict areas.

Mr. Prado aired his proposal before the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural), which also heard the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diêne, as it began its discussions on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and on the right of people to self-determination.  During his presentation, Mr. Diêne asserted that a speech earlier this year in Dakar by the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, had contributed to the mainstreaming of racist thinking –- a point that the representative of France rejected as “unacceptable”.

Mentioning an incident in Iraq on 16 September involving employees of a private security firm, under contract with the United States State Department, in which a number of Iraqi civilians were killed, Mr. Prado said, “the new modalities of mercenarism” pointed to a “very flourishing industry of military and private security companies” that had been absorbing “traditional” mercenaries.  Some employees who had been in Iraq told the working group how they had been armed with automatic rifles and, sometimes, anti-tank weapons, and had moved in unmarked vehicles with tinted windows.  An extremely fine line separated them from active combat, Mr. Prado said, adding that “the outsourcing of military functions (in conflict and post-conflict zones) by transnational companies was leading to the privatization of war”.  He added:  “This new phenomenon raises, to the international community, serious political, legal and human rights problems related to the use of force by non-State actors, as well as the lack of transparency and oversight with which they operate.”

In a dialogue session with delegations, Mr. Prado said that private security firms operated in a “grey area”.  They had been legally established and in the United States their industry association had a code of conduct; however, that code had not been respected on the ground.  He went on to suggest that some form of regulation, or perhaps an optional protocol to the 1989 Convention on mercenaries, be considered by States.  “There is a need for something complementary, to cover that grey area in which private security companies operate,” he said.

The representative of the United States said that, insofar as the State Department’s security contractors in Iraq were concerned, high standards had been written into their contracts.  He added that his country was conducting three different reviews into the 16 September incident.

In his statement to the Committee, and a dialogue session that followed, Mr. Diêne spoke of an ongoing resurgence in racist and xenophobic incidents.  He criticized recent remarks by the Nobel laureate James Watson about the intellectual abilities of people of African descent, saying they represented a scientific legitimization of historical stereotypes.  He then drew attention to a speech the President of France had made in Senegal’s capital Dakar on 26 July, in which he said Mr. Sarkozy had asserted that Africans had not become part of history.  That was a founding stereotype of racist constructions, he said, adding that the speech had been taken up by racist groups.  “It will not go unnoticed,” the Special Rapporteur added.

The representative of France said the Special Rapporteur’s reference to the President, as well as to DNA testing of immigrants seeking to bring their family members to reunite in France, had been “unacceptable”.  President Sarkozy had reaffirmed several times that the fight against racism and xenophobia was among his priorities, he said, adding that France would continue to welcome immigrants, as it had done in the past.

The Committee also heard from Craig Mokhiber, Officer-in-Charge of the New York office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), who introduced reports of the Secretary-General on the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination.

In addition, the Committee heard a statement from Glaudine Mtishali (South Africa), Vice Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee on the Durban Review Conference (on behalf of the Chairperson, Naat Al-Hajjali), on the work of the Committee that will meet in the first half of 2009 in that South African city to take stock of developments since the World Conference against Racism which took place there in September 2001.

The representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Dominica (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Zimbabwe (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), Saint Lucia, Sudan, Chile, Republic of Korea, China, Egypt, Libya, South Africa, Algeria, Belarus, Russian Federation, Liechtenstein, Bangladesh, Iran, Brazil, Morocco, Armenia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Moldova also spoke.

The Observer of Palestine spoke as well.

The representative of Morocco spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 8 November, to hear the introduction of a number of draft resolutions, take action on others, and to conclude its discussion on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to begin its discussion on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and the right of peoples to self-determination.

Before it was the interim report titled Combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/62/306).  It focuses on close monitoring and analysis of old as well as new manifestations of racism and xenophobia; promotion of a dual strategy -– political and legal -– to combat the problem; and furthering the link between efforts to combat the problem and the long-term building of an egalitarian, democratic and interactive multiculturalism.   In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur invites the General Assembly to draw the attention of Member States to “alarming signs” of a retreat in the struggle against the problem, given the impact of racist and xenophobic platforms among democratic political parties and a rise in racist political violence.  He also invites the Assembly to encourage international sports organizations, in particular the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), to implement and expand programmes to combat racism in sports, and to recall the urgent need to approach immigration and asylum issues -– both major sources of the current resurgence of racism and xenophobia –- in order to promote respect for human rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers.

Also before the Committee was the report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/62/375), which held its organizational session in Geneva from 27 to 31 August 2007.  It notes that the Review Conference will take place in the first half of 2009, and that participation shall be “at the highest possible level”.  The Secretary-General will be asked to nominate the High Commissioner for Human Rights as Secretary-General of the Conference.  The Preparatory Committee’s first substantive meeting will be held in Geneva from 21 April to 5 May 2008.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s report on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/62/480).  It provides an overview of activities undertaken by States, human rights mechanisms and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) from August 2006 to July 2007 on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted in 2001 by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.  In conclusion, the report notes that as combating racism requires a multifaceted approach, the adoption of legislation is an important means of pursuing this objective.  Also, increased communication will allow for a more comprehensive assessment of progress achieved.

Before the Committee, too, was the Secretary-General’s report on Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/184).  It recalls consideration given by the Human Rights Council to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  It goes on to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported to the Council on Lebanon, highlighting the importance of integrating human rights into any post-war recovery process.  It notes that the Council, on 20 June 2007, decided, without a vote, to postpone action on a draft decision on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The right to self-determination has meanwhile been addressed by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, while the former has also, in the past year, addressed several issues relating to the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples in Norway and the United States.

Lastly, the Committee had before it the Secretary-General’s note on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/301).  It transmits the report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The Working Group is mandated to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities.  The report describes their field missions to a number of countries, as well as their conclusions and recommendations drawn from those missions.

According to the report, many States have, in recent years, been taken by surprise by modern forms of mercenarism.  The trend towards outsourcing and privatizing various military functions by a number of Member States in the past 10 years has resulted in the mushrooming of private military and security companies, which often operate without regulation.  Many such companies are currently employed on the supply side in Afghanistan and Iraq.  “These private soldiers [appear] only to be accountable to the company which employs them,” the report observes with concern.  In conclusion, it recommends that the United Nations convene a high-level round table to discuss the fundamental question of the role of the State as holder of the monopoly on the use of force.

CRAIG MOKHIBER, Officer-in-Charge, New York Office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introduced two reports.  The report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/62/480), he said, focused on information received from Member States on various measures they had undertaken towards the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  An increased number of communications for stakeholders would allow for a more comprehensive assessment of progress achieved and remaining challenges to be addressed, he said.

Speaking about the report of the Secretary-General on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/184), he said it outlined developments emanating from the Human Rights Council’s consideration of the question of self-determination, especially related to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, and the report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights.  The report also contained a summary of recent concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

DOUDOU DIÈNE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, then addressed the Committee.  He cited a number of trends, including a resurgence in racist and xenophobic violence; the political normalization and democratic legitimization of racism and xenophobia; the intellectual legitimization of racism, xenophobia and intolerance; security approaches that treat immigrants, asylum-seekers, foreigners and minorities as criminals; and growing defamation of religions, including racial as well as religious hatred, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, particularly, Islamophobia.  Recent remarks by the Nobel Laureate James Watson on the intellectual inferiority of persons of African descent, and his implicit desire to establish a hierarchy between different races, had been a scientific legitimization of historical stereotypes and a major setback in promoting the rights of people of African descent.  A speech by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in Dakar on 26 July, had also been an example of the legitimization of racism; it recalled the essentialism of racist constructions of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  It was in the context of the criminalization of immigration and asylum issues that remarks by Kevin Andrews, the Australian Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, had to be seen; he had singled out Sudanese nationals as a group that had problems integrating into Australian society, and he had also announced a reduction in his country’s intake of refugees for 2007-2008.  In France, legislation to introduce DNA testing for family reunions was an example of the stigmatization of immigrants.

He recommended a number of steps that could be taken, including:  political will to reject the normalization of racism, xenophobia and intolerance; a renewed commitment to implement the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action; promoting the link between the fight against racism and xenophobia and the building of democratic, egalitarian and interactive multiculturalism; strengthened dialogue between religions and cultures, as well as within religions; and a systematic struggle against incitation to racial and religious hatred.  The Special Rapporteur then touched upon his visits to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on

16-28 September, and to the Dominican Republic on 22-29 October.  The trip to the three Baltic States had been partly motivated by how those countries, which had not previously been affected by large-scale pressures of migration, were preparing themselves for the probable arrival of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, following their entry into the European Union.  Those States faced a major challenge in striking a balance between national continuity and respect for the rights of all minorities.  In the Dominican Republic, prejudice against Haitians, those of Haitian and of African descent in general, had been the result of non-recognition of the existence of racism, particularly among the elite.  Some laws, notably those dealing with immigration, civil status and nationality, had a discriminatory effect.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said they were fully committed to the fight against racism.  It was the obligation of all States to strive for its elimination in all forms.  He expressed concern at the Special Rapporteur’s note of a resurgence of racism and murder targeting ethnic and cultural minorities, and asked for statistical data that demonstrated this negative trend.  He also asked the Special Rapporteur what urgent measures must be taken by States to combat that trend.  He also asked what the international community could do to combat the normalization of racism for political purposes.  Finally, he wanted to know what the Special Rapporteur saw as the next steps on international cooperation between his mandate and European institutions, which the Union hoped would be extremely fruitful.

The representative of Italy detailed numerous initiatives taken by the Italian Government to combat racial discrimination against its various ethnic and social minorities.  Addressing illegal immigration, he stated that the flow of foreigners entering Italy was a growing concern, and noted guidelines being elaborated by the Minister of the Interior to improve the living conditions of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers.

The representative of the Russian Federation agreed with the Special Rapporteur that it was unacceptable to use the principle of freedom of speech to legitimize racism, as that undermined one of the fundamental democratic principles and abused the right of freedom of speech.  His country shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern over the increased legitimization of racism, especially by political parties.  Racism was penetrating State policy and was being integrated into State management.  The fight against the evil of racism was far from being complete.  Furthermore, the problem was not decreasing, and one of its forms was neo-Nazism.  The mandate of the Special Rapporteur remained one of the most important mandates in the system of special procedures, he concluded.

The representative of Israel asked if the Special Rapporteur was involved in any collective projects with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and if he would consider measures which would combat racism by using school books.

The representative of the United States said the idea of freedom of religion was a founding tenet of his country.  The concept of “defamation of religion” was flawed and problematic and used to justify torture, imprisonment and abuse.  It might also have the “chilling effect” of halting public comment or dissent against political figures, and was now being promoted at the international level to promote and justify blasphemy laws.  He asked the Special Rapporteur for his thoughts on the role of States in protecting an individual’s legitimate right to express opinions on religion, and to dissent.

The representative of Chile asked the Special Rapporteur what could be done to ensure that complementarity existed between freedom of expression and religion.  

The representative of Libya , addressing the issue of constructive dialogue between civilizations instead of a clash, asked the Special Rapporteur whether establishing such dialogue, did not require setting aside and excluding the extremists from both sides.  Turning to generalization vis-à-vis judgments about religions, races or ethnicities, he asked the Special Rapporteur if such generalizations could be considered to be part of what was called extremism? Stereotyping led to generalization on religions, which was a “big mistake we do face in this world”, he said.  Citing an example, he said linking terrorism to Islam was a big error.  Finally, turning to freedom of speech, he asked if the Special Rapporteur did not agree that freedom of speech should not pose a threat or touch upon religious figures and related beliefs.

The representative of China said the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance was adopted six years ago, but had not been fully implemented.  Racism and related intolerance were still prevalent throughout the world.  Earlier in his statement, the Special Rapporteur mentioned racism in new forms, and China was worried about that.  Racism was also a source of conflict in some regions, so his delegation welcomed the efforts of the United Nations to fight racism and encourage dialogue between cultures.  He also wanted to know, what practical measures could the international community adopt to challenge these new phenomena of racial discrimination?

The representative of Mexico said that the Special Rapporteur had addressed many of her country’s critical issues, given its national cultural identity, indigenous roots, and role as a transit country for immigrants.   Mexico was concerned about the regression identified by the Special Rapporteur, and agreed with the recommendations contained in the report that issues related to migrants needed to be addressed in accordance with international standards, not just with a security-based approach.  She wanted to know how the international community could better contribute to resolving issues related to migrants.

The representative of Ecuador said that in Spain a few weeks ago, a young Ecuadorian was attacked at a subway stop in Barcelona.  That showed that racism was far from over, and she hoped the Spanish Government would take all necessary measures to make sure such acts did not go unpunished.  She asked how racism against migrants could be addressed.

The representative of Jamaica said, this year, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had led an initiative at the United Nations to commemorate the 200^th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.  That had sparked very interesting debates, including the talks on reparations.  Deep ignorance about the slave trade and its impact on people of African descent today had been seen, as had the rise of historical revisionism and attempts to dispute the characterization of the slave trade as a crime against humanity, on the pretext that this concept did not exist at the time.  How could the United Nations address that information gap? she asked.  Also, she wanted to know if the Special Rapporteur could provide a comment on the role of his office on the preparations for the Durban review.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said although the Special Rapporteur was always welcome in the Dominican Republic, the report on his country that was presented to the Third Committee was biased.  In a country where more than 80 per cent of the population was of African descent, there could be no talk of racism.  His Government had a policy of friendship and support to the brother people of Haiti, with whom they shared an island.  The Dominican Republic categorically rejected the statement that there was racism in the Dominican Republic, or that there was racial discrimination.

The representative of Cuba said the country echoed the concerns regarding regression towards xenophobia, and asked how the Special Rapporteur felt the review process should take place.

Responding to questions, Mr. DIÈNE said that Durban had been the third world conference on racism, and that since then there had been a campaign to discredit its outcome.  Of most concern was the reality that, statistically, there had been an increase in racist violence.  People had been attacked verbally and physically, and sometimes killed, because of their cultural, religious and ethnic background.  As recommended several years ago, an observatory should be set up within OHCHR to tabulate and classify such incidents; the European Union already had such an observatory in Vienna. 

He went on to say that a second problem was political and intellectual legitimization of racism.  Xenophobic political platforms had been successful at elections, with the political parties that held such platforms becoming part of coalition Governments.  That represented the mainstreaming of racism.  The Third Committee had to attach importance to Dr. Watson’s statement and to the very fact that he would have said what he did in public.  In France, a statement had been made on television to the effect that underdevelopment in Africa was the fault of Africans, and that African men should be sterilized; the person who had said that had kept his job as a major journalist on French television.  In addition, the President of France had said that Africans had not become part of history; that was a founding stereotype of racist constructions. 

All Governments had to show political will to fight racism, and currently that did not exist.  Racism was an iceberg; you fought it on one front and it reappeared on another.  The underlying roots and the cultural mentality of racism had to be addressed.  Islam had been characterised as violent, and anti-Semitism was not dead.  Freedom of expression was fundamental, but it had to be upheld in the context of international agreements that protected freedom of religion and put limits on expression.  The Special Rapporteur was working with UNESCO in the area of education, but education was not a mantra.  What had been happening in some European countries was not the outcome of education, but of ethics.

The representative of France said the Special Rapporteur had referred to his country twice in an unacceptable way.  Public statements by the highest authorities of France could be debated, of course, but it was unacceptable to say that they sought to legitimize racism.  President Sarkozy had reaffirmed several times that the fight against racism and xenophobia was among his priorities.  Regarding DNA testing, the measure did not seek to impose such tests on all family reunion candidates, but rather it would make those tests available for those lacking reliable documentation to enable them to attend family reunions.  Such testing would take place with legal guarantees.  Unlike many countries where the promotion of a multi-ethnic and multicultural society was just a fantasy, his country had welcomed successive waves of migrants from all over the world, and it would keep doing so.

The representative of Haiti said her country enjoyed excellent relations with the Dominican Republic, and had been working with that country to resolve the problem of discrimination, particularly with regard to immigrant workers.

The Special Rapporteur said that, with all due respect to a Head of State, it was vital that the representative of France understand that the speech made in Dakar had dealt a profound blow.  Something serious had happened; the speech had been taken up by all racist groups and would not go unnoticed.  Responding to the representative of Haiti, he said he had taken note of the fact that the two Governments had been cooperating.  He then recalled how his visit to the Dominican Republic had been seen as part of global conspiracy against that country, with the Senate adopting a resolution the day after his arrival to reject his visit.  The country was not racist, but racism existed in its society, as it did in the rest of the western hemisphere.  The underlying problem was the instinctive, nearly violent rejection by the elite in the Dominican Republic to the existence of racism.  Everyone knew that colour played an important role in its society.  Another example was a member of the United States Embassy in the Dominican Republic, who had been refused entry to a nightclub because he was black.  Denial of the problem lay at the heart of the problem.

The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

JOSÉ LUÍS GÓMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairperson of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, addressed the Third Committee.  The Working Group was currently in its second year, he said, and since it was composed of five members, it had geopolitical as well as gender balance.  One of the effects of it being a Working Group rather than a sole expert had been the decision to promote, more intensely, the ratification of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use and Financing of Mercenaries (1989).  As the only existing mechanism in the United Nations in charge of subjects related to mercenarism, the Working Group attempted to cover the “loophole” that there was no treaty body to promote universal adherence to the Convention, he said.

In order to fulfil its mandate, the Group had integrated a system of individual communications into its working methods, which enabled it to receive and to study allegations of human rights violations.  The Working Group had benefited from the knowledge and experiences of each of its five independent experts, who belonged to different legal and political systems.  The Group had received much attention in international and local media, he noted.

The specificity and the dimensions of the Group’s mandate touched on many characteristics of the new “human security” concept, such as the right of human beings to live in a private and public environment that was safe and healthy, and to receive protection from illegitimate acts of violence.  In contrast with other mandates, which had a perspective focused on the victims of human rights violations, the Working Group’s mandate took into account both individuals who were victims of human rights violations and the individuals violating such rights.  Explaining the dual approach of the Working Group, he said, on the one hand, it examined possible human rights violations that mercenaries or similar actors could have committed, and on the other hand, it examined the abuses and possible violations that those private security companies might commit in their search for profit.

The new modalities of mercenarism pointed at an emerging and very flourishing industry of military and private security companies that responded to a commercial logic in search of profit.  The Working Group had raised those issues with Government representatives, highlighting the fact that States had a duty to respect human rights, public security, and the rule of law and public order.  Whether they did so directly or through private security companies, a State’s responsibilities remained the same towards both victims and international law.  There was also a risk of individuals recruited to operate as security guards in armed conflict zones committing war crimes, he warned.

The visits to various countries had allowed the Working Group to study the emerging manifestations and trends among mercenaries.  Those indicated bad working conditions for the mercenaries, including working excess hours, mistreatment and isolation.  Although they had been contracted as security guards, they had received military training either in the United States, Iraq or in a third country, and ended up performing functions that had not been foreseeable in the contracts.  Some of the recruited guards who had been in Iraq informed the Group that they were heavily armed and had responded every time they were attacked by the insurgency, and had even used arms prohibited by the international laws of war.

All of that indicated that the line separating passive from active combat was extremely fine.  The contracting companies admitted to working directly for the State Department of the United States Government, which had contracted them to conduct protection activities in zones of armed conflict or post-conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq.  Once they had obtained the contract from the Government of the United States, those companies subcontracted other companies abroad that then selected and recruited ex-militaries and ex-policemen from developing countries.

Since the Working Group’s first report, it had called the Assembly’s attention to the impunity with which the military and private security companies operated, which violated human rights.  In zones of armed or post-conflict, the outsourcing of military functions and the supplying of military and security services by transnational companies would lead to the privatization of war.  The monopoly on the use of force by the State had been at the basis of national sovereignty for centuries.  The Group was concerned at the recruitment and training of thousands of citizens from all over the world, from developed and developing countries, by private security companies to perform tasks in Afghanistan, Iraq or other conflict zones.  The Working Group considered that transnational companies that used “independent contractors” or “security guards”, in situations of low intensity armed conflict or post-conflict, were the new manifestations of mercenarism in the twenty-first century.

A considerable part of the responsibility for what he outlined fell on States from which transnational companies exported military and security services.  The Working Group urged those States to regulate and control the military as well as private security companies, to not grant immunity to the personnel, and to investigate and bring to justice private security guards who had perpetrated crimes and human rights violations in Iraq or in other situations.

The representative of Panama said the country was satisfied to be hosting the next regional meeting on the issue of the use of mercenaries.

The representative of Ecuador said her Government had paid great attention to the recommendations in the Working Group’s report, and was conducting an exhaustive investigation into them.

The representative of Venezuela said a number of questions arose following the report, including the legal responsibilities of States in relation to deaths caused by private military companies in the context of armed conflicts.  Her country was particularly concerned to note the new modalities that had appeared, as such acts were not identified by States as mercenary activities.  The issue also had to be addressed from the angle of impunity, and Venezuela wanted to hear more about the definitions of “mercenary”.

The representative of the United States said that insofar as the State Department’s security contractors in Iraq were concerned, high standards and professionalism were demanded.  The Baghdad Embassy security contracts required high standards that were written into the companies’ contracts.  With regard to the incident on 16 September, the United States was conducting three different reviews.

The representative of Peru said her country was striving to find the best ways to implement the Working Group’s recommendations, especially on alignment of national legislation.  She also wanted to know why there was such a low level of ratification of the Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

The representative of the Russian Federation said it was important to discuss the role of the State in holding a monopoly on the use of force.  The trend towards privatization was a way for States to avoid responsibility for violations of human rights law.  There was a need to draw distinctions between security services and those who hired mercenaries in conflict zones, which could be difficult categories to distinguish between.

The representative of Chile said special procedures should stick closely to their mandates.  Those did not include the actions of private companies in the national sphere.  The issue of the alleged violations of the human rights of indigenous communities by security companies, employed by forestry companies, was outside the mandate.

The representative of Libya asked what was required to evaluate whether companies had violated human rights.  Could there be a code of conduct, or perhaps add an additional protocol to the Convention?  What was the Chairman’s point of view on that?

The representative of Cuba thanked the Chairman for his report and asked the Chairman if he might expand on the progress made.

The representative of Honduras said the Government was cooperating fully with the Working Group and investigating security companies.

Responding to the questions and remarks, Mr. PRADO noted that private security companies were subject to very little or no regulation, and that had been a loophole.  One of the first tasks to be taken up by the Working Group would be to see what national regulations had been put in place.  It was very difficult to be able to identify an individual as a mercenary.  Private security companies had been operating in a grey area, in a legal vacuum that enabled them to proceed in a legal manner; that was unlike the traditional old-fashioned mercenaries, who acted in a clandestine way.  Private security companies were legally regulated; they also had a code of conduct which they did not respect.

Referring to the remarks made by the representative of the United States, Mr. Prado said that the question of accountability for such companies had been raised in a report on Iraq in 2005.  OHCHR had also raised questions about the accountability of 20,000 private security guards in Iraq; the response had been that they were accountable to federal courts in the United States.  However, Paul Bremer, the Civilian Administrator in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004, had issued a decree that granted complete immunity to private security companies in Iraq.  There was one association in Washington that united the main private security companies, and it had a code of conduct; but that code was not being applied in practice.  There had also been many cases in which such independent contractors had acted in an indiscriminate manner.  The Washington Post had carried reports about their employees firing shots at any car that approached them.  There was a need for regulation, or perhaps an optional protocol.  The Working Group’s initiative was to appeal to Member States to explain to what extent they had privatized the use of violence.  General consensus was needed to come up with something that would supplement the 1989 Convention.  “There is a need for something complementary, to cover that grey area in which private security companies operate,” the Chairperson concluded.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI ( South Africa), Vice Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, then delivered a statement on behalf of Najat Al-Hajjaji, the Chairperson of that Committee.  She said in the six years since the Conference, many efforts had been made to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  But racism and discrimination continued to be a root cause of many human rights violations.  A review conference would unite the global community in a determined struggle against that social evil.  Member States would be reminded of their commitments, and new impetus would be given to the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  It would be an opportunity for all stakeholders to reflect on the reasons why, because in spite of all efforts made, all manifestations of racism had not been overcome.

She then summarized the work undertaken so far by the Preparatory Committee, which had been able to reach consensus on a number of significant issues, namely the objectives of the Review Conference, sources of funding and preparatory activities.  Outstanding progress had been made, providing a good road map in the run-up to what would be a successful Conference.  Inspiration and motivation should be drawn from the ultimate goal -– the improvement of the situation of people that had historically been among the most disempowered in society, so that the principles of equality and non-discrimination could become a reality.

JOÃO QUEIRÓS (Portugal), for the European Union and affiliated countries, said the concept that all men and women were born free and equal, in dignity and in rights, was a fundamental founding principle of the European Union.  National and regional strategies to combat racism had been implemented by member States.  Of particular note were two major pieces of legislation that addressed racial equality and employment equality.  A Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia had also been enacted, which criminalized acts of racism and xenophobia in member States of the Union and prevented impunity for crimes motivated by racist or xenophobic attitudes.  Europe was currently celebrating the Year for Equal Opportunities for All; those celebrations were contributing to heightened awareness of the legislation on non-discrimination.

Internationally, he said, it was the obligation of all States to eliminate racial and every form of discrimination.  It was extremely counterproductive to polarize and politicize the question of racism, to use it to target particular regions of the world or to try to establish a hierarchy between victims.  The full implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was fundamental to the success of the global fight against racism.  All States should ratify the Convention, since it had demonstrated its usefulness in addressing new and contemporary forms of discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. 

He said the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action of 2001 was a cornerstone of the global fight against racial discrimination.  Its follow-up and implementation, specifically the 2009 Review Conference, should maintain a broad consensus.  Previous disappointments in that regard raised doubts as to whether some of the main players in that process were really interested in including all regions of the world in the follow-up.  By focusing solely on a review of the implementation of the Durban Programme, the Review Conference would support more effective implementation and reaffirm the unity of the international community behind the strategy.

He expressed concern over the eventual elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, saying the process was moving in a direction that could reduce the level of promotion and protection of human rights by shifting from the protection of individual rights to the protection of ideas or concepts.  This was exactly the opposite of what the Human Rights Council, by its mandate, should do.  The victims of racism expected Member States to find ways to protect and promote their rights and find remedies for past violations.

RAZINA ALAM, Senator, (Pakistan) said that despite the convening of the three United Nations World Conferences against Racism and progress achieved on many fronts, much more remained to be done to eliminate racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had made some important observations, which required urgent attention.  First, he had underlined the growing trend of physical violence targeting members of ethnic, cultural and religious communities, as well as the democratic legitimization of racism by some political parties.  Second, he had pointed out the decline in political and ethical determination to combat racism.  Next, he had noted that the manifestations of racism -– identity constructs, value systems, images and perceptions -– required legal, ethical and cultural strategies to fight the root causes of xenophobia.  Finally, the Special Rapporteur had called for specific and urgent policies to fight racism in sports.

She continued, saying the upsurge in intolerance following the events of 11 September 2001 was also a worrisome phenomenon, and it mostly targeted practitioners of Islam.  Within that political climate and under the guise of fighting terrorism, religious intolerance masqueraded as freedom of expression and an assault on human rights.  The time had come for decisive action.  The Group of 77 developing countries and China welcomed the recent decision of the Human Rights Council to commence the process of implementing its standards to fit those of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it looked forward to the Assembly’s adoption of the requisite legal instruments to strengthen the Convention.  The time to declare war on racism was now -– all Member States needed to take resolute action, individually and collectively.

CRISPIN S. GREGOIRE (Dominica), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that earlier this year, they had joined the commemoration of the 200^th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade in the British empire, and had also joined with the nations of the world in Durban, South Africa, to lend their political will to the formal declaration of slavery as a crime against humanity.  The slave trade had created significant economic wealth for those countries which benefited from it.  Slavery was also replaced by colonial models of governance.  Many of the post-slavery dependency arrangements persisted today, and he repeated the call made in the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) for the ending of the “new millennium colonialism”.  CARICOM firmly believed that amends and apologies, into the realm of atonement via reparations, should be extended to achieve closure on a tragic period of history.

The trade in human beings and the abhorrent conditions of slavery had ushered in notions of racism and discrimination which still endured into the 21^st century.  A recent ludicrous assertion of the purported racial inferiority of Africans had nothing to do with any so-called genetic deficiency, but was rather the function of the rape and pillage of the resources of the continent and its people.  The symbolism of the noose, used for summary executions in North America, was especially troubling, as was the emerging legitimization of racist and xenophobic political parties, particularly in Europe.  CARICOM concurred with the Special Rapporteur that Member States should reject racist political platforms and the defamation of religion, and also took note of the recommendation to retain a careful balance between the defence of freedom of expression and respect for freedom of religion.

BONIFACE G. CHIDYAUSIKU (Zimbabwe), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and aligning himself with Pakistan’s statement on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said he was troubled by the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions that States had retreated in the struggle against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia –- particularly ahead of the 2009 Durban Review Conference.  His delegation had embraced the CARICOM initiative to commemorate the 200^th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade earlier this year.  Further, SADC States fully supported the Special Rapporteur’s observation on the futility of disputing the characterization of slavery as an egregious crime against humanity.

Most SADC States had signed and ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and had put in place legislation to comply with its provisions, he continued.  He urged others to do so, as he was concerned that Africans and Asians in the diaspora, as well as migrants and refugees, had been victims of racism in Western countries.  He welcomed initiatives to stamp out racism in sport and urged that they be enhanced, particularly ahead of the 2010 World Cup, which would be held in a SADC State.  He encouraged the Secretary-General to provide financial support to the Review Conference, pledging to fully implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

MICHELLE JOSEPH ( Saint Lucia) said that despite the continued reaffirmation by the General Assembly of the right to self-determination, the realization of that right as a fundamental human right continued to elude people living in the world’s remaining non-self-governing territories.  The adoption by the Assembly of the first and second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism to foster a genuine self-determination process had not resulted in implementation of key elements of the extensive action plans of those Decades.  An implementation plan of the self-determination mandate for those territories, endorsed by General Assembly resolution 61/130, had also not elicited the requisite follow-up from the United Nations system.  For the territories, the self-determination process had reached a stalemate, and would be achieved only by implementation of an Assembly mandate by the wider United Nations system.

She said the Special Committee on Decolonization and the Fourth Committee had a historic responsibility to carry out the mandate concerning the territories.  However, the responsibility to foster the self-determination process was not exclusive, and the entire United Nations system had a role to play.  The issue was well within the purview of the Third Committee.

The Assembly’s resolution 61/128 had supported collaboration on the issue of self-determination of the small territories with the Human Rights Committee, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  Since the reports of those bodies were official documents before the Third Committee, it would be appropriate to conduct a more in-depth examination of the issue of self-determination for those territories.

OSMAN HUSSEIN ELAMIN AHMED ( Sudan) associated his delegation with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China.  Efforts needed to be redoubled and cooperation increased to respond to racism, which had been spreading and taking on new dimensions, threatening the social fabric and generated hatred amongst peoples.  The upcoming Durban Conference was welcome.  New manifestations of racism had been seen in sports, an area where there had always been coexistence and rapprochement.  Discrimination against immigrants was another area of concern; they had been excluded from political, economic and social participation, and turned into victims.  Discrimination against Muslim communities in Western countries after 11 September 2001 also had to be rejected; Islam, which had been linked to terrorism, was a religion based on the values of tolerance that called for fraternity and friendship among people.  Such linking had to stop before there was more tension and negative behaviour.  Muslims had contributed in a positive way to life in Western countries.  In-depth dialogue among civilizations and cultures was needed, rather than the imposition of a specific order.

The Constitution in Sudan spelled out the rights and duties of its citizens without discrimination, he said.  Equal rights had been guaranteed to all, in line with international and regional treaties.  Coexistence in a harmonious society striving for development was emphasized.  Sudan’s views on the right to self-determination were completely in line with those of the African Union; however, that right could not compromise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of individual States.  Sudan called upon the international community to give more attention to what was happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where people had been living under pressure and repression.  Relevant resolutions of the United Nations had to be implemented, leading to a Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

IGNACIO LLANOS ( Chile) said racism was a universal scourge that should concern the entire international community, and that States had a responsibility to confront it.  His country had hosted a regional conference of the Americas to prepare for the Durban Conference, and had been given the opportunity to look at its society historically.  In the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in 2001, the international community had pledged to become diverse societies as a way to combat racism.

His delegation always sought consensus, since racism was a world problem and could be dealt with only through consensus.  In his country, racism was being dealt with through several initiatives, he said.  In 1990, the Government laid the institutional basis to overcome racism, which required the commitment of civil society.  The subject had been expanded with an agenda on the extension of civilian rights and respect for diversity.  Chile was seeking to put the idea of diversity into effect, to create a society where all citizens were treated equally.  The contributions of diversity were therefore welcome.

BUM-HYM BEK ( Republic of Korea) said a common approach was necessary to effectively fight racism and intolerance.  The international community had a shared responsibility to meet the expectations of the Durban review through innovative approaches and a transparent process built on consensus.  His country had focused its efforts on fully implementing the agreed principles and operational recommendations vis-à-vis the Durban review, and it would continue to do so.  Despite sustained efforts by the international community, the world was witnessing an alarming resurgence of xenophobia and racial hatred in many countries.  The continuous migratory flow from the South to the North tended to cause identity tensions among people exposed to the sudden influx of other cultures.  The Internet could be a breeding group for hatred, as evidenced by the number of racial hate sites that had increased at an alarming rate in recent years.  The international community would have to intensify monitoring efforts to cope with that phenomenon. 

Combating racism required a multifaceted approach, the adoption of relevant legislation combined with amendments to existing laws, he said.  The international community should encourage cooperation between all actors.  Some people considered religious defamation to be a form of racism.  Existing international human rights laws protected the right of individuals to freely exercise their religious or spiritual beliefs.  He called on religious leaders of all faiths to exert leadership to prevent religious defamation.  The Republic of Korea was prepared to make every national, regional and international effort to stand strong against all forms of racism.

ZHANG DAN ( China) said racism was a grave violation of human rights and one of the sources that led to discrimination, poverty and armed conflicts.  It was also a challenge confronting all members of the international community.  She called upon all parties to actively participate in the preparatory process of the Durban Review in 2009.  China also appealed to the international community to pay attention to the issue of racism, and to demonstrate their determination by taking urgent and effective measures to eliminate it.  Elimination would be a complicated process that would need not only efforts by individual States, but also cooperation among all countries, especially on providing the financial and technical assistance to developing countries to resolve problems of poverty and development.

She also appealed to the international community to implement the Charter of the United Nations and relevant principles of international law to fully protect and promote the right to national self-determination, as well as to facilitate the harmonious advancement of peace, development and human rights.  China supported the Palestinian people in their relentless struggle for the right to self-determination, and hoped the international community would play a more active role in seeking a comprehensive and fair solution to the question of Palestine and achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East as soon as possible.

MAGED A. ABDELAZZ (Egypt), concurring with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said an expansion of new forms of racism had been witnessed in the contemporary world.  Indicators that delineated a growth in extremist right wing tendencies, racism and xenophobia, as reflected in the report of the Special Rapporteur, raised serious concern, especially given that a large number of those new phenomena emerged from under the shades of established democracies.  The most alarming of those indicators was the retreat in governmental efforts to combat those social ills.  Also alarming were the platforms of political parties giving stamina to such phenomena, as well as the conflation between combating terrorism and the unjustified discrimination against individuals and groups, on an ethnic or religious basis.  Some Governments were encouraging the defamation of religions, in a clear abuse of freedom of opinion and expression.  While such freedom was necessary to enhance democratic dialogue, it should not be employed to target migrants or those belonging to certain civilizations and religions.

Facing such negative racism-related phenomena required the international community to strengthen its resolve to eliminate them.  Accordingly, the approach proposed by the Secretary-General in his report gained increasing importance.  That started with tasking the Human Rights Council with elaborating the complementary standards for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  In addition, the Secretary-General had entrusted that body to continue preparation for the upcoming Durban Review Conference in 2009, as well as rebuilding confidence between North and South.  Racist tendencies needed to be dealt with by the international community through enhanced dialogue, mutual understanding and enlightened education, within a framework of partnership and cooperation with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and civil society.  Respect for migrant rights and the encouragement of freedom of the media, matched by the reiteration of religious freedoms and cultural particularities, should be upheld.  Clear cut boundaries between freedom of expression and the infringement on the rights of others must also be recognized to avoid inflaming sentiments of racism and hatred.

ADEL G. M. ALAKHDER (Libya) endorsed the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, and affirmed that the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action were important stages in the international community’s efforts to eliminate racism.  In spite of everything, however, racism continued.  He condemned the targeting of Muslims after 11 September, where Islam and Muslims were associated with terrorists.  The media had been exploited to call for hatred against Muslims by disrespecting their religious symbols.  This was in flagrant violation of international rules which affirmed that freedom of expression should not be abused to incite hatred.  That could fuel the conflict between cultures instead of promoting dialogue.   Libya supported the General Assembly’s decision on the commemoration of the 200^th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, so the memory of the victims would remain alive.

Turning to mercenaries, he said the use of private companies was only a new form of using mercenaries.  The international community should correct that as soon as possible by encouraging States to accede to the Convention banning and criminalizing the use of such companies.  Libya had acceded to the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families to reiterate its dissatisfaction at their poor treatment, and called on the international community to implement all the United Nations resolutions and put an end to the pressure put on that group.  Finally, he expressed concern at the suffering of the Palestinian people, whose identity was stifled while the occupation continued to expand through the construction of the wall.   Libya had great hope that people would come together based on rejection of racism in all forms, so the world would be at peace.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI ( South Africa) associated her country with the statement of Pakistan, for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, and with the statement by Zambia, for the Southern African Development Community.  She expressed alarm at the emergence of racist and xenophobic platforms and said South Africa believed that States could not justify such acts by invoking the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  They were clearly in violation of international law, particularly article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  Moreover, South Africa agreed fully with the comment of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which stressed that prohibiting the dissemination of racially inciting material, propaganda or information by States was compatible with freedom of expression and opinion.

She said South Africa also believed that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action constituted a concrete basis for countries to develop their own measures to combat all of the scourges of racism.  While States had taken steps to implement the declaration, much remained to be done.  For its part, South Africa’s Parliament had enacted legislation to elaborate on the practical enjoyment of the rights entrenched in its Bill of Rights.  This legislation included the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, the Public Transformation Act, the Employment Equality Act, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, and the Labour Relations Act.  It had also made progress in the development of a National Action Plan to combat all the scourges of racism, including their contemporary manifestations.

Turning to the convening of a Review Conference of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, she emphasized that funding non-governmental organizations, and ensuring their effective participation in all the processes leading to and including the Review Conference, was critical.  All States should intensify their efforts to implement the commitments made at the world conference, and she said that only enhanced political will and a meaningful international partnership could achieve the aims of the conference.

FEDA ABDELHADY NASSER, Observer for Palestine, said 40 years had passed since Israel began its 1967 occupation of Palestinian lands.  By next year, 60 years would have elapsed since the Palestinian people were dispossessed and left homeless and oppressed.  Injustices mounted with every passing year, as the occupying Power trampled the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people in systematic, flagrant violation of the individual and collective rights accorded to all humans, including the right to self-determination, life, liberty, security of person, freedom of movement, livelihood, education, property, development and many others.  And as Israel’s military occupation had continued and become entrenched, its illegality had deepened to show that its colonial nature was undeniable.

After such a long time, she said, Israel’s systematic and constant violations made it glaringly clear that the illegal policies were being carried out with the deliberate intention of promoting expansionist aims and ensuring the de facto annexation of as much Palestinian Territory as possible.  That, in combination with the oppression of the people under occupation, was altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Territory and creating facts on the ground that not only violated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, but also constituted serious obstacles to their realizing that right.  Those included the illegal settlements aimed at creating a contiguous Jewish presence from East Jerusalem to the West bank while isolating Palestinians, as well as the illegal construction of the wall that was intrinsically linked to the settlements and was intended to advance the land grab.  Entire communities were being destroyed and displaced by the apartheid wall that separated Palestinian areas and made them into walled enclaves or Bantustans accompanied by extensive socio-economic devastation.  The International Court of Justice had concluded that construction of the wall and other actions were a severe impediment to the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and, as such, a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.

Concluding, she asked the international community to exert the necessary pressure to finally compel Israel to cease its violations of international law and respect its legal obligations.  A resolution on the matter would be submitted.

SALIMA ABDELHAK ( Algeria) said that, incontestably, progress had been made in the struggle against apartheid, racism and discrimination since the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.  Yet there had also been slippage in the fight against racism, violent forms of which had been legitimized by immigration and anti-terrorism policies.  Worse yet, new forms of discrimination had emerged, notably Islamophobia.  Freedom of the press should encourage mutual respect, not discord between communities.  The decision of the Human Rights Council to include racial discrimination on its agenda was welcome, as was the launch of the preparatory phase of the Durban Review Conference.  That conference could only be positive, as it would involve all Governments and United Nations institutions involved in the promotion of human rights.

Exercising the right to self-determination had enabled the majority of peoples represented in the United Nations, including Algeria, to free themselves from the colonial yoke, achieve independence and take their place in the international community, she said.  It was time to allow people in the last territories on the United Nations list of non-autonomous territories to exercise, without any kind of restriction, their inalienable right to self-determination, including the Saharouis and Palestinian peoples.  In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the international community had to involve itself more to achieve a just and durable solution.  The people of Western Sahara had turned to the United Nations for help in exercising their legitimate and inalienable right.  The international community must support the efforts of the Secretary-General and his personal envoy to implement Security Council resolution 1754(2007), and to promote a just and durable solution to the conflict in Western Sahara.

SERGEI RACHKOV ( Belarus) said the issue of intercultural and inter-ethnic dialogue was taking on greater significance in the United Nations.  He said his country had more than 3,000 religious associations, and also more than 120 social organizations representing 25 nationalities.  Historically, he said, Belarus had been characterized by an absence of cultural conflicts.  Favourable developments in Belarus were fostered by an active State policy, and inter-ethnic relations were governed by laws that guaranteed every citizen the right to use their native language, also in education.  The functions of monitoring the implementation of legislation and preventing manifestations of intolerance were the responsibility of the plenipotentiary on religious and national affairs.

The issue of inter-ethnic dialogue was linked with self-determination.  This was also an important issue on the global agenda.  In the view of Belarus, inter-ethnic dialogue aimed at ensuring the right to self-determination should reflect the fact that diversity stemmed from various ways of life and people’s cultural heritage.  Diversity was a value of world civilization.  The international community also had to recognize the validity of a variety of paths for development.  This was one of the most important factors of maintaining peace and stability.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV ( Russian Federation) said his country was seriously concerned by an increase in xenophobia and violent racism, as a result of globalization.  Xenophobia had been seen daily in many countries, including those that held themselves up as human rights examples.  Joint efforts by civil society, States and the international community were needed; it was unacceptable for racism and xenophobia to gain democratic legitimacy.  Those phenomena were most widespread where open propaganda had been possible, and where legal norms and law enforcement were weak.  To use freedom of expression to disseminate racist ideology was unacceptable.  It was well known what happened when racism was elevated to the level of State policy; tens of millions of lives had been lost in World War II due to such a situation.  The rise of neo-Nazism and other extremist ideologies was a matter of great concern today; all States were called upon to condemn that development.

Efforts by the United Nations to fight racism were fully supported by the Russian Federation, he said.  Considering that the situation had not improved, the Russian Federation would again be introducing a resolution for adoption by the General Assembly regarding racism and discrimination, which this year would include a reference to neo-Nazism.  All States were called upon to renounce political expediency and move forward on the issue.  The Durban Review Conference would be an opportunity to look into new phenomena of racism, xenophobia and discrimination.  Overcoming those problems would require joint efforts at all levels.  Much had to be done.

PATRICK RITTER ( Liechtenstein) said the right to self-determination, if applied in a meaningful and innovative way, had the potential to promote and protect human rights, as well as to prevent conflict.  Innovative approaches were based on the fact that the exercise of the right to self-determination was not equated with attaining independence.  Viewed more broadly as entailing various forms of self-administration and self-governance, the right to self-determination could offer new perspectives on peaceful coexistence.  The application of that right should not be restricted to the context of decolonization or the situation of people under foreign occupation, and should apply to all peoples.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contained a number of provisions on the issue of self-determination that marked an important new step in the way the United Nations was dealing with the concept.  That Declaration also offered a promising new approach that showed the right to self-determination could be applied to address the desire of many peoples to express their distinctiveness, and to create an environment conducive to their enjoyment of human rights without resorting to violence and posing a threat to territorial integrity.  Based on a modern interpretation of the right to self-determination, due attention must be paid to specific circumstances regarding its implementation, he said.  The fact that different solutions were considered suitable for different peoples and specific situations should not be considered a weakness.  Instead, it was a strength that reflected the broader concept of the right to self-determination, since it allowed for tailored and more promising approaches.

TAREQ MD. ARIFUL ISLAM ( Bangladesh) said he was deeply concerned with the regression in the struggle against racism and related issues.  The growing political acceptance and democratic legitimization of racism and xenophobia through their use via political, intellectual and media platforms; the increase of racism in national elites; the resurgence of racist violence; and a rise in historical revisionism were all trends which contributed to the regression of that struggle.  Furthermore, the ideological divide being created by things such as identity crises and religious defamation must be arrested.  States had the responsibility to weed out hatred and intolerance and to protect citizens, particularly minorities and vulnerable sectors.  Hatred could be overcome through proper education, which would inculcate a “culture of peace”.  Domestic laws compatible with relevant international instruments, national institutions through the creation of legal safeguards, civil society, media awareness, and the international community should all make concerted efforts to fight racism. 

With a Constitution that expressly prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, caste, creed, gender and place of birth and provided affirmative action to particularly disadvantaged groups, Bangladesh had rejected and denounced racism and racist practices.  He also noted that his country was a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  In that regard, he strongly advocated the importance of inter-religious and intercultural dialogue to promote reciprocal understanding among various religions, beliefs and cultures.  Noting that it was unfortunate that immigrants and asylum-seekers often faced severe discrimination, he urged the international community to protect the rights of migrant workers.  He also urged a renewed commitment to the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, while welcoming the initiative of the Human Rights Council to study and find ways to bridge gaps in existing international instruments to combat racism. 

Mr. NIKOOKARF ( Iran) said the “indisputable” right of Palestinian people to self-determination had been “denied and obstructed” for nearly 60 years by the occupying Power.  The resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council at its third special session had expressed concern at the gross and systematic violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people and had called for urgent international action to end those violations.  In its first special session on 6 July, the Council approved a resolution expressing grave concern at the breaches by Israel of international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

According to the report of the Special Rapporteur, in the past year, Israel had violated important norms of international humanitarian and human rights law by carrying out military action against civilian targets and creating a humanitarian crisis by closing Gaza’s external borders.  Moreover, the construction of the wall moved ahead, and settlements continued to expand.  Military incursions continued unabated, and house demolitions were a “feature of life” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Israeli denial of the right to self-determination, its refusal to withdraw from Palestinian territories, and the continuation of settlements was a “manifested mockery”.  The fact that the Palestinian Territory had been systematically occupied by the Israeli regime obligated this regime to return ancestral lands to the people of Palestine.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI ( South Africa) noted that the principle of self-determination had been enshrined in the United Nations Charter, as well as in several other important conventions and covenants.  South Africa therefore found it most unfortunate that the international community still had to grapple with the subject of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.  The continued occupation of Palestinian Territory by Israel was therefore viewed with deep concern.  The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory catalogued a “litany” of violations visited upon Palestinian people, the root cause of which was their wish to exercise their right to self-determination in an independent and sovereign State.

The deteriorating humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian Territory, particularly in Gaza, was a concern, as was the illegal imprisonment and arbitrary detention of Palestinians.  Another worrying issue was the fact that the Quartet had taken a “selective approach” to negotiations.  Her country believed that the United Nations, as a member of the Quartet, should begin to articulate and represent the will of the majority of the international community, and play a more effective role in ensuring the self-determination of the Palestinian people.  Only a political solution, through a negotiated settlement, could guarantee lasting peace in the Middle East.   South Africa’s position remained the same, namely that there had to be an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel, with both countries enjoying secure and internationally recognized borders.

HAJRA TARIQ AZIZ, Senator, (Pakistan) said that the free exercise of the right to self-determination had been applied to most of the world, but had been denied so far in Jammu and Kashmir and Palestine.  A few days ago, the population in Indian-occupied Kashmir observed the sixtieth anniversary of the occupation.  In accordance with United Nations resolutions, people should be afforded what had been possible for the East Timorese and the people of Montenegro –- the exercise of self-determination through a vote conducted by the United Nations and international observers.

The opportunity provided by the last few years’ dialogue between India and Pakistan must be seized, she said, and a negotiated settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue that involved the Kashmiri people must be found.  The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, had presented several ideas for a solution which included demilitarization, self-governance and joint management.  Statesmanship, courage and flexibility were needed in order to make a durable solution possible.

ANA CABRAL ( Brazil) said her country was deeply engaged in efforts towards adoption of the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Convention against racism, discrimination and any form of intolerance.  In July 2006, Brazil, with the support of OHCHR, hosted the Regional Conference of the Americas on the progress and challenges of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  The struggle against racism and intolerance was deeply rooted in her country, a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation with the largest Afro-descendant population outside Africa.  That struggle was essential to preserve democracy, promote citizenship and end social marginalization. 

Brazil’s Special Secretariat for the Promotion of Racial Equality, created in 2003, coordinated implementation of affirmative action policies in areas such as the labour market and education, to eliminate discriminatory practices against the Afro-descendent population, she said.  Affirmative action aimed to promote social mobility and foster the effective integration of the Afro-Brazilian population into society.  Several federal ministries and agencies began to adapt their own policies to provide services specifically for that end.  Brazil favoured an educational approach aimed at preserving Afro-Brazilian and African cultures by incorporating the history of those cultures into school curriculums.  Public and private-sector initiatives had been carried out to eliminate discriminatory practices.  Special attention was devoted to the Quilombola communities to promote their self-esteem and improve their living conditions.  Brazil was actively participating in the preparatory process for the Durban Review Conference to be held in 2009, and Brazil would host the Regional Conference of the Americas in early 2008.

SOPHIA NYAMUDEZA ( Zimbabwe) said that racism, xenophobia and related intolerance had continued to rear their ugly heads, despite what had been agreed in Durban in 2001.  There was a causal relationship between underdevelopment, marginalisation, social exclusion, economic disparities and poverty, on the one hand, and racism, oppression and related intolerance, on the other.  That had been apparent in the context of globalization and its adverse impact on developing countries.  Solace was nevertheless taken in the fact that poverty was the product of human activity.

Zimbabwe was deeply concerned by the daily rhetoric and posturing on human rights on the part of the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, she said.  In Europe, racism towards non-Europeans, Africans in particular, had taken subtle as well as violent shapes.  The treatment of migrant workers and their families left a lot to be desired.  In the United States, the self-proclaimed citadel of the world, there had been two standards of justice, as demonstrated by the case of the Jena Six in Louisiana.  The hanging of a Ku Klux Klan noose on the door of a black university professor’s office had been shocking.  African-American victims of Hurricane Katrina had been neglected.  More than half of the two million inmates in American jails were black, confirming the racial dimensions of the anti-crime rhetoric of the American authorities.

The history of discrimination in Canada had been kept so well hidden that most Canadians did not know that blacks had been refused entry to that country on the basis of race and ethnicity, and that voting rights had been denied to aboriginal Canadians, she continued.  Racism in Canada was still systematic.  Australians had unashamedly gone public with their non-preference of dark-skinned refugees, as demonstrated by the recent statement by the Minister of Immigration, yet they had displayed a holier-than-thou attitude regarding human rights.  Due to time constraints, the treatment of aborigines in Australia and the Maoris in New Zealand would not be chronicled.  Much had to be done in all those countries.

LOTFI BOUCHAARA ( Morocco) said that all humanity needed the enrichment of civilizations.   Morocco had always believed in the dialogue of civilizations and had signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and also ratified it.  His country continued to call for rapprochement between cultures.  Nations that were passionate about peace would be able to overcome prejudice.  He expressed Morocco’s indignation at “pseudo-science” and said it was worrying that such procedures were used to assert the superiority of one race over another.

Morocco was hopeful that the Durban conference would address problems of racism and xenophobia.  It was fundamental for the United Nations to measure the correlation which existed between freedom of expression and religion, and ethnic hatred, which he condemned.  Within his country, new reforms and laws stipulated that discriminative acts were punishable by fines.  Discriminative treatment of women and the exclusion of immigrants fuelled discrimination and established a hierarchy of races, which was immoral.  It was important to raise public awareness for a social order based on acceptance of the other.  Rather than a clash of civilizations, the world was in reality seeing a clash of ignorance.  It was high time

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN ( Armenia) said that the right of peoples to self-determination had been considered sacred since the founding of the United Nations.  There were two kinds of self-determination movements:  those where human rights were respected and the process took place in a civilized, tolerant environment, in such places as Scotland, Belgium or Quebec; and those where the rights of individuals might be respected, but the rights of the group were not, like in his part of the world.

Sovereignty arose from the responsibility of States towards their own people.  Therefore Governments that discriminated against or persecuted groups within their populations could not claim the right to sovereignty.  The free expression of a peoples’ will was the most effective and democratic means to provide human beings with the opportunity to decide their future.  The situations in the Balkans, the Caucasus and elsewhere demonstrated that any other solution offered neither stability nor security to the region.

LYDIA GONZÁLEZ NAVARRO ( Cuba) said neo-liberal globalization, along with the widening gap between the rich and the poor, was perpetuating racism.  Governments’ implementation of political parties’ racist and xenophobic platforms was no less alarming.  There was also a decreasing will in industrialized countries to combat racism and discrimination.  Convinced that democracy, human rights and real freedoms could not coexist with racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, her country called for the immediate realization of the goals and actions agreed upon at the Durban conference.

Cuba felt “in its own flesh” the cause of people whose right to self-determination was denied, she said.  The people of the South’s exercise in self-determination was hugely challenged by hegemonic power which refused to respect that right.  The exercise of the right to self-determination was a precondition for the realization of all human rights.  And as long as foreign domination and occupation persisted, there would be no sense in speaking of respect for such rights.   Cuba demanded the “immediate withdrawal” of Israeli forces from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and also endorsed the Puerto Rican people’s right to self-determination.  Cubans had the talent, dignity and courage of an educated people who supported their revolution, and were resolved to continue enhancing their independence, liberty, democracy, social justice and selfless solidarity in cooperation with other people, recognizing that a better world was possible.

MARIA ELENA MEDAL ( Nicaragua) said her delegation supported the statement made by Pakistan.  The report of the Special Rapporteur on racism had confirmed alarming manifestations of racism and xenophobia.  In many cases, it could be seen that political parties were legitimizing racist and xenophobic movements.  The Special Rapporteur had also mentioned the increase in openly racist and xenophobic statements by intellectuals and the media, which was reprehensible.

Only through recognition of and respect for intercultural dialogue, as well as by mutually discussing values, could the international community move towards greater understanding.  Her delegation realized that racial and ethnic discrimination also invited other forms of discrimination.   Nicaragua was a multi-ethnic society, and had pledged to adopt measures to promote universal respect for human rights, as well as fundamental freedoms, without any distinction.  Turning to gender parity, she said her delegation described the progress made to ensure that women did not face discrimination.   Nicaragua was also actively supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and had been struggling to defend their rights even before the instrument was a fact.  In conclusion, she reiterated her country’s commitment to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the 2009 Review Conference.

ANA RADU ( Moldova) said the right to self-determination, a universally recognized principle of international law that was enshrined in the Charter and the Vienna Declaration, was the right of a people to decide their culture, language and government.  Secession was a domestic issue that a State must assess itself.  A successful claim to self-determination must demonstrate that the secessionists were a people, the State from which they were seceding had seriously violated their human rights, and no other effective remedies existed under domestic or international law.

Turning to Transnistria and the term “people”, she said analysis of the ethnic composition of the region suggested that it did not differ from the rest of Moldova.  Moreover, none of the Transnistrian claims of human rights violations was legitimate.   Moldova was committed to observing human rights and was implementing international human rights instruments.  In contrast, Transnistria had a poor human rights record, including a lack of due process.  Thus, the criteria for proving human rights violations had not been met.  Finally, the issue of available options, other than secession, had been “frozen”, not because no other options existed, but because separatists had chosen to make the conflict intractable.  Given all that, there was no basis for a claim of secession under external self-determination.

Right of Reply

The representative of Morocco, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said his counterpart from Algeria had made an unacceptable parallel between the just cause of the Palestinian people and the situation in Western Sahara.  Even more scandalous had been the fact that Algeria had proposed the partition of Western Sahara.  A resolution had been adopted by the Security Council on 31 October that welcomed Morocco’s efforts towards a settlement in Western Sahara.  The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) had meanwhile recently approved a draft resolution on Western Sahara, for which both Morocco and Algeria had voted.  That draft stipulated that all options leading to self-determination were acceptable, subject to certain conditions.  Algeria, through its statement today, had overstepped its role as an observer in negotiations over Western Sahara.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record