Sixty-third General Assembly

Third Committee

35^th & 36^th Meetings (AM & PM)

ADVERSE TRENDS -- WIDENING INEQUALITY, DEEPENING CONFLICTS -- PLACING DRAMATIC

PRESSURE ON REFUGEE OFFICE, HIGH COMMISSIONER TELLS THIRD COMMITTEE

Also Briefed on Progress Being Made Towards Durban Review Conference;

Seven Draft Texts Introduced: Child Rights; Human Rights Education among Issues

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees told the Third Committee today that an accumulation of adverse trends -- including a widening gap between rich and poor, climate change, deepening conflicts and extreme poverty -- was severely impacting the work of his Office and the support and assistance it could give to beneficiaries.

As the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) began its debate on questions related to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions, António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, the High Commissioner, told delegates that recent events had placed dramatic pressure on his Office’s capacity and resources.  In concrete terms, he referred to the emergency support provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in more than 40 situations.  Between 2006 and 2007, spending on emergencies more than doubled and, in 2008, that figure was expected to nearly double once again, to an estimated $150 million.  In addition, global expenditures were expected to reach $1.6 billion in 2008, up from $1.1 billion just two years before.

“It would be tragic if the funds available to the humanitarian community as a whole, and UNHCR in particular, were to decline at the very time when the demands made upon us are increasing so dramatically,” he said.  While recognizing the challenges posed by the current financial situation on national budgets, he pointed out that the resources that were needed to support the 31 million people cared for by UNHCR was “very modest” when compared to the sums being spent on other global issues, such as bringing stability to the international financial system.  UNHCR depended on Member States to continue to invest in protection, assistance and solutions for the changing needs of UNHCR beneficiaries, “the most vulnerable of the poor”.

At the same time, he acknowledged the need for all concerned stakeholders, including UNHCR, “to do more and […] to do better”.  To that end, his Office had embarked on a series of structural and management reforms to become more effective, efficient and agile.  In particular, the streamlining of Headquarters functions would allow more resources and energy to be directed towards the field.  Meanwhile, he encouraged all relevant parties to use the upcoming year to promote a serious and systematic debate about the international response to the growing scale and complexity of forced displacement, including consideration of what new norms, standards or instruments might be needed.

In an interactive dialogue following his remarks, a number of delegates raised questions regarding the impact UNHCR reforms would have on the ground.  In response, Mr. Guterres said that, not only would specific programmes be more fully supported by his Office, UNHCR work would become more and more decentralized, with regional offices established to help coordinate efforts and provide platforms of support.

Opening the Committee’s general debate, representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union), Angola (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), Japan, Sudan, United States, Colombia, Egypt, China, Hungary, Norway and Canada made statements.

Earlier in the day, the Committee concluded its discussion on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and the right of peoples to self-determination and heard from the Vice-Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, Luvoyo L. Ndimeni.  He updated delegates on the two substantive sessions held by the Preparatory Committee, which had resulted in agreements on the overall structure of the conference’s outcome document and had established the Inter-Sessional Open-ended Inter-governmental Working Group to follow up on the Committee’s work.  However, he noted that limited financial resources were negatively affecting the participation of all stakeholders, especially those from the least developed countries, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, and he called for greater financial contributions for the Durban Review process.

In the ensuing discussion, some delegates voiced concerns about how certain human rights issues were being treated with respect to the Durban Review.  While offering her delegation’s support to the Preparatory Committee, the delegate from the United Kingdom said her country would not accept any attempt to weaken the international framework for human rights, particularly with regard to the freedom of expression.  Individuals were entitled to express views that were contrary to those of others, as long as it did not incite violence, in which case laws must be in place to offer sufficient protection.

The representatives of Guyana (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Algeria, Syria, Chile, France (on behalf of the European Union) and Mauritania, as well as observers from the Observer Mission of Palestine, the Council of Europe and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also spoke in the general discussion on the elimination of racism and the right to self-determination.

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of seven draft resolutions, including a draft resolution on the rights of the child that would stress the many challenges facing children and would urge States to undertake a number of measures to meet those problems.  The representative of Uruguay, who introduced the text, said the draft also expresses a deep concern about the delay in the appointment of a new Special Representative on Violence against Children.

Another draft resolution, introduced by Benin, would draw attention to the International Year of Human Rights Learning, which would begin on 10 December 2008, with a view to maintaining interest in the subject and placing human rights within the context of education.  Sweden’s delegate introduced a draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which had been updated from a previous version to include questions raised by the Special Rapporteur on the issue, such as the need to highlight the protection of witnesses.  Another text, introduced to the Committee by the representative of Mexico, would welcome the coming into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Protocol, which some 136 States had signed so far.

Other draft texts introduced today would highlight the role of Ombudsmen and mediators, regional arrangements and national institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights.  Those texts were introduced by the representatives of Morocco, Belgium and Germany, respectively.

The Committee is expected to meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 5 November, to continue its discussion on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Cultural and Humanitarian) met today to continue and conclude its consideration of the elimination of racism and racial discrimination and of the right of peoples to self-determination (for background, please see Press Release GA/SHC/3933 of 3 November) and to begin its consideration of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions.  The Committee was also expected to hear the introduction of seven draft resolutions on the rights of children, the rights of persons with disabilities, and human rights questions, including alternate approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Committee had before it the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(document A/63/12), which provides an account of the work carried out by UNHCR between January 2007 and mid-2008, in response to the needs of 31.7 million people of concern.  It also describes major developments and reviews partnerships with other concerned entities, both within and outside of the United Nations system.  Refugee numbers increased for the second consecutive year in 2007, as did the number of conflict-induced internally displaced people to whom UNHCR extended protection or assistance activities.  In addition, the causes of displacement are becoming increasingly complex, with more and more people forced to move because of extreme deprivation, environmental degradation and climate change, as well as conflict and persecution.

Though the report states that returning home became a reality for 2.8 million refugees and internally displaced persons in the past year, the joy of going back was often tempered by enormous challenges.  Efforts to support the reintegration of returnees were frequently cancelled out by a lack of infrastructure or sustainable development measures.  As well, the complexity of today’s displacement goes well beyond the asylum-migration nexus and the report anticipates that many more people will be forcibly displaced in the coming years, some because they are escaping from civil strife caused by climate change.  The global rise in the price of staple foods has also had an alarming impact on the lives of refugees and internally displaced persons and many of the countries most affected by the rise in food prices are hosting the largest numbers of refugees.

According to the report, notable progress was made in achieving the three durable solutions during the reporting period:  voluntary repatriation; local integration and resettlement.  Though UNHCR remains engaged in its structural and management change process -- which began in February 2006 with the aim of enhancing the organization’s responsiveness and cost-effectiveness -- the report states that the changing dimensions of challenges are stretching humanitarian resources and response capacity more than ever before.  Indeed, UNHCR’s recent moves to measure the total global needs of populations of concern reveal that the resources made available to the Office cover barely half of the most basic requirements.  The need to find new criteria, strategies and solutions in managing the burgeoning environmental and humanitarian crises is an inescapable responsibility.  For UNHCR and the United Nations, this means finding the right balance in partnerships, bilateral or multilateral collaboration like the cluster approach, the Delivering as One initiative, or other coordination mechanisms.

The Committee also had before it the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/63/321), which demonstrates that, while certain post-conflict situations had stabilized and allowed a significant number of displaced persons to return home, displacement by armed conflict and other situations of violence in Africa increased during 2007, with the total number of uprooted people growing by approximately 1 million.  It also draws attention to regional issues, such as the 15 per cent increase in the overall number of refugees in East Africa and the Horn of Africa due to conflict and natural disasters, and progress made in finding durable solutions for refugees in some camps in Central Africa and the Great Lakes region.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations including, among others:  the adoption of new approaches to resolving forced displacement at the upcoming African Union Special Summit; greater integration of the protection and assistance needs of displaced persons in peace agreements, post-conflict transition frameworks, development plans and poverty reduction strategies; and the conclusion of the African Union draft convention for the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons in Africa.

The Committee was also expected to consider the report of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/63/12/Add.1).

The draft resolutions to be introduced to the Committee included:  a draft text on the rights of the child (A/C.3/63/L.16); on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.20); on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.21); on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.23); on International Year of Human Rights Learning (A/C.3/63/L.24); on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/C.3/63/L.35) and on Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (A/C.3/63/L.37).

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

Introducing the draft resolution on the rights of the child (A/C.3/63/L.16), the representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft, said that the draft text was the result of “very long, drawn out debates” on the rights of the child.  The text stresses the challenges facing children in terms of the full enjoyment of their rights, such as discrimination, family relations, and the sexual trade in children, among other things.  It also takes into account the special needs of children, including the needs of HIV/AIDS affected children, orphans, indigenous children, migrant children and others.

She said the draft resolution stresses issues surrounding child labour, its links to poverty, and the need to prevent and eradicate it.  Families might depend on the financial contributions of children and such dependence often affected a family’s ability to allow children to fully enjoy their rights, such as the right to education.  The resolution also expresses serious concern about the delay in appointing the new Special Representative on Violence against Children and calls for more measures to be undertaken to accelerate that process.  She also highlighted the fact that the revised text that would be sent to the Secretariat would include some changes to certain paragraphs of the text.

The representative of Morocco, introducing the draft resolution on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.20), said the draft resolution highlights the considerable work done by ombudsmen in more than 120 countries.  Ombudsmen and mediators had an essential role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights and, through their functions, helped to strengthen the rule of law.  Celebrating their work was particularly important in the current year, as commemorations of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were taking place.

Continuing, he said the objective of the draft resolution was not to send a negative message to States that had not established such institutions.  Rather, the objective was to send a “message of encouragement” to States in which such institutions already existed, and to encourage dialogue and sharing of best practices among those bodies.  Drawing attention to the language of the text, he said that the use of the terms “Ombudsman” and “mediator” was not meant to exclude similar actors in other countries who operated under different names, such as “ombudspeople”.  After four informal meetings on the draft, a compromise text had been agreed upon and that was the text that was now before the Committee.

Introducing the draft resolution on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.21), the representative of Belgium said that the draft resolution, which was submitted every two years for approval, had been shortened and slightly amended from its previous version.  The draft notes the progress achieved over the past two years and welcomes certain developments in particular, such as the ongoing exchanges between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other regional bodies, and the work of many competent regional organisms.  The text also contains a number of references to regional measures undertaken by States in the protection and promotion of human rights, such as those undertaken by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR).

The representative of Germany, introducing the draft resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/C.3/63/L.23), said that the draft text built upon the body of resolutions that the General Assembly had previously adopted on national institutions with respect to human rights.  He noted, however, that no such resolution had been tabled during the sixty-second session of the General Assembly and, as a consequence, no report on national institutions and the promotion and protection of human rights would be submitted by the Secretary-General in the sixty-fourth session of the Assembly, unless action was taken in the current year.

The draft text recalls the “Paris Principles” relating to the effective functioning of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, he continued.  It recognizes the important role those institutions played, especially within the broader human rights system, such as in the Human Rights Council.  It encourages national institutions to seek accreditation status, and notes, with satisfaction, the strengthening of the accreditation procedure.  The draft resolution also urges the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from Member States that seek assistance to establish such institutions and requests the Secretary-General to present a report to the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly on the implementation of the resolution.  In closing, he said that the ownership of a resolution on national institutions belonged to all Member States and Germany stood ready to join forces with all countries in support of the initiative.

Introducing the draft resolution on the International Year of Human Rights Learning (A/C.3/63/L.24), the representative of Benin, speaking on behalf of the African States, explained that a resolution on the topic last year had declared 10 December as the start of the Year.  The purpose of the current resolution was to help States maintain interest in the subject and to place the idea of human rights within the context of education on human rights.  It also sought to provide legal mechanisms for States and their partners to organize programmes of action.  Because negotiations were still ongoing, he said some amendments to the text would soon be submitted to the Secretariat.  The concept of human rights learning was a relatively new concept, and it was understandable that some delegations expected that it could be used within the context of education programmes.  But he hoped that, if given the chance, States would use the concept as a way to bridge the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals with the full achievement of all human rights.

Next, the representative of Sweden introduced the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/C.3/63/L.35) on behalf of the five Nordic countries, saying she looked forward to seeing more co-sponsors joining the list.  The issue had been the subject of numerous resolutions over many years, reflecting the international community’s determination to work towards its elimination.  She noted that the Human Rights Council had extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in June, and further noted that the draft had been updated from a previous version to include questions raised by the Rapporteur, such as the need to highlight the protection of witnesses.  She acknowledged that there were issues where consensus had not been achieved in the past, but expressed hope that continued negotiations on the current draft would bear positive results.

[Before she spoke, the Secretary of the Committee announced that New Zealand had been erroneously omitted from the list of original sponsors.]

Finally, the representative of Mexico, also speaking on behalf of Sweden and New Zealand, introduced the draft resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (A/C.3/63/L.37), which she said would welcome the coming into force of the Convention and its Protocol.  Some 136 states had signed it so far, and she urged all that had not done so to do the same.  The draft would welcome the holding of the first Conference of States Parties, which ended just yesterday and at which it elected its members to the Committee that would monitor implementation of the Convention.  She said the draft would urge the United Nations to continue to take account of provisions of the Convention, especially in relation to building renovation, including provisional arrangements.  It was hoped that the draft would be adopted by consensus.

Statement by the Vice-Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference

LUVOYO L. NDIMENI (South Africa), Vice-Chairperson, presenting two reports on the first and second substantive sessions of the Preparatory Committee on behalf of the Chairperson of the Committee, who had been unable to travel to New York, said that the Durban Review Conference would be convened in April 2009, consistent with General Assembly resolution 61/149 of 19 December 2006.  The Preparatory Committee was the main body responsible for all the modalities pertaining to the preparation of the Review Conference and the “spirit of consensus” had guided its work.  In fact, an important achievement of the Committee lay in its ability to adopt all decisions by consensus at the organizational session and at the two substantive sessions already held.

Reading out the decisions adopted at the organizational sessions, he drew attention, in particular, to the recommendations to review progress and assess the implementation of the Durban Declaration, to assess the effectiveness of the existing Durban follow-up mechanisms, to promote the universal ratification and implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to identify and share good practices achieved in the fight against racism and related intolerance.  Those objectives would be the basis of the assessment that Member States and all stakeholders should undertake in preparation for the Review Conference.

While the main objective of the Review Conference was to provide an opportunity to assess the implementation of the commitments undertaken by the international community at the 2001 Conference, he said the role of the substantive sessions was to contribute to “fleshing out” the contents of the outcome document, while bearing in mind the suffering endured by victims of racism and to improve their lives.  The first substantive session “achieved a milestone” agreement on the structure of the outcome document and the establishment of the Inter-Sessional Open-ended Inter-governmental Working Group.  The second substantive session took that process a step further with an agreement on a compilation, in a single document, of all the relevant paragraphs to fill the various chapters of the structure of the outcome document.  That compilation would form the basis for negotiations in the future.  One of the decisions of the second substantive session had been the convening of a third substantive session in Geneva, on 15 to 17 April 2009.

The Preparatory Committee would benefit from the participation of all stakeholders in the process, he said.  However, the limited financial resources available to the preparations continued to be a major impediment.  The lack of resources had prevented the effective participation of representatives belonging to the least developed countries, as well as those from national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.  Thus, he reiterated calls for financial contributions towards the Durban Review Conference process.  The international community was five months away from the Durban Review and it was important for all stakeholders to remember that the ultimate objective of the Conference was to guarantee a change in the day-to-day life of each individual and group of victims, in all regions and countries of the world.

“We are acutely aware that racism and discrimination are intertwined with destitution and exclusion, unequal access to resources and opportunities, and social and cultural stigmatization,” he said.  Despite efforts to promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination, racism and its attendant problems continued to affect countless human beings in all regions of the world.  As preparations for the Durban Review moved forward, it was important to remain focused on the fight against racial and other forms of discrimination, as they were essential to the enjoyment of all human rights.

Statements

GEORGE TALBOT (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that commemorations marking the first International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery, and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the resolution adopted on the Permanent Memorial to and Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, served as the most recent reminders of the longstanding global impact of slavery.  The horror of the “infamous” trans-Atlantic slave trade was one of the most blatant forms of racism in the history of humankind and the subsequent colonial period had affected many CARICOM countries until just a few decades ago.  Indeed, the “colonial condition” still existed today in many countries in the region, whose people continued to pursue their inalienable right to self-determination.

CARICOM remained deeply concerned over physical attacks on innocent persons based on racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance, he said.  As such, the Community continued to support and promote the dialogue among civilizations and remained convinced that a culture of peace and understanding could be significantly enhanced through that kind of dialogue.  The United Nations was conducting important work to combat the scourge of racism, in all its forms.  He acknowledged the work of both the incoming and outgoing Special Rapporteurs on the issue and expressed support for the newly-appointed Rapporteur’s view regarding the need to foster cooperation with Member States in the implementation of his mandate, and to engage States in order to share expertise and advocate implementation of anti-racism policies.

While welcoming the contributions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to the Working Group on the Implementation of the Durban outcome and to the preparatory process of the Durban Review Conference, he also highlighted the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and its pivotal role in the successful implementation of the Durban outcome.  The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent also contributed important inputs to the Durban review process.  He reiterated CARICOM’s support for the recommendations of that Working Group, as laid out in its substantive report, in particular the recommendation to develop a racial equality index as a tool to better assess discrimination that affected people of African descent and other vulnerable groups.  At the regional level, he welcomed the outcome of the Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean, as a contribution to preparations for the Durban review, and noted the willingness of CARICOM States to join the international community towards the universal realization of a world free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

SALIM ABDELHAK (Algeria), aligning herself with the Group of 77 and China, said the first article in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights said that all human beings were born free and equal in dignity and rights.  But, the full exercise of that concept was being obstructed by the practice of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, including in their contemporary forms, as well as the denial of the right to self-determination of some people through the unilateral interpretation of that right.  International commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination seemed to have eroded, with new forms of discrimination for political ends having brought racism to new heights.  In some cases, discrimination could be discerned in policies to combat illegal immigration and terrorism, resulting in the incitement of religious hatred, particularly against Islam, which was being spread with impunity through the defamation of religion in the name of freedom of expression.  The international community should not allow a “hierarchic reading” of human rights.

She said the upcoming Durban Review Conference was an opportunity to strengthen commitment to the Vienna Declaration and the Durban Programme of Action, and to adapt those texts to emerging challenges.  She welcomed the holding of regional conferences, whose results would contribute much to the Review Conference’s draft outcome document.  But, she was alarmed that preparatory conferences for other regions had not taken place, since racism should be of concern to all regions of the world.  Indeed, the entire world should show a sense of responsibility and solidarity in combating discrimination, which underlay internal and international conflicts, including armed conflict.  She noted the progress made by the Working Group on the elaboration of complementary norms to the Convention, to deal with new forms of racism.  Hopefully, those norms would be adopted by consensus.

Turning to the denial of the right to self determination, which was a fundamental United Nations principle and exercised by a majority of Member States, she said it was more urgent than ever to allow people of Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the Sahrawi people, to exercise that right.  The same applied to the Palestinian people, who continued to be denied the ability to exercise that right and to establish their own State with Al-Quds as its capital.

NADYA RASHEED, observer for Palestine, said racism represented the darkest side of humanity and the attitude and discrimination resulting from it sowed nothing but fear and hate which pulled peoples and cultures apart while setting the stage for violence and suffering.  History showed many examples of racism that translated into deeds of suffering and violence.  Pointing to Palestinian history, she highlighted how racism against her people, starting with a promise 91 years ago, had plunged Palestinians into dispossession and humiliation.

That had been done “with utter disdain for Palestinians as a people with rights”, she said.  Only racism and discrimination could have driven such a “journey of pain”, where the Palestinian people’s basic rights were stomped on, shoved aside, and indefinitely crushed and ultimately resulted in the forcible expulsion of more than 800,000 Palestinians from their historical homeland.  The inherent human right of Palestinians to return to the homes they were forcibly expelled from had continued to be denied.

She said Palestinians made up 20 per cent of Israel’s population, yet they lived on the periphery of institutional politics and society and were forced, through a series of discriminatory laws, to live their life as third class citizens.  “This is a country where discrimination is enshrined into laws”, she said.  Yet she said the Palestinian Israelis were not alone in confronting racism and discrimination.  She noted that Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian territory, John Dugard, had indicated that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem contained elements of colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation.  That situation made the Territory of special concern to the international community.  Israel, she explained, stood in breach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1996, as well as the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973.

She said Israel also continued to manifest its unwavering colonial and racist attitude towards Palestinians by continuing to construct the illegal separation Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, despite a clear ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2004 that the Wall regime and the exclusively Israeli settlements it was designed to engulf were illegal and should be dismantled.

“This mangled system of racism, colonialism and foreign occupation has subjugated the Palestinian people for too long, shackling their dream of a dignified future and systematically undermining their inalienable right to self-determination,” she said.  Lifting that darkness required courage from the international community and an unwavering commitment to eradicate it by upholding the principles and ideas enshrined in relevant international conventions and laws.

WARIF HALABI (Syria), aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, on item 62 and its two sub-items on racism and racial discrimination and on the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, focused her statements on the rights of peoples to self-determination.  She expressed her delegation’s support for the full cooperation of all countries with the Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteurs, and welcomed efforts made to build synergies among a wide group of parties to effectively combat racism and racial discrimination.  Syria also supported all efforts to find common denominators among societies and civilizations all over the world.  Despite efforts to the contrary, racism continued to increase across the world, in large part due to mass media, which had fostered misrepresentations of certain religious groups and cultures.  That was a particularly worrisome phenomenon as such distortions contributed to spreading hate and xenophobia vis-à-vis certain groups, and, in turn, threatened international peace and stability.  In that context, the “racial sufferings” of Arabs and Muslims, under the guise of fighting terrorism, was one of the main issues to be considered.

Turning to the Middle East region, she said that the situation there had worsened and racial practices and discrimination in the region had increased “very seriously”.  She noted a number of discriminatory practices of the occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territories, including ongoing killings of Palestinian people and various efforts to alter the demographic of occupied lands.  Her delegation expected that the results of the Durban Conference would address those “very serious phenomena”, with a view to elimination and to guarantee international peace and security, and would do so with full respect of United Nations principles and all human rights.  Syria deplored the absence of effective recommendations that would push States into complying with their commitments, especially in regard to the rights of people living under occupation.  The right to self-determination was an inalienable right and it was “extremely sad” that, today, the United Nations was “impotent, sometimes voluntarily”, and unable to guarantee the implementation of that “sacred right”, especially as it concerned people living under occupation.

NADYA RASHEEED, observer for Palestine, said that the right to self-determination and foreign occupation stood in fundamental conflict to one another.  The denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination for 41 years allowed Israel, the occupying Power, to perpetuate illegal policies against the Palestinian people under its occupation.  She urged the international community to take swift and concrete measures towards assisting the Palestinian people to realize that right.  In addition to self-determination, Palestinian rights to life, liberty and security of persons, to freedom of movement, livelihood, education, property, and many others were being violated, by Israeli occupation, which also produced illegal settlements, closures, checkpoints, home demolitions, land confiscation, destruction of crops and wanton killings by illegal settlers and occupying forces.

She singled out Israel’s “massive colonization campaign in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” in contravention of international law, United Nations resolutions and the International Court of Justice as a “glaring example” of Israel’s violation of Palestinians’ right to self-determination.  “Despite the overwhelming pain and loss that the Palestinian people have endured due to the Israeli occupation,” she stressed that “the Palestinian people will never succumb to the forces of oppression, violence and injustice.  Their desire for freedom and independence and their struggle to achieve them will continue until the Israeli occupation is brought to an end, allowing for the Palestinian people to … live a normal, free and dignified life in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital….”

IGNACIO LLANOS (Chile) turned the Committee’s attention to the concluding observations outlined in the Secretary-General’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/63/254), saying he did not agree with its treatment of land-related problems in relation to indigenous communities and populations.  The territorial demands referred to in that section of the report had nothing to do with the right to self-determination.  “The right to self-determination” took on a specific dimension when taken in the context of the human rights of indigenous peoples, as attested by the use of the term in International Labour Organization Convention 169, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in article 46, and by the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ rights.

In light of that, he expressed disagreement with comments made by the Human Rights Committee on questions regarding restitution to the Mapuche people, which were inadmissible.  He rejected those statements.  In the spirit of dialogue and transparency, Chile had delivered its response to each recommendation formulated by the Human Rights Committee to the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The issues referred to in that report had nothing to do with the resolution on which the report was based.

MAX-OLIVIER GONNET (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the report of the Vice-Chairperson on the substantive sessions of the Preparatory Committee and noted, in particular, the outcomes of the second substantive session.  Following that session, the European Union had noted that some progress had been made regarding the outcome document to be adopted and the schedule of work.  That session had also allowed for an important exchange of ideas and debate.  Bringing the different positions of delegations together required constant efforts and, as such, he supported the work of the facilitator to that end.  However, he said that all observers to the process deserved to have more time to express themselves before the Preparatory Committee and the modalities surrounding that issue should not have been a subject of debate.  All parties understood how valuable those groups, particularly the members of civil society, were to the process.  As well, the accreditation of those groups had led to “political difficulties” and he underlined the need to respect all aspects of the accreditation process, especially with respect to freedom of expression for civil society groups.

The Review Conference should focus on the implementation of the existing framework, he said, without restricting human rights, establishing any hierarchy among victims, or excluding any groups.  In addition, it should not focus on any specific geographic region either.  The Review Conference offered a genuine opportunity to strengthen the existing agreement and should concentrate on the future and not the past.  Any attempt to limit or restrict human rights would be unacceptable to the European Union.  It would be necessary to seek consensus and unity within the international community to fight racism and racial discrimination and the European Union hoped that the international community, as a whole, would be able to work in a constructive way to put an end to the suffering of victims across the world.

REBECCA SAGAR (United Kingdom), aligning herself with the European Union, said her Government wanted the Durban Review Conference to contribute to the global fight against racism.  Her country had worked tirelessly against racism since the 2001 conference and the review would make it possible to share experiences on the implementation of the Durban Programme of Action.  Indeed, the second substantive Preparatory Committee in Geneva had offered States the opportunity to present regional contributions.  However, the United Kingdom had already registered a number of concerns with elements of the compilation text being prepared by that Committee.

While she offered support to the Preparatory Committee in transforming the compilation to an outcome that could deliver effective results, the United Kingdom would not accept any attempt to weaken the international framework for human rights, particularly with regard to the freedom of expression, which was a right it had long supported.  The United Kingdom believed that individuals were entitled to express views that were contrary to those of others, as long as it did not incite violence, in which case laws must be in place to offer sufficient protection.  The United Kingdom believed strongly that a democratic society that promoted the freedom of expression and rule of law would be better able to fight society’s ills than one where individuals could not express their opinions freely.

To build upon the existing consensus, she said the international community must focus on instances of racism and discrimination occurring now in all parts of the world.  The process could not succeed through a skewed focus against particular regions or specific countries.  For that reason, the Conference must address anti-Semitism and the issue of holocaust remembrance.  Indeed, the United Kingdom would find unacceptable any attempt to trivialize or deny the holocaust, and any attempt to repeat instances of anti-Semitism that had surrounded the 2001 Conference.  Further, the United Kingdom would not renegotiate agreements on the fight against anti-Semitism.  Also, while the world might identify specific forms of racism and specific actions to address them, it could not ignore some victims because it was politically convenient, such as victims from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.  It was imperative that the international community recognize and agree to address the inequalities faced by that group.

She said the United Kingdom wanted the Durban Review Conference to make a strong contribution to the fight against discrimination, and to clarify what role human rights could play in that effort.  The process should mobilize the United Nations rights architecture to support effective and early national and international action to stop genocide and other conflicts borne of discrimination.  The United Kingdom had put its faith in the chair of the Preparatory Committee to ensure that negotiations were being conducted in an efficient and transparent manner at all times.  That process must be inclusive, with non-governmental organizations and civil society fully integrated within it.  The United Kingdom would continue to argue for the removal of elements in the current compilation text that were unacceptable to it, and for the inclusion of language that would further the 2001 agreement.  An outcome within those parameters would provide a solid foundation for all States to move forward on the issue and was the only option if the international community was to deliver a successful review conference.

ABDERRAHIM OULD HADRAMI (Mauritania), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that it was important to respect all human rights and to “lay down” a development policy with those rights at the forefront.  The effective implementation of those rights, on the ground, was essential and, to that end, his country had established a national human rights policy, with a view to ensure the respect of all human rights, through partnerships between the Government and civil society.  Understanding the need to protect human rights through the endorsement of relevant international instruments, the Government of Mauritania had ratified a “great number” of them, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The principle of equity and equality, which was stipulated in the international human rights instruments, had been implemented on a national level as well, he continued.  All people were considered equal and discrimination on the basis of race, religion or social position was not accepted.  Indeed, people living in Mauritania were able to fully enjoy the freedom of religion and religious belief.  In that regard, he expressed his delegation’s concern over the pictures of the Prophet Mohammed that had been disseminated, which had “hurt Islam and the Islamic religion” and encouraged actions that would prevent such a situation in the future.

JEROEN SCHOKKENBROEK, Human Rights Development Department, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, said his organization’s mission since its creation had been to protect and promote human rights, of which combating racism and intolerance was an integral part.  The Council of Europe dealt with each of its 47 member States on an equal footing, through actions underpinned by legal instruments and the work of different independent human rights monitoring mechanisms.  Those actions were further supported by Europe-wide education and awareness raising measures and by expert assistance to national and local actors.  The Council of Europe believed in the promotion of mutual respect and understanding in the fight against discrimination.  For that reason, the Council insisted on respect for the principle of equality as a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue, in all its actions.

He noted, however, the difficulty in ensuring dignity for all and the necessary dialogue between all groups.  “We are facing serious divisions that create and aggravate discrimination, tension and violence resulting in serious human rights violations,” he said, as documented by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.  The Roma were a particular target, as was the Jewish community, which faced anti-Semitism throughout Europe, and the Muslim community, which faced Islamophobia.  Overcoming the persistence and emergence of divisions constituted one of Europe’s main challenges, which the Council of Europe was meeting through legislative means and awareness-raising.  It was expected to hold a conference in November in The Hague on “human rights in culturally diverse societies:  challenges and perspectives”, aimed at developing human rights policies that would better manage Europe’s increasing cultural diversity.

MICHAEL SHULZ, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), said his organization had vigorously challenged racial discrimination since its inception, and the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement explicitly prohibited any form of discrimination and racism.  While it was true that Governments had adopted various texts aimed at eliminating racism and racial discrimination, countries still faced various challenges, such as those stemming from xenophobia and concerns generated by migration.  For its part, the IFRC was careful to take account of the differences among countries when disseminating humanitarian principles and values, as the Kenyan Red Cross had been in the wake of “inter-ethnic” post-election violence, and as the South African National Society had been in response to “xenophobic violence” in that country.

He said the thirtieth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent saw States Parties to the Geneva Conventions, together with counterparts from the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, adopting the declaration “Together for Humanity”, in an effort to address the main humanitarian challenges faced by the world.  In terms of violence in urban settings, Conference participants formally committed themselves to intensify efforts to mobilize respect for diversity and action against racism, based on the considerable experience of the national societies.  Meanwhile, a declaration adopted by the African Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Johannesburg under the theme “Together for Action in Africa” saw participants committing to detecting, preventing and alleviating urban violence and its impact by promoting community harmony and dialogue, including by empowering youth as “agents of behavioural change”.  At the moment, the International Federation was working to equip youth with skills such as empathy, consensus-building and non-violent communication.  Those skills would be introduced to youth that were expected to gather at Solferino, Italy, where the idea for the Red Cross/Red Crescent had developed some 150 years ago.

Statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

ANTONIO MANUEL DE OLIVEIRA GUTERRES, High Commissioner, said globalization had lifted millions out of poverty, but had also enlarged the gap between rich and poor.  In addition, the process of climate change and the increased incidence of natural disasters were threatening the lives of many.  Consequently, growing numbers of people were leaving their homes to look for greater security and better opportunities.  In addition, populations were growing and urbanization was accelerating in the developing world.  Those adverse trends were compounded by disturbing developments in the political arena, and competition over scarce resources was an increasingly important factor in provoking and perpetuating violence.

As a result of the interrelated impacts of climate change, extreme poverty and conflict, he said forced displacement was increasing and, in 2008 in Africa alone, thousands of people had fled their countries and flooded others.  Those developments had important implications for UNHCR.  In the previous 18 months, UNHCR had provided emergency support in more than 40 situations, and spending on emergencies had increased from $34 million in 2006 to $87 million in 2007.  That figure was expected to nearly double in 2008, to $150 million.  In 2008, global expenditures were expected to increase from $1.1 billion in 2006 to $1.6 billion.  Those figures highlighted the dramatic pressure that was being placed on UNHCR capacity and resources.

At the core of UNHCR activities were its beneficiaries, he continued.  By the end of 2007, there were 11.4 million refugees worldwide, and that number was rising.  The number of internally displaced persons, displaced by armed conflict, was also on the rise and now amounted to roughly 26 million, 14 million of whom UNHCR was supporting.  However, beneficiaries were “not just numbers” and the High Commissioner had worked towards “efficiency savings” that would allow his Office to release additional resources to meet the basic needs of refugees and displaced persons.

“Protection is the foundation of everything we do,” he said.  As such, UNHCR was working particularly hard on the asylum-migration nexus and operationalizing the 10 Point Plan of Action in a number of locations.  The Global Forum on Migration and Development, which had met in Manila the previous week, had agreed that a comprehensive approach to international migration must include measures to address the protection needs of refugees and stateless persons.  UNHCR had been engaged in a “constant struggle” to preserve protection space by promoting positive developments in asylum legislation and procedures, which was a challenging task due to State concerns about security and irregular migration that had led to the introduction of measures that threatened refugee protection.

“Forced displacement, extreme poverty, the breakdown of family structures and cultural prejudice all create the conditions in which sexual and gender-based violence becomes rampant,” he said.  As such, sexual and gender-based violence prevention and response had become another increasingly central aspect of the work of UNHCR.  On other protection issues, he noted encouraging developments in regard to efforts to exercise the UNHCR protection mandate in relation to statelessness, a “largely unrecognized scourge” that damaged the lives of millions of people.  In addition, he said that UNHCR had strengthened its commitment to the protection of the internally displaced within the Cluster Approach.

In 2007, more than 700,000 refugees were able to go back home voluntarily, the large majority with UNHCR support, he said.  A much larger number of internally displaced persons -- some 2 million in total -- were able to do the same.  “On the surface, return and reintegration as a scenario looks good,” he said, but a “hard look at the realities of return” showed that repatriation often took place because of security difficulties, economic problems, or even because of restrictive refugee policies in countries of asylum, and the countries of origin were not always conducive to effective reintegration.  UNHCR remained actively engaged in advocacy efforts on that matter, bringing partners together in an attempt to create the conditions for sustainable reintegration.  He welcomed the efforts of international partner organizations, as well as State partnerships, in particular the Republic of Tanzania, which had offered the prospect of naturalization to more than 170,000 refugees who had fled Burundi in 1972.

“But we all need to do more and we all need to do better,” he said.  As such, UNHCR had embarked on a structural and management change process to become more effective, more efficient and more agile as an organization.  Among the key actions undertaken were:  the streamlining of UNHCR Headquarters functions to direct more resources and energy to the field; decentralization and regionalization to locate decision-making closer to the field; adopting a new budget structure and a new resource allocation framework as part of a firm commitment to achieving and demonstrating results; and embarking on a comprehensive set of human resources reforms.  In parallel with internal reform efforts, UNHCR was deeply engaged in the wider United Nations reform and remained fully supportive of the Humanitarian Reform process, and the Cluster Approach.

Closing his statement, he highlighted two “pressing concerns”, the first of which related to the budget of UNHCR.  The recent changes in the food and energy markets had dramatically affected the welfare of UNHCR beneficiaries and the Office was being asked to do “more and more to respond to greater and greater demands”.  While fully recognizing the challenges posed by the current financial situation on national budgets, he pointed out that the resources needed to support UNHCR beneficiaries was “very modest” when compared to the sums being spent on other global issues, such as bringing stability to the international financial system.  It would be “tragic” if the funds available to the humanitarian community declined at the very time when the demands made upon it were increasing so dramatically.

The second concern he raised was in regard to the need to promote a serious and systematic debate about the international community’s response to the growing scale and complexity of forced displacement.  “How will the issue of climate change and other adverse trends impact on patterns of forced displacement?” he asked, along with questions regarding whether traditional principles of humanitarian action and existing norms, standards and instruments were sufficient to deal with emerging challenges.  “If we fail to meet the basic needs of the world’s poor, then we can only expect more social and political turmoil in the years to come,” he said.  He, therefore, counted on the “collective wisdom” of Member States to continue to invest in protection, assistance and solutions for the most vulnerable of the poor.

Questions and Answers

The representative of Burundi addressed the question of resettlement, noting that the number of countries participating in resettlement had risen, according to the report.  But, very few of those States were from the European Union -- amounting to just 6 per cent of States participating in resettlement efforts worldwide.  What was behind the apparent loss of interest in resettlement among European countries?  In addition, what did the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees propose to do to shorten the lengthy processing time for resettlement cases?

Iraq’s representative thanked the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the assistance they had extended to Iraqis displaced inside and outside the country.  The Iraqi Government was doing all it could to bring about stability and security to the country, and the return of Iraqis from neighbouring countries was proof of the success of those efforts, in which UNHCR had played a part.

The representative of Yemen paid tribute to the High Commissioner and his partners for their work in caring for well-being of refugees, and welcomed efforts to reform the Office to bolster its performance.  He asked to hear more about what the Office was doing about the refugee problem that had arisen as a result of increased acts of piracy in the Red Sea.  Further on the reform process, Sudan’s representative asked to know more about the Office’s expenditure, noting that a large part of the budget for UNHCR went to administrative purposes.  He also asked to know how the Office arrived at its figures, and whether it took account of information provided by national agencies.  Sometimes, the figures in its reports were extremely high.  Did the Office compare data with other organizations, in order to arrive at figures that were not exaggerated?

The representative of Zimbabwe addressed sections of the Secretary-General’s report pertaining to Zimbabwe and the large presence of Zimbabweans in South Africa and elsewhere in Southern Africa.  She explained that Zimbabwean citizens had been migrating to South Africa since the discovery of goldmines there a century ago.  Sustainable economic development tended to be based on an interdependent relationship between Member States, in a way that maximized productive employment and use of material resources in the region.  Indeed, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) had signed a free trade agreement in 1996 and an agreement on the free movement of goods and services in 2005, and inter-community cooperation was premised on those agreements.  Because it was one of the region’s stronger economies, South Africa had a pull effect on members of the working class of other countries in the region.

She admitted that Zimbabwe’s economy was presently facing challenges as a result of sanctions, and that it was undergoing political problems, which was not an uncommon situation among Member States of the United Nations.  However, she objected to the dissemination of half truths and biased information on the part of the Secretariat for political purposes.  She also objected to the insinuation that xenophobic attacks in South Africa were caused by Zimbabweans.  Indeed, people tended to seek economic opportunities when the economy was doing badly, which was not peculiar to countries of Southern Africa alone, but was also the case for countries in Europe and the Americas.  She again condemned efforts to politicize those xenophobic attacks, and asked that the Secretariat desist from coming up with conclusions that were presented as facts without first referring to the States concerned for confirmation.  She then thanked the Government of South Africa for its assistance to the people involved in those events.

The representative of Egypt questioned what he saw as discrepancies in the report regarding the total number of refugees and displaced persons in the world, which did not tally with the numbers presented in its annex.  In addition, the report did not distinguish very clearly the categories of people UNHCR was itself serving.  He also asked for a clear definition of the term “people in refugee-like situations”.

The representative of Cameroon said her country was proud to host refugees, but the Government was also worried about its ability to meet the needs of those refugees.  The Government was also concerned that incoming refugees were threatening the safety of Cameroonians, especially given the circulation of illegal weapons.  She believed that the problem of refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants was a challenge that the international community must share responsibility for.

Responding to the question posed by the representative of Burundi on resettlement in third countries, Mr. GUTERRES said that such resettlement generally took place in developed countries and, in the past, had occurred primarily in Australia, the United States and Canada.  Resettlement did not have a long history in Europe, though recently there had been a movement towards the establishment of “quotas of resettlement” in a number of European countries, which was a highly favourable development.  There had indeed been major difficulties regarding lengthy resettlement processes, mainly due to security issues, which had become very difficult.  The quality of UNHCR submissions could contribute to speeding up that process and he welcomed efforts by certain countries, including countries of transit, which had implemented measures towards a speedier resettlement process.

In response to the statement made by the representative of Iraq, he said that issues involving property restitution for internally and externally displaced persons was, indeed, an essential element of the work going on in the country.  As well, property compensation was also important, especially when property restitution was not applicable.  While thanking the Government of Iraq for its efforts in dealing with the variety of return issues, he also noted that his Office had encouraged States not to send Iraqis back to their country of origin, against their will.

Responding to the delegate from Yemen’s remarks regarding piracy, he said that, even before piracy itself was a relevant issue, the work of smugglers and traffickers had had a “dramatic impact” on the well-being of people in that region.  A very tough action on smugglers and traffickers was absolutely essential and he underlined the fact that internal savings, created as a result of UNHCR efficiency reforms, would benefit programmes on that issue in the region.

Similarly, Mr. GUTERRES, in reply to the question by the representative of Sudan, said that savings from reforms would have an important impact on programmes in Sudan, including in eastern Sudan where UNHCR was now enhancing its efforts.  In 2007 and 2008, UNHCR had been able to be much more supportive to returnees to Sudan and he expressed his hope that such support would continue, with a full understanding of the complex nature of reintegration in that region.  In regard to statistics, he said that the national statistics were taken into account.  In terms of overall refugee numbers, he said that information was primarily based on information from host countries.

In response to the questions posed by Zimbabwe, he said that he was not in a position to speak on behalf of the Secretary-General in regard to his report.  However, he did underline the fact that there was a massive trend of migration involving Zimbabweans -- with some reports referring to roughly 3 million Zimbabweans on the move.  In addition, there was recognition that the majority of Zimbabweans who had crossed the border from Zimbabwe to South Africa had reported fleeing because of the “desperate economic situation” in their country of origin.  A large number of those who had fled to South Africa had asked for asylum, and were granted asylum, proving that there was a component of the movement of Zimbabweans composed of asylum seekers.  UNHCR had not determined the number of refugees on its own and had included inputs provided by competent South African authorities, as well.  In addition, he said that his reading of the report of the Secretary-General did not show a link between the xenophobic attacks in South Africa and Zimbabweans.  Rather, the report only noted that the largest single group of victims of those attacks were Zimbabweans, which was “natural” when the number of Zimbabweans living in South Africa was taken into consideration.

Responding to the questions on statistics posed by the representative of Egypt, he said that, generally, the numbers quoted in relation to people of concern related to the totality of refugees and asylum-seekers and included a limited number of internally displaced persons.  UNHCR could not assist all persons displaced from natural disasters, and, concerning those displaced by armed conflict, UNHCR was supporting roughly 14 million.  Among the other persons included in those figures were returnees being supported immediately after the initial period of return and those persons in a situation of statelessness.  In regard to “refugee-like situations”, he said those situations were limited and his Office in New York was at the delegate’s disposal if he would like more details.

He recognized that it was impossible for his Office to assist all refugees and noted that much of the protection work undertaken involved advocacy.  He also recognized that, in some circumstances, UNHCR had been unable to do everything it should have done to provide assistance to all populations.  That was part of the reason behind the Headquarters reform and the reduction of administrative costs, as had been described in his initial statement.  UNHCR would continue to move forward “in a very determined way” with those reform efforts in order to allow for more resources to be diverted to efforts in the field.

In response to the comments made by the representative of Cameroon, he said that it was true that Cameroon received a large number of refugees and it was true that such a situation had had a significant impact on Cameroon society.  With respect to distinguishing between refugees that were fleeing because of armed gangs and the armed gangs fleeing themselves, he said that it was necessary to make the distinction between the perpetrators of crimes and the victims, in order to best asses how assistance should be delivered.

The representative of Ethiopia addressed the question of 200,000 internally displaced persons as a result of conflicts in the Horn of Africa as mentioned in the report.  The report should have clarified which international organizations had been used as sources, and whether those persons were displaced due to conflict or other reasons.  She asked the High Commissioner to elaborate further on that issue.

Zimbabwe’s representative again took the floor, saying that while the report had been prepared by the Secretary-General, she nevertheless thought it apt to raise her questions at today’s meeting, given that today’s topic were questions relating to refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants.  She did not wish to argue with the High Commissioner on the nature of Zimbabwean migrants to South Africa, but merely wanted to point out that the report seemed to have drawn a link between the migration of Zimbabweans and the xenophobic attacks taking place in South Africa.  The exclusive focus on Zimbabweans and not other nationals seemed to indicate some sort of politicization of the issue.

The representative of Sudan said his question had been directed to the Secretariat, not the High Commissioner.  He would like to have had the chance to direct his question at the appropriate person.

Responding to the representative of Ethiopia, the High Commissioner again stressed that the report had been prepared by the Secretary-General.  Nevertheless, responding to the question, he said the report reflected data from UNHCR, particularly that relating to refugees.  The question of internally displaced persons was not in the mandate of any international organization, since the primary responsibility for that community lay with States.  However, international organizations were using the “cluster approach” to provide some of the solutions.  He could not say, however, which international organizations were responsible for providing the figures used in the report on internally displaced persons.  He pled for support from the Ethiopian Government in order to operate in the Somali Ogaden region, which, until now, had not provided the requisite authorization.  Lack of access was one of the reasons the level of information on that region was not complete.  On the other hand, UNHCRworked closely with the Ethiopian Government in terms of serving refugees of southern Sudanese, Eritrean and Somalian origin.  Ethiopians were also heavily linked to the issue of asylum.

Turning to the representative of Zimbabwe, he noted that Zimbabweans constituted the largest number of victims, which was why he thought the report had focused on them exclusively.  However, in his opinion, there had been no intention to relate those attacks with the events in Zimbabwe.

The representative of Ethiopia sought clarification once more on the subject of “other” international organizations, particularly on how reliable they were.  He also clarified the fact that the Ethiopian Government had indeed been working with the United Nations and other partners in the Somali Ogaden region, as verified by Under-Secretary-General of Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes.  He asked the High Commissioner to correct his assertion to the contrary.

The representative of Algeria asked to hear more about the Office’s restructuring, specifically in relation to the establishment of regional offices. What were the Office’s plans for northern Africa?  He regretted that no mention had been made of the close cooperation between UNHCR and Algeria in the protection for refugees within Algerian territory.

Committee Chair FRANK MAJOOR urged the representative of Sudan to direct his question to the podium today, since the report that that representative was referring to would not be introduced separately.  The High Commissioner might then try to address those questions.  That led the representative of Sudan to reiterate his question regarding figures relating to Sudan and other countries, which he though were exaggerated.  Did the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees compare notes with the countries concerned when presenting its data to the Secretary-General?  There seemed to be a gap between the numbers his Government had and the ones presented in the report, which was an issue that caused him concern.

In response to the ongoing questions regarding figures in the report of the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner said that the figures that related to refugees came from UNHCR.  However, figures in regard to internal displacements came from different sources, which likely included organizations involved in the Cluster Approach and other international agencies.  He stressed, though, that he was not in a position to know the names of the specific entities who contributed to those numbers.

In regard to the opening of a few offices in Ogaden, close to the Somali border, he said that permission to open those office had not been granted, though that did not mean that other branches of the United Nations were not able to visit or work in that region.

In response to the comment made by Algeria’s delegate, he said the long-lasting cooperation between UNHCR and Algeria was highly cherished.  In terms of regional efforts he said, though nothing was yet official, his Office had entered into negotiations with the Government of Tunisia to establish a “platform of support” in Tunis, as another element in the decentralization process.  In terms of efforts in Eastern Africa, he said the volume of work in that region made it difficult to concentrate all coordination efforts in just one regional office.

The representative of Sudan, taking the floor once more, said that it was his delegation’s view that the figures relating to refugees seemed accurate.  However, the figures relating to returnees and internally displaced persons were in question.  He said that the information should be taken from countries concerned and not other sources, whose identities seemed to be kept almost as a “secret”.  He, therefore, asked for more details regarding which organizations, specifically, contributed inputs to those figures.

Responding, the High Commissioner said that figures in relation to returnees were the responsibility of UNHCR, established in cooperation with Governments.  As such, UNHCR was prepared to address any issue regarding problems with those figures.  In regard to the figures from the Secretary-General’s report, he said that he was not in a position to give any details on the other organizations involved.  He did suggest that a number of organizations involved in the Cluster Approach had likely contributed to those figures, and he noted that the list of organizations involved in the Cluster Approach was widely available.

The representative of Ethiopia asked that, in the future, more specifics be provided on the organizations that contributed to the figures in the report.  The High Commissioner responded that he would convey that information to the proper persons.

Statements

YAËL BLIC(France), speaking on behalf the European Union, commended the staff of UNHCR on the conduct of their work, and added that the European Union was deeply concerned about the growing insecurity faced by people as a result of conflict.  Threats against humanitarian personnel contributed further to the situation by limiting access to populations in danger, such as in Darfur, the Kivus, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Turning to the situation of refugees and displaced persons, he noted their rise in number, with refugees reaching 11.4 million in 2007 and persons displaced by conflict reaching 26 million, in addition to 26 million more who were displaced through natural disasters.  Those people must be guaranteed international protection.

He said that States must now struggle to answer difficult questions:  how to preserve the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and extend protection to people fleeing their homelands because of insecurity or human rights violations, yet maintain the necessary border controls.  On that issue, the European Union supported the approach taken by the United Nations refugee office in guaranteeing protection to refugees in larger migration flows, and supported the “sector approach” in terms of protecting and assisting internally displaced persons, where problems were dealt with according to clusters, such as “emergency shelter” and “camp coordination and management”.  Although the main responsibility for protecting and assisting internally displaced persons lay with States, the European Union favoured international coordination of humanitarian and development initiatives.  The Union was appreciative of the High Commissioner’s efforts to open humanitarian space in Georgia, and called for greater humanitarian access in Sri Lanka, the Kivus and Darfur, where security conditions were precarious.

In terms of a durable solution for refuges, he said the link between the emergency humanitarian response and medium- and long-term development was too often insufficient.  In addition, the international community must act to ease the burden on host States, with particular emphasis on resettling particularly vulnerable refugees.  It also welcomed the UNHCR Executive Committee’s choice of protracted situations as its theme for 2009.  Iraq was emblematic of such situations, with 2.3 million refugees living in precarious conditions without a real possibility of returning home.  It was also time for fresh impetus towards a genuine European asylum regime, since Europe was the most popular continent for asylum requests.  In that regard, the “European Pact on Immigration and Asylum”, adopted in October, was expected to help reduce disparities between Member States and provide for greater cooperation with UNHCR.  Meanwhile, the European Union noted with satisfaction the drop in the number of stateless people by 3 million last year, from a total of 12 million, and commended the work of Nepal and Bangladesh in that area, in particular.

ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), expressed concern about the increasing number of refugees and highlighted the crucial role UNHCR was playing by providing assistance to 26 million internally displaced persons.  In Africa, where the number of internally displaced persons had reached 12.7 million, the situation was particularly alarming.  Despite the increase, the Secretary-General’s report on assistance to refugees and displaced persons in Africa had pointed out decreasing numbers of refugees hosted in African countries.

He expressed grave concern over conflict-induced displacement and the challenge of international protection, especially after the emergence of several post-electoral crises, renewed conflicts and mixed migration flows to urban areas.  However, overall political stability in the region had resulted in some achievements, including the repatriation process in Angola.  Repatriation operations for Congolese refugees in Zambia and halting xenophobic violence in South Africa were also underway.  Nevertheless, the need to tackle, at the multilateral level and with the cooperation of regional groups and civil society, emerging challenges, such as human trafficking, economic migration and the brain drain was still relevant.  In particular, he condemned the sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls occurring in the North Kivu Province of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In that regard, he said protection was, first and foremost, the responsibility of States, which, under international law, were obligated to protect those within their territorial boundaries.  Populations of concern faced not only political risks to their security, but also an environment that threatened their rights and compromised their dignity.  Thus, he called on Member States to be signatories to the 1951 Convention and its protocols.  He also welcomed the preparation of an African Union Convention on Internally Displaced Persons, the consideration of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol, and applauded the High Commissioner’s commitment to efficiency savings, with $22 million made available to address crucial gaps in the areas of malaria, malnutrition and reproductive health, as well as sexual and gender-based violence.  Particular attention should now be given to sanitation, access to potable water and anaemia.  Such durable solutions could be the cornerstone for eventually ending the refugees’ need for international protection, and local integration opportunities for long-staying refugees should be encouraged.  The Global Needs Assessment would give a clear perspective of the real needs, gaps and answers to address the situation and would allow for reasonable priorities to be established and incorporated into a concrete plan of action.

TAKASHI ASHIKI (Japan) said the international community must find ways to address issues raised by more complicated forms of displacement, especially in light of climate change and the global food crisis.  It also needed to address new challenges arising from the rapid growth of refugee populations in urban areas.  For its part, Japan would continue supporting UNHCR.  As chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Japan also believed that major investments were required in the area of human resources, and that there was a need to enhance the capability of aid workers responding to emergency humanitarian situations.  The eCentre in Tokyo, which worked with the United Nations refugee office, supported a wide range of entities providing humanitarian assistance, including civil society organizations.  In the area of resettlement, the Government of Japan was setting up an interagency study group to conduct an intensive study on the issue, and would share findings with the refugee office.

He said improved security had a positive impact on the return and reintegration of refugees, which was why Japan was involved in the refugee office’s efforts to empower people upon their return, through vocational training for children and other people-centred activities.  Regarding the structural reform of the refugee office, he said he welcomed the fact that further review was being conducted on the function of its headquarters, field review and decentralization and regionalization.  Japan expected the Global Needs Assessment and the introduction of a new budgetary structure would lead to the realization of results-based management, and therefore supported the Office’s further efforts in that area.  In terms of the “cluster approach” used in the delivery of humanitarian services, he said Japan would welcome the Office’s frank opinion on how it might be improved.  The issue of internally displaced persons was currently being used by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the question of internally displaced persons.  He ended by paying tribute to staff members of the United Nations refugee office that had lost their lives in past years, and voiced Japan’s desire to consult with other Member States and relevant organizations to find ways to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers.

IDREES MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED (Sudan) said that Sudan, since its independence, had been among the first countries to open its doors and host large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries.  It still carried out that role, despite the possible negative impacts of such hospitality, because of its cultural heritage, religious values and its commitment to international norms and conventions.  The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement had created a firm foundation that had permitted the creation of a favourable climate for refugees from neighbouring countries.  Indeed, Sudan had seen the voluntary return of hundreds of thousands of refugees in recent times and it had worked to provide them with shelter, education, and other opportunities to help them reintegrate into society.  To that end, he called on the international community to pursue support for the voluntary return programme in an effort to provide even greater assistance to those persons.

In addition, Sudan was pursuing the peace process in Darfur, with the unprecedented participation of civil society, he said.  The support of the African-Arab initiative in arranging peace negotiations with the armed factions had been most appreciated and he called on the assistance of the international community in that regard, as well.  It was now necessary to “extend the hand of hope” to those who had been displaced by the conflict and to ensure that they would be able to live in peace and stability.  He welcomed the ongoing partnership between Sudan and UNHCR, as well as partnerships with other relevant stakeholders.  In regard to the comments made by the representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, he said that the statement contained false claims and information.  He suggested that the European Union, and France in particular, should focus more on positive contributions to the peace process by pressuring the rebels to join the peace process, instead of supporting them.

T. VANCE MCMAHAN (United States) said that refugee protection was an obligation, not a choice.  His country had worked closely with UNHCR and others over the past several years to ensure that experienced protection and community-service officers were in place where they were most needed.  He urged UNHCR not to sacrifice the proper staffing of those core posts in the context of reform, stressing that protection should be the prism through which reform efforts were considered.  Commending the agency for increasing protection efforts for stateless persons, he encouraged it to further strengthen its work on the right to nationality with other agencies, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on birth registration and education and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on voter registration.

A truly international effort was required to protect people forced to flee violence and to permanently resolve protracted refugee situations, he said.  He commended UNHCR for continuing to pursue such resolutions, along with progress it made in access to third-country resettlement.  He strongly supported the motivation behind UNHCR’s reform efforts in favour of effectiveness and efficiency.  He also supported the Global Needs Assessment initiative, but said that additional “hard-nosed scrutiny” needed to be undertaken, along with discussion about priorities, given the future funding implications for its wide-scale application.  Given the unprecedented changes UNHCR was undergoing, continued dialogue with Member States was essential to gain the support of their budgetary and policy decision makers.  In closing, he noted that the United States was a committed partner to UNHCR, having contributed more than $500 million to its 2008 activities and having resettled over 60,000 refugees in the United States this year.

CLAUDIA BLUM (Colombia) expressed particular interest in the evaluations of the safety of humanitarian personnel and the impact of the crisis in food prices on providing humanitarian assistance in different regions, from among the many challenges reported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.  She also said the direct and indirect impacts of climate change required further analysis, in light of existing international legal instruments and the mandate of entities formulating humanitarian assistance programmes.  She noted further that, in collaborating with UNHCR, there was no single model applicable to all situations.

Specifically concerning Colombia, she stressed the important role of UNHCR in addressing the problem of displaced persons and activities relating to providing refuge.  She noted, however, that there had been differences in criteria used by the Government and UNHCR in determining the number of internally displaced persons in Colombia.  Data contained in UNHCR’s report was cumulative over an 11-year period and did not take into account successful returns or cases of social integration.  It also did not take note of the significant reduction in annual displacements since 2002, as a result of an improved security situation.  In that context, it was important to establish uniform measurements for displacement and refugee flows to more adequately respond to existing needs.

Colombia recognized its primary responsibility to initiate, coordinate and implement humanitarian assistance within its territory, she said.  To that end, the country had a national system for comprehensive attention for the displaced population comprised of 15 entities with a budget close to $500 million a year.  Currently, 260,000 displaced families were being provided State subsidies, 83,000 families were included in income generating projects; and 288,000 children were covered by the State education system.  In the period 2006 to 2008, 557,000 displaced people received subsidized health care.  All levels of Government were involved in providing assistance.  A National Humanitarian Plenary coordinated assistance from all relevant actors domestically and internationally.

WAEL M. ATTIYA (Egypt) said while the refugee agency’s report reflected a number of important achievements, he was concerned about the negative effects of the rising food and energy prices, climate change and the international financial crisis on the availability of resources to cover UNHCR’s activities.  Those concerns underscored the necessity to maintain and sustain pledged contributions, and the need to increase such contributions for the agency to perform its duties and functions in accordance to its mandate.

Noting the exponential increase in the numbers of internally displaced persons as a consequence of natural disasters, drought and armed conflict, he warned such numbers could well multiply as a result of climate change, if coordinated efforts were not undertaken to address the root causes of those issues.  It was a matter of great concern that, of the estimated 52 million internally displaced persons, more than a quarter were in Africa alone.  That serious problem required attention, so as to enable the developing countries their pursuit for the legitimate aspirations of its peoples in progress and prosperity and achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

While acknowledging the gravity of the problem in a number of countries, he also believed that the solution did not have to be at the expense of UNHCR’s original mandate of supporting refugees; rather, it should result in Member States devising new and additional ways of funding the United Nations agency, in view of the intertwined political, economic and humanitarian makeup of the refugee problem.  International action required genuine determination to achieve a number of primary objectives including:  consolidating efforts towards eliminating the inherent cause of conflicts; address the protection of refugees within the context of international refugee law; implementing the principles of international solidarity in sharing the burdens and responsibilities; and securing appropriate conditions that encourage the voluntary repatriation of refugees in their home countries.

The refugee problem was, first and foremost a humanitarian issue, he said, but its essence lay in political and economic roots.  Protecting refugees and offering a decent living to them through the host country had to be a priority for any international humanitarian agenda.  A holistic humanitarian vision was needed to deal with the problem, founded as international law principles.

ZHANG DAN (China) noted that the work of UNHCR had shifted from material assistance to capacity-building, with significant progress in the last year of repatriation, resettlement and local integration of refugees.  However, UNHCR’s already overwhelmed capacity to handle the ever increasing worldwide refugee situation continued to be challenged, among others, by new conflicts, frequent natural disasters, deteriorating economic and environmental conditions, and criminal elements that had an impact on the refugee protection mechanism.

She encouraged the UNHCR to continue to improve its performance and coverage ratio and quality, as well as assist developing countries in strengthening capacity-building.  And, she expressed hope that effective measures to prevent abuse against the international refugee protection mechanism could be further developed.  The principle of “international solidarity, shared responsibility” was crucial to the success of its core mandate.

China was a party to the 1951 Convention and its own domestic legislative work regarding refugees had also progressed this year.  During the period of the recent massive earthquake, and the Beijing and Paralympics Olympics, UNHCR provided invaluable support, understanding and cooperation.  She expressed optimism, in conclusion, that China and UNHCR would continue to strengthen their relationship and work together to advance the cause of refugee protection.

RAJEEV SHUKLA (India) acknowledged that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had helped more than 50 million people settle and restart their lives with current operations in 110 countries, but noted that the refugee problem was still growing, with the number of refugees worldwide having increased to 11.4 million.  The UNHCR had expanded involvement from refugees who sought refuge in another State, to other groups of people and situations, such as settlement of migrants and internally displaced persons affected by conflict, climate change, or economically.  Greater clarity was urged in terms of UNHCR’s renewed focus on internally displaced people, as the lead agency in providing care for those afflicted by war.  Though UNHCR maintained that refugees would be the first charge on its mandate and limited resources, its role in assisting internally displaced persons should be made in specific requests by the States concerned and take into account complementarities of other relevant organizations’ mandates and expertise, since Member States had the first and foremost responsibility for their care.

Developing countries were the source and destination of most refugee movements, and large numbers of refugees burdened their strained economies and limited resources, so such countries must be better recognized and addressed, he said.  The development agenda, including Millennium Development Goal achievement, must buttress international efforts for not only prevention, but to address relief and rehabilitation of refugees.  The UNHCR’s mission should be based on the principles of responsibility and burden-sharing, with more attention from the international community.

Economic migration was a growing trend, resulting from increased integration of international economies, and had caused irregular mixed migration patterns.  Further capacity development was encouraged to identify and differentiate refugees from economic migrants, so as to better assess their needs for protection.  Developing countries of origin should be given appropriate assistance to facilitate voluntary repatriation, as the best durable solution to the refugee problem.  India did not sign the 1951 Convention on Refugees because the problem of massive refugee flows and factors was not addressed, but its record in dealing with refugees was “exemplary”.  He concluded by pledging India’s commitment to work closely with the international community to continue to address this major challenge.

GABOR BRODI ( Hungary) expressed concern at the increasing number of crises that had forced millions of refugees and internally displaced persons to leave their homes.  He commended the United Nations refugee office for its efforts to avert and mitigate the dire consequences of armed conflict and natural disasters, and paid tribute to its role in tackling the question of internally displaced persons and mixed migration, as well as for ensuring that the number of voluntary return programmes and programmes of reintegration was growing.  The Office had also continued to carry out its mandate to protect asylum seekers.  From a regional perspective, Hungary attached special importance to the Office’s plan of action for eastern and south-eastern borders of the European Union, which would also affect countries of origin.  Hungary was committed to creating a common European immigration policy and welcomed the adoption of the European immigration pact.

He said alarming trends in refugee flows called for a more effectively functioning UNHCR, and Hungary supported the organizational reform of that Office, which had already brought visible results and improved flexibility.  An important aspect of that restructuring was the process of outposting certain administrative functions.  Hungary fully endorsed the idea of cutting administrative costs so that projects could be better supported and financed.  He confirmed his Government’s commitment to further support the Office’s activities at both the global and regional levels, and had offered the organization €130,000 in unmarked contributions.

He said the Budapest office carried out very important and effective cooperation with the Hungarian Government, which appreciated the agency’s viewpoint on the new Hungarian refugee law.  The Office had played a pivotal role in launching resettlement programmes in the country.  Budapest had been chosen to host the new Global Service Centre of the Office of UNHCR, and it was hoped that further plans to enlarge the Centre would be implemented, which would be beneficial to both parties.  Over a short period of time, outposting certain offices to Budapest had already resulted in significant savings, thereby increasing the funds available for assisting people in need.

HAAKON GRAM-JOHANNESSEN (Norway) said the report by the High Commissioner and his statement during the afternoon bore proof that UNHCR, under the leadership of High Commissioner Guterres, was clearly up to the task mandated to it by the Assembly.  Norway particularly appreciated the High Commissioner’s active role in promoting and defending the humanitarian principles and space.  More than ever, there was a need for strong voices in and outside the United Nations to defend people in distress and need.

He said the UNHCR’s staff was its most valuable asset.  Over the last year they had been victims of violence and attacks.  He deplored those attacks and called on governments to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Regarding broader inter-agency efforts, he encouraged the UNHCR to continue its cooperation with Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the agencies involved.  Further, the conference on the Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons in Oslo last month, brought together government representatives, United Nations agencies and civil society in highlighting and promoting consensus around the Guiding Principles at the political level.  Now, the aim was continued incorporation of the Principles into national, regional and global legal frameworks, along with enhanced implementation to help protect the world’s more than 26 million internally displaced persons.

He said the United Nations needed to deliver as one for better prevention and preparedness, and for better protection and assistance.  Cross-cutting issues, such as gender, would also benefit greatly from active cooperation and the best possible use of system-wide expertise and capacity.  Norway also strongly supported the UNHCR’s efforts related to Afghanistan.

While he was pleased with the UNHCR’s financial management, there was an existing gap between needs budgeted for and the actual needs of the beneficiaries.  As a result, he supported the “General Needs Assessment”, as a tool for identifying overall needs and setting priorities.  Concerted and sustained efforts by the donor community were also required to mitigate possible negative effects of the ongoing financial crises.  The Norwegian Government’s new humanitarian strategy reaffirmed its commitment as a humanitarian partner and an advocate of a “global humanitarian system for all”.

KAILA MINTZ (Canada) said her country was committed to supporting the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in fulfilling its mandate to protect and assist those displaced by conflict, and the Government was dedicated to championing solutions for protracted refugee situations.  Canada appreciated the Office’s leadership in identifying five protracted refugee situations that would benefit from international attention, and welcomed the opportunity to work together to find and implement innovative solutions.  Canada strongly encouraged the Office to engage with Member States in advance of the High Commissioner’s dialogue in December, to ensure that the international community was well-prepared to help identify and realize solutions to protracted refugee situations.  With 2009 declared as the United Nations International Year of Reconciliation, it was important to promote sustainable peace and reconciliation as a precursor to the safe and voluntary return of displaced people.

She said Canada continued to support the structural and management reform of the United Nations refugee office, since improvements would ensure that beneficiaries received the best assistance possible.  Canada supported the integration of the Global Needs Assessment initiative into a results-based management framework, since needs-based planning was essential for ensuring that needs were properly assessed and prioritized.  Further, Canada supported the Office’s efforts to provide leadership on the “protection cluster”, which would cover conflict-affected populations, including for internally displaced persons.  Canada acknowledged the persistent challenges faced by the Office and its partners in promoting protection in complex humanitarian crises, and welcomed progress to date.  In addition, Canada commended the Office for responding to the physical and legal protection needs of refugees in a holistic way, and further stressed the need for age, gender and diversity mainstreaming in analyzing protection needs.  Canada welcomed the Executive Committee’s adoption of a conclusion on international protection, and looked forward to its endorsement by the General Assembly.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record