COMMISSION CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

test


AFTERNOON
18 March 2004




Hears from Officials from Nepal, Sudan, Denmark,
United Kingdom, Mexico, Norway, India, Latvia,
France and UNESCO



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its three and a half day high-level segment after hearing from senior officials from Nepal, Sudan, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Norway, India, Latvia, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and France.

A number of speakers underlined the importance of the work of the Commission on Human Rights, and suggested ways to improve it. Bhekh B. Thapa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said that as the principal body for discussing the whole range of human rights issues, great importance was attached to the Commission on Human Rights, which should be hallmarked by cooperation, dialogue and understanding.

Friis Arne Petersen, Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said
more time should be devoted to an inter-active dialogue between the Commission and its Special Rapporteurs, Special Representatives and Experts in order to advance concrete improvements in human rights situations in all parts of the world. In other words, less statements and more action through dialogue and resolutions.

Bill Rammell, Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said the Commission was the main tool at the disposal of the international community for the worldwide protection of human rights, and should be a forum for cooperation, both in promoting and developing human rights standards, and in providing mutual assistance in implementing those standards.

Nils Muiznieks, Minister for Special Assignments for Society Integration Affairs of Latvia, said that while the Commission had been instrumental in defining and codifying international human rights standards, this was also the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide – probably the Commission’s most tragic failure – in which it had failed to intervene, discontinuing instead the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and replacing it with the more limited mandate of a Special Representative. Disastrous events had followed.

Other speakers addressed issues ranging from the responsibility of States to promote human rights to national efforts to protect fundamental freedoms.

Jan Petersen, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights lay with the State. International cooperation, however, was a necessity. Humanitarian assistance, development cooperation and international trade were policy areas where one should be effective and coherent in order to advance the cause of human rights.

Ali Osman Yassin, Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Advisory Council for Human Rights of Sudan, said that despite the tremendous challenges and constraints it faced, Sudan remained committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, including through a reaffirmed commitment to implementing international human rights conventions and humanitarian laws, strengthening national human rights institutions and implementing a national human rights action plan.

Patricia Olamendi, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said the administration of Mexico’s President Fox had developed an active human rights policy, centered on respect for the equality, integrity and dignity of people and on combating discrimination. Doors had been opened to the international community and criticism and recommendations from all regional and global mechanisms had been received, accepted and disseminated in their entirety.

Foreign Secretary Shashank of India said the foremost challenge before the international community continued to be that of development -- strategies of development and poverty alleviation were by themselves the means to promote human rights, as India had shown last year when its economy had grown by more than 8 per cent.

Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), summarized the organization’s efforts to foster human rights, combat racial discrimination, enhance human rights education, and define and promote a common ethical standard-setting framework in the field of bioethics and the ethics of science and technology.

Luc Ferry, Minister of Youth, National Education and Research of France, said among other things that France would start in the near future the procedure of ratification of the recent protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and would accede to the protocol of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Representatives of Armenia, Zimbabwe, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, and Spain spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will resume its work at 10 a.m. on Friday, 19 March, when it will start general debate on its agenda items concerning the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights; and the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation.

Statements

BHEKH B. THAPA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said that respect for human values, human rights and fundamental freedoms was not only the basic pillar of human progress and prosperity, it was also an indispensable foundation for peace and stability. As the principle body for discussing the whole range of human rights issues, great importance was attached to the Commission on Human Rights, which should be hallmarked by cooperation, dialogue and understanding. It was also noted that as the scope of human rights had broadened and deepened, the complexities and challenges for their unhindered and effective enjoyment had also increased. In addition to traditional challenges such as poverty and lack of capacity, new challenges stemmed from the process of globalization, as well as from the deadly menace of international terrorism.

A victim itself of terrorist violence, Nepal had witnessed violence, intimidation, maiming, killing, summary executions, kidnapping and the displacement of thousands of people, which had undermined the Government’s efforts to ensure the enjoyment of human rights for the Nepalese people. While the brutal terrorist violence of the so-called Maoists continued, national security forces had worked to generate confidence and security among society at large and to protect the rights to life and liberty. And while frontal attacks by the Maoists must be countered with due action, the Government had shown the utmost flexibility in attempts to find a solution through peaceful means. Yet, the Maoists had twice walked out on talks and had once again resumed their vicious acts of terrorism, although the Government had put forward a road map for the political and socio-economic transformation of the country and had begun preparations for a free and fair election to transfer power to the elected representatives of the people.

ALI OSMAN YASSIN, Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Advisory Council for Human Rights of Sudan, said 2003 had been a landmark in Government and civil society efforts to further improve and enhance the human rights situation in his country. The National Assembly’s Human Rights Committee had drafted a private bill establishing an independent national institution for human rights, which would be passed by the Parliament in April 2004. Moreover, steady and sustained progress in the peace process had continued to have a positive impact and had created a flourishing political environment. Among other developments, a conference on human rights education had been convened in Khartoum, the National Security Bureau had undertaken initiatives including the training of its members and the application of punitive measures on those perpetrating human rights violations, and legal procedures and measures to ensure the freedom of the press had been promulgated.

Other developments included the establishment of a department for churches within the Ministry for Guidance and Endowment and of the Sudan Inter-Religious Council, he continued. The Arab League agreement establishing the Arab Women’s Organization had been ratified in July and the African Protocol to the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples Rights Relating to the Rights of Women had also been adopted. Furthermore, the Council of Ministers had approved a new Child Law in November and the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child had also been ratified.

Among areas of success, he said that the responsible federal committee had succeeded in stopping the phenomenon of women and children’s abduction completely in 2003, and that, with Governmental support, it was convinced that all remaining cases of abduction would be dealt with within the next year. Significant progress had also been made on the eradication of female genital mutilation, with a special focus on reviewing national legislation to make it a crime punishable by law.

Respect for and adherence to the fundamental principles of human rights constituted a basic pillar of the country’s Constitution, he added. The Government had finalized a national human rights action plan, which was a realistic and serious document seeking to bring improvement to various aspects of the human rights situation, including legal reforms, judicial administration and management, prison management, labour and employment, conflict management and institutional strengthening for the promotion of human rights. Resolute steps had also been taken to strengthen the promotion and protection of the rights of vulnerable and marginalized groups. Despite the tremendous challenges and constraints it faced, the Government remained committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, including through a reaffirmed commitment to implementing international human rights conventions and humanitarian laws, strengthening national human rights institutions and implementing the national human rights action plan.

FRIIS ARNE PETERSEN, Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said the international community was facing major challenges at the very start of the new century. Threats to international peace and security, whether emanating from totalitarian States or from a network of international terrorists, posed a challenge to international protection of human rights. However, none should fall into the trap of meeting these threats by introducing measures undermining the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms upon which democratic societies were built. A democratic society based on the rule of law was the best guarantee for the progressive development of society in terms of upholding fundamental freedoms, furthering social justice and preventing terrorism.

The focus nowadays was on effective implementation of human rights rather than on new standard setting. The High Commissioner’s Office had developed into an effective mechanism in the defense and promotion of human rights. In this context, it could be useful to establish specific task forces, including forensic teams, with a view to assess situations of urgency where gross and systematic violations took place, and also in order to prevent acts of genocide.

Further, more time should be devoted to an inter-active dialogue between the Commission and the special rapporteurs, representatives and experts in order to advance concrete improvements in the human rights situation in all parts of the world. In other words, less statements and more action through dialogue and resolutions. Denmark also expressed concern for the situation of women all over the world; the rights of indigenous peoples; persons with disabilities; the plight of children during armed conflict; and the situation of human rights defenders. The suggestion that the Commission be transformed into a permanent body on human rights, which would allow for dealing with human rights issues throughout the year in a calm atmosphere and according to the need for proper action, was one that merited further reflection.

BILL RAMMELL, Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that without the observance of human rights by all States, freedom, justice and peace were threatened, and this was not only a threat to those values within States, but one which extended far beyond. It was no secret that dispossession, disenfranchisement and persecution created breeding grounds for extremism, crime and terrorism. In an international system where States were sovereign equals, there was a need to work together to tackle these issues, and to comply with the rule of law, including international law. Without adherence to these structures, States would be as directionless as a community of individuals with no rules.

The Commission was the main tool at the disposal of the international community for the worldwide protection of human rights, and should be a forum for cooperation, both in promoting and developing human rights standards, and in providing mutual assistance in implementing those standards. However, there were times when the level of violations was so high, when the consequences for the victims, the region and the world were so great, and when the political will to tackle the problems, alone or in cooperation, was so manifestly absent, that more immediate action needed to be taken. In these situations, peer pressure was sometimes the only means left by with to promote and protect those human rights which underpinned the freedom, justice and peace to which all aspired.

Responsibilities came with membership of the Commission. Each member had a duty to enhance domestic and international protection of human rights. Human rights were not, of course, a discreet or isolated set of issues; they were bound up with many other areas of national and international policy. Justice and the rule of law would not take hold in societies emerging from conflict if these were viewed in isolation, instead, human rights should be an integral part of the process. The recognition of human rights was the very foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

JAN PETERSEN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that terrorism demonstrated a total disrespect for human dignity and human rights. The international community should continue to fight it with determination and resolve. One should not allow the gruesome and cowardly acts of terrorists to weaken the international community's commitment to democratic ideals. Loyalty to those principles was one of the main ingredients in the only recipe for a successful fight against terrorism. The struggle against it should be conducted within the boundaries of international law. Internationally recognized human rights and humanitarian laws were instruments that made that fight more effective in the long term. Civil liberties such as the right to due legal process and the prohibition of torture should be upheld.

The primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights lay with the State. International cooperation, however, was a necessity. Humanitarian assistance, development cooperation and international trade were policy areas where one should be effective and coherent in order to advance the cause of human rights. Both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights should be high on the agenda. Fighting poverty was also advancing the cause of human rights. All human rights were interdependent and interrelated. It had been frequently argued that international promotion and protection of human rights challenged State sovereignty. Human rights were dangerous only to those Governments whose very existence depended on the fear and oppression of their own people. There were still too many areas of the world that lagged behind in democratic development and too many leaders who did not have the legitimacy provided by fair and free elections.

Human rights violations were one of the greatest sources of insecurity in the world today and were often at the very source of armed conflict. Massive and systematic violations of human rights constituted a threat to international peace and security. Human rights were certainly about noble ideals. Yet, agreement on ideals was far from enough. It took time however to build what the High Commissioner for Human Rights called national protection systems, a true culture of human rights. At its most profound level, human rights work was about changing mentalities, both of the governed and the governing. Therefore, human rights education, the active engagement of civil society and the creation of independent national institutions were important.

PATRICIA OLAMENDI, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said that although the focus since the United Nations’ creation had been placed upon drawing up norms and principles guaranteeing people the rights to live in freedom and security, under the refuge and protection of international law, reality showed that millions of people continued to be the victims of constant violations of their human rights. Discrimination and intolerance had worsened and new forms of slavery had been developed; migrant workers and their families, as well as indigenous peoples, were victims of systematic discrimination, racism or xenophobia, while others, due to disability, age, sexual preference or gender also continued to suffer discrimination, intolerance and stereotyping. Unfortunately, many countries and societies had not recognized these peoples’ rights, for which reason it was necessary to develop international instruments to protect them.

Recognizing that human rights began at home, she noted that since his inauguration, the administration of President Fox had developed an active human rights policy, centered upon respect for the equality, integrity and dignity of people and combating discrimination. The doors had been opened to the international community and criticism and recommendations from all regional and global mechanisms had been received, accepted and disseminated in their entirety. Among the reforms undertaken, a commission on governmental policy had been established as the body entrusted to develop an integral policy in the field of human rights, and a national human right programme was being created. Constitutional reforms guaranteeing the right of all people to live free from discrimination had also been promoted and a Special Prosecutor for Social and Political Movements of the Past had been established, while the Supreme Court had authorized investigations and criminal proceedings against those responsible for enforced disappearances.

Among the initiatives Mexico would back during the present session was the need to strengthen the follow-up mechanism and ratification of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Maintaining full respect for human rights in face of the fight against terrorism, renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on indigenous people and ensuring the participation of the Office of the High Commissioner in the negotiation process of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would also be priorities.

SHASHANK, Foreign Secretary of India, said democracy in his country had stood the test of time. As a secular, pluralistic society, where every citizen was equal under the law, India eloquently demonstrated why no country should accept a lesser system. A few weeks from now, over 600 million Indians would participate in the largest exercise of the right to universal adult franchise in the world. That was testimony not only to the resilience of India's Constitution, but also to the strength of those other pillars of what the High Commissioner for Human Rights had described as the national protection system -- a free press, an independent judiciary, and an accountable executive.

The development of international human rights instruments had been one of the singular achievements of the UN, Mr. Shashank said. Yet the Commission's credibility and effectiveness were in question today. One had to ask whether the concerns and aspirations of the vast majority of the UN membership, which belonged to the developing world, had not been lost sight of in the workings of the Commission. Developing countries were faced with the challenges of harnessing their resources, natural and human. Human rights mechanisms and structures needed to differentiate between countries that fulfilled the basic obligations of human rights standards and those that engaged in patterns of consistent and gross violations. There need be no inevitability about the politicization of the Commission. Politicization would take place when there was an absence of those qualities necessary at the inter-State level, which one sought to promote within States as well -- democracy, transparency and equality. Human rights could not be used as an instrument of foreign policy.

The foremost challenge before the international community continued to be that of development, Mr. Shashank said. Strategies of development and poverty alleviation were by themselves a means to promote human rights. Last year, the Indian economy had grown by more than 8 per cent. However, during the last more than two decades, terrorism had claimed the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children in India. The Commission owed a special responsibility to recognize and address the rights of the victims of terrorism.

NILS MUIZNIEKS, Minister for Special Assignments for Society Integration Affairs of Latvia, said that while the Commission had been instrumental in defining and codifying international human rights standards, this was also the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide – probably the Commission’s most tragic failure – in which it had failed to intervene, discontinuing instead the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and replacing it with the more limited mandate of a Special Representative. The disastrous events that followed showed that no effort should be spared in building and strengthening effective and adequate mechanisms to promote and protect human rights. While various proposals to elaborate new standards and monitoring mechanisms had been noted with interest, implementation of existing standards should be improved before more mechanisms and standards were added or attention for them could be diluted and/or run contrary to intention.

For Latvia’s part, national attention since independence had been focused upon a policy of integration, as Soviet rule had left a deep mark on the country’s social, democratic and economic development. The integration of society had been taking place within the context of successful cooperation between the Government and international human rights organizations. Latvia had ratified all relevant human rights instruments and had consulted with international human rights experts in drafting legislation. Furthermore, to promote the integration of minorities and to achieve social cohesion without threatening identity, the Government had begun to carry out a broad-reaching social integration policy in the late 1990s. In 2001, a national programme for the integration of society was adopted and an integration fund was created to support projects implemented by municipal governments, non-governmental organizations and educational and cultural institutions. That integration programme had political, judicial, social, educational and cultural dimensions.

A national language must be spoken in a national State, Mr. Muiznieks said. Latvia was the only country in the world in which Latvian was spoken, developed and maintained. The Soviet legacy – which had included a school system segregated upon language lines – continued to be redressed, with emphasis on providing a sufficient number of Latvian language classes in minority schools, while protecting those minorities’ opportunity to preserve their cultural heritage. The country simply could not afford to have minorities marginalized due to inadequate primary and secondary language training, and education reform was seen as the best means of ensuring equal opportunities and participation in society for all in the future. The Russian Federation was urged to join Latvia’s other international partners in promoting integration.

PIERRE SANÉ, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that at the last session of the UNESCO General Conference in October 2003, Member States had reaffirmed the mandate of the organization in the field of human rights by adopting two strategies: the Strategy on Human Rights and the Integrated Strategy to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The Strategy against Racism was aimed at responding to the specific recommendations that had been addressed to UNESCO by the Durban World Conference against Racism. Main lines of action included the Slave Route Project and research on slavery and the slave trade; development of cultural and educational programmes to counter racism and discrimination; preparation of teaching materials; and promotion of dialogue among civilizations. The Strategy on Human Rights had several aims. The first was mainstreaming a human rights-based approach into the planning, implementation and evaluation of all the organization's activities. The strategy stressed UNESCO's responsibilities in the field of human rights education and research.

Human rights education implied the practice as well as the learning of human rights. This included not only the content of the curriculum but also the educational processes, the pedagogical methods and the environment within which such education took place. UNESCO was working towards the promotion of a new educational language based on principles of human rights, in order to make it accessible, relevant and applicable to daily human experience. The intent was to create a culture of human rights.

Science and technological progress, including stem cell research, genetic testing and cloning, had given human beings more power to improve their health and to control the development processes of all living species, Mr. Sané said. However, that same progress had raised concerns about social, cultural, legal and ethical implications. UNESCO was playing a leading role in defining and promoting a common ethical standard-setting framework in the field of bioethics and the ethics of science and technology.

LUC FERRY, Minister of Youth, National Education and Research of France, said the country had vowed to protect and promote human rights. It was around that objective that it had installed its first Republic and it had never ceased to reiterate the universality of human rights. Human rights were at the centre of France's conception of a citizen as a universal subject of human rights. With the assistance of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights, and regional organizations, such as the Francophonie, the Commission had accomplished immense work. It had made this progress with the help of non-governmental organizations, human rights defenders and human rights activists. France would start in the near future the procedure of ratification of the recent protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and would accede to the protocol of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. That was a decisive step down the avenue towards universal abolition of death penalty.

France also counted on the collaboration of all in the elaboration of an international instrument against involuntary or enforced disappearances, Mr. Ferry said. The elaboration of a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples should also be achieved. Such peoples were an invaluable part of the common heritage of humanity. It was also the obligation of the international community to respect the text of the declaration that was adopted, and to carry out its commitments. Special Rapporteurs, committee Experts, and working groups of the Commission had made precious recommendations in human rights matters. France supported particularly the efforts of the working group on arbitrary detention.

The Commission should continue to condemn situations such as that in North Korea, Mr. Ferry said. Dialogue and cooperation should go hand in hand with the frank expression of the legitimate concerns of the international community. It was also to be hoped that such dialogue and cooperation would be opened concerning Chechnya; that the dialogue begun with China would produce fruit; and that work already under way with Iran would advance in a way that truly aided human rights.


Right of Reply

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply to the statement by the Representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said Armenians had developed deep-rooted traditions of good neighborly relations, coexistence, interaction and mutual engagement with Muslim communities in many parts of the world. Armenians had learned to share their values, cultures and traditions, to maintain a dialogue between religions, and had greatly benefited from such interactions. The OIC’s reference to the situation in Armenia’s region had been out of context and factually flawed. There had never been any religious connotations to the legitimate right of Armenia’s compatriots in Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination. There were considerable grounds for OIC members to understand the anxiety felt by Armenia over threats to its very survival. Armenia had never stepped off the road leading to a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Although it recognized and appreciated the solidarity of the OIC, it would benefit all peoples in the region if such solidarity was not extended to only one party, but to the peace process itself.

PATRICK ANTHONY CHINAMASA (Zimbabwe), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said the British Government clearly did not believe in its Representative’s statement about operating within the framework of international law, or it would not have agreed to the invasion of Iraq without a Security Council resolution and in clear contravention of international law. Also, it was now public knowledge that during the period of debates preceding the invasion of Iraq, the United Kingdom had listened in on the Secretary-General’s conversations. Did these actions fall within the framework of international law? The British Representative had listed a litany of complaints against Zimbabwe, whose purpose was only to hide the real problem, which had only arisen since the advent of Zimbabwe’s land reform programme. Unlike in Kenya, the United Kingdom had refused its colonial obligation to pay for the land stolen from native inhabitants. It was comforting to know that Zimbabwe’s newly resettled farmers had risen to the challenge of achieving self-sufficiency and the country would no longer be subject to British non-governmental organizations’ use of food intervention to gain influence.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected the allegations of the United Kingdom's Minister. The allegations were without basis. The people of Korea enjoyed all the rights enshrined under international human rights instruments. The United Kingdom’s statement sought confrontation. It failed to mention the aggression against Iraq and the conditions under which the prisoners of Guantanamo were living. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also rejected the assertion by the French Minister that food designated for humanitarian assistance in the country had been diverted for other purposes. The charge was untrue.

LIU ZHONGXIN (China), speaking in reply to the statement by the Representative of the United Kingdom, said the world had changed for the United Kingdom. In its recent history, the United Kingdom had administered cruel colonialism to countries like China, leaving behind hell on earth. In China, it had tried to force people to smoke opium, had begun the opium wars and had held Hong Kong for nearly 100 years. The UK Representative had urged other countries to exert peer pressure on nations to get them to comply with the framework of international law. Yet one should ask how many innocent citizens the United Kingdom had killed in Iraq and how many more it planned to kill?

JOAQUÍN PÉREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking in right of reply, said that numerous references had been made to Spain during the high-level segment and, contrary to what normally happened in rights of reply, he had taken the floor to express his appreciation for these statements. The recent victim of inexplicable and unjustifiable terrorism, Spain had seen a clear and strong response as the Spanish people had serenely and impeccably continued to carry out their democratic way of life. The country’s response to terrorism would continue to be carried out in conjunction with its allies, in compliance with international standards of human rights. Spain had appreciated the condolences and sympathy expressed over the past few days, and it was now his obligation to express, on behalf of all Spaniards, their thanks.