Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
13 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
13 April 2000
Afternoon
Debate Continues on Rights of Migrant Workers, Minorities, Displaced Persons
and Other Vulnerable Groups and Individuals
The Commission on Human Rights approved this afternoon a consensus resolution on the "right to development", calling, among other things, for all States to strive to eliminate all obstacles to development by pursuing the promotion and protection of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and by implementing comprehensive development programmes at the national level, integrating those rights into development activities, and promoting effective international cooperation.
The resolution also noted that a number of developing countries had experienced rapid economic growth in the recent past and had become dynamic partners in the international economy, but at the same time the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide and developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process -- that many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from the benefits of globalization. The participation of developing countries in the international economic decision-making process needed to be broadened and strengthened, the resolution declared.
Following adoption of the resolution, the Commission carried on with the debate under its agenda item on "specific groups and individuals", under which are listed migrant workers, minorities, persons involved in mass exoduses, displaced persons, and "other vulnerable groups and individuals".
Among national delegations addressing the topic, a number stressed that preventive measures that could keep crises from developing were by far the best response to looming difficulties for minorities and other vulnerable groups. A representative of Hungary said experience showed that prevention was the most effective form of protection for minorities in danger, and also showed that post-conflict peace-building would not work without taking into account the rights of national minorities. The Ukraine contended that for all matters under this agenda item, one simple truth was that prevention was better than a cure.
Once crises had occurred, speakers said, international responses had to be practical and well-coordinated, and safe access to stricken or uprooted populations should be provided for relief teams. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) backed a sub-regional approach to internal displacement in which humanitarian action was flexible, with resources not stuck in one budget line or programme but targeted where the need was greatest.
Speaking at the afternoon meeting were representatives of Romania, Ecuador, Argentina, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Georgia, Hungary, Singapore, Ukraine, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), UNICEF, Ireland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Costa Rica, the Holy See, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Belarus, Switzerland, the International Labour Office (ILO), Finland (on behalf of the Netherlands), Austria, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, the World Food Programme (WFP), Belgium, and Armenia.
The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered statements: the International Commission of Voluntary Agencies (speaking on behalf of three other NGOs); the Association for World Education; and the International Association for Religious Freedom.
Cuba, Turkey, Cyprus, and Armenia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
Following adjournment at 6 p.m., the Commission immediately began an evening session scheduled to continue as late as midnight and during which it was expected to conclude the debate on the rights of "specific groups and individuals" and begin discussing "indigenous issues".
Action taken on draft resolution
In a resolution on the right to development (E/CN4./2000/L.14), adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries, in particular the developing countries, as an integral part of their fundamental human rights, as well as the potential contribution its realization could make to the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It reiterated, among other things, that the essence of the right to development was the principle that the human person was the central subject of development and that the right to life included existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; and for peace and stability to endure, national action and international action and cooperation were required to promote a better life for all in larger freedom, a critical element of which was the eradication of poverty.
The Commission further reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, were interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and in that context affirmed, among others, that a number of developing countries had experienced rapid economic growth in the recent past and had become dynamic partners in the international economy; at the same time, the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide and developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process, and many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits. The participation of developing countries in the international economic decision-making process needed to be broadened and strengthened.
The Commission urged all States to eliminate all obstacles to development at all levels by pursuing the promotion and protection of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and by implementing comprehensive development programmes at the national level, integrating those rights into development activities, and by promoting effective international cooperation.
Statements
IOAN MAXIM (Romania) said that over the past decade the Balkans had witnessed one of the most terrible humanitarian disasters since World War II in terms of victims, human displacement and human rights abuses. In less than ten years, thousands of people had perished, millions had been displaced and torture and massacres had occurred. As a result, communities had disintegrated, States dissolved, internal borders appeared and ethnic cleansing became the rule. Concrete action was needed most of all at the grassroots levels. It was a well established fact that when democracy was endangered, human rights were lost. The international community was urged to back up every initiative that stood for the realization of democratic norms and values.
In the turbulent context of the last decade, Romania had done its utmost to improve the record of the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. It had rapidly acceded to all major international and regional instruments and was the first to sign the European Framework Convention for protection of persons belonging to national minorities. It had also concluded treaties with neighbouring countries, with special provisions which addressed the issue of bilateral cooperation in the field of preserving the identity of persons belonging to national minorities. Important measures had also been taken at the national level to facilitate the participation of minorities in the political, economic and social life of the country.
JUAN CARLOS CASTRILLON (Ecuador) said his country wished to add to the remarks, which it supported, which had been made by GRULAC; the Special Rapporteur's report on migrant workers had been valuable and had suggested some value strategies. Ecuador was experiencing migration, as were most countries of the world; for decades the country had welcomed millions who had come from elsewhere, many of them poor and fleeing violence. But times had changed; the new dynamics of globalization had led to a mobile labour force, and many Ecuadoreans had pursued work opportunities in countries such as the United States.
Ecuador sought to respect all international instruments related to the human rights of migrants; in fact, migrants often required better protection than citizens did, as they were more vulnerable. Ecuador had received complaints about the treatment of migrants, and restated its conviction that the rights and guarantees offered to migrants should be implemented, and that racism and intolerance were unacceptable when applied to migrants as they were unacceptable under any circumstances.
LEANDRO DESPOUY (Argentina) said that migration was often a non-voluntary act since migrants could not decide on their fate, which was determined by soci-economic factors. Migrants were separated from their families and frequently suffered a cultural shock and loss of material goods. Their integration into their host society was also particularly difficult. They were often exposed to ill-treatment, discrimination and xenophobia. Argentina had favourable policies towards migrants. This was reflected in its rules on nationality and citizenship and constitutional provisions which guaranteed the full integration of foreigners. Argentina also frequently granted amnesty to those migrants who did not have papers.
DANIEL HELLE, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the task of providing protection and assistance to millions of internally displaced persons was immense and required the active involvement of all organizations possessing the necessary expertise and capacity. It was furthermore important that all organizations have their roles defined as clearly as possible. The ICRC recently had issued a paper in which it presented its involvement with internally displaced persons affected by armed conflict. As a neutral intermediary, the ICRC sought to bring protection and assistance to victims and it gave priority to those most in need. National authorities bore the prime responsibility, but it had to be remarked that internally displaced persons were fully entitled to international human-rights law protection.
The high figures for displacement did not allow for complacency. Lack of access and lack of security for humanitarian workers was a frequent problem. The ICRC considered it important as well that its cooperation with other organizations did not put at risk the perception of the ICRC as a neutral, impartial and independent organization. All States should assume their responsibilities to ensure respect for international humanitarian law in relation to the internally displaced.
AMIRAN KAVADZE (Georgia) said that Abkhaz separatists had exterminated 10,000 Georgians and had driven another 230,000 Georgians from the region which they had captured. These Georgians were still being denied the chance to return home. According to the separatists, Abkhazia should not include any Georgians. The separatists had pillaged and looted Georgian homes and used the Georgians still in the area as slave labour. The Government fully supported the various UN bodies which were trying to maintain peace and human rights in the region. However, the separatist paramilitary groups were continuing their repression of Georgians. Georgia believed there should be more monitoring of the situation and that measures be drawn taken to protect the rights of the local population. At present, the separatists were making the conditions to make the return of the expelled Georgians irreversible. They were giving the homes of Georgians away to mercenaries and foreign citizens.
ISTVAN LAKATOS (Hungary) said the international community should remain committed to the principle that respect for human rights could not be considered exclusively an internal affair of any given State but a matter of legitimate international concern, and Governments were accountable for violations of international human-rights standards. They also were responsible for bringing to justice persons who had committed grave human-rights violations. Most major crises since 1990 had been triggered by internal conflicts in which ethnic identity was a prominent source of division. Experience showed that prevention was the most effective form of protection for minorities in danger, and also showed that post-conflict peace building would not work without taking into account the rights of national minorities.
A seminar organized last December in Geneva on the autonomy of the Aland Islands clearly proved that one of the main preconditions for sustainable and flexible solutions involving minorities was that the rule of law should prevail in a country.
ANN HEE KYET (Singapore) emphasized that the welfare of migrants was important to all States, including Singapore. All migrants, as human beings, should enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms. In Singapore, all migrants, whether permanent or temporary, had the same rights to the protection of the law as citizens did. However, there should be a clear distinction between respect for the human rights of migrants and the State's right to set immigration policies. A clear distinction should also be drawn between legal migrants and illegal migrants. While immigration policies lay within the domain of individual States, much could be done at the international level to protect migrants from exploitation and human rights violations. Extra efforts must be made to stem illegal migration and human trafficking, particularly at the source. There was a need for greater cooperation between sending and receiving States to track illegal migration, punish human traffickers, raise international awareness of the problems relating to illegal migration and facilitate the orderly return of illegal migrants.
OKSANA BOYKO (Ukraine) said that Ukraine, as a State with more than 110 minority groups, had always paid special attention to and had respected the rights of minorities. International instruments related to minorities had been respected, and tolerance between minorities was the rule in Ukraine. Minorities were guaranteed the right to preserve their cultures and to study in their own languages. A number of religious organizations were connected to the concerns of national minorities.
A major challenge facing the world today was internal displacement. The problem had grown in magnitude and dealing with it required that States take the primary responsibility for respecting and ensuring the rights of displaced persons. The return of Tatars from Ukraine to their former homeland in the Crimea had been the focus of much effort by Ukraine. In matters under this agenda item, one simple truth was that prevention was better than a cure after the fact.
CATHERINE YON HEIDENSTAM (Sweden), on behalf of the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway, said some groups were more exposed to discrimination than others. One such group was persons with disabilities. A person with disability must not be seen as a problem or a burden. Given support and opportunities, he or she would be able to contribute to the community as everybody else. Physical restrictions often barred persons with disabilities from public buildings and transport. Persons with disabilities were also very often faced with social attitudes that excluded them from taking part in cultural life and normal social relationships. Governments should see that persons with disabilities were given opportunities to make their own choices.
There was a strong interrelationship between disability and poverty. It was estimated that there were more than 500 million people with special needs around the world. An estimated 80 per cent of the world's disabled people lived in developing countries, most were very poor and lacked services. Despite economic constraints, Governments had to give careful consideration to them and take into account their inclusion in Government policies. Disabled women and girls often faced multiple discrimination. Children with disabilities, especially those who lived in poverty, were also particularly exposed to discrimination. Governments must take responsibility and make sure that the dimension of discrimination of persons with disabilities was taken into account in the work of the United Nations.
LESLEY MILLER, of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), said UNICEF was working with internally displaced persons in more than 40 countries. In southern Sudan it was reaching 350,000 children in 1,774 schools, many of them displaced several times. In the past year, so-called "days of tranquillity" had been organized in Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Sudan to immunize children and to eradicate polio. In the long term, such initiatives might lay the ground for lasting peace.
UNICEF actively promoted the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement among its field staff and partners. It supported a collaborative inter-agency response to internal displacement. It supported efforts to improve the application of the Consolidated Appeals Process to internal displacement and backed a sub-regional approach to internal displacement in which humanitarian action was flexible, with resources not stuck in one budget line or programme but targeted where the need was greatest. Internal displacement had to be looked at holistically.
EAMONN MAC AODHA (Ireland) thanked the Special Rapporteur on Disabilities for his report. There was continued isolation and exclusion of persons with disabilities in societies today. The Special Rapporteur had highlighted the fact that children and women with disabilities were particularly exposed to discrimination and exclusion, despite efforts to improve the living conditions for all persons with disabilities. One of the most effective tools was the set of UN Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. They had been making a difference since they were adopted in 1993. However, they were guidelines and had no binding force and it had become apparent that there were shortcomings in their application which should be addressed. The idea of a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities had been put forward on a number of occasions.
Accessibility to the built environment was essential to enable people with physical mobility difficulties to access education, vocational training, health, social and other public services. Ireland had recently introduced proposals to make all new houses visitable by people with disabilities on or after 1 July 2000. Other measures had also been taken like the establishment of a new Equality Authority and Office of Equality Investigations. Ireland would present a draft resolution to the Commission on human rights of disabled persons.
PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said no country in Europe had achieved a complete, wholesome integration of the Roma, and very often the traditions and cultures of the Roma were used as an excuse for not integrating them. The Bulgarian Government realized that no integration programme would work without in-depth involvement of Roma. Bulgaria had hence set up a national commission representing 11 ministries and four national State institutions for integration of the Roma, which had consulted extensively with over 150 Roma organizations. A long-term framework programme had then been adopted.
Among steps already taken to implement the programme were measures to ensure employment of the Roma in the Council of Ministers and various Government ministries; and on the regional and local levels, 17 out of 28 regional administrations had already employed experts to coordinate action on ethnic and demographic issues. Despite budgetary constraints, the Government was working hard to procure the means to carry out its framework programme for the Roma. It was perfectly aware that it was practice that mattered and only the implementation of result-oriented Governmental policies would bring Bulgaria into line with the highest standards of respect for minorities.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said there were some 2.7 million Turkish citizens living in western Europe. The polls showed that roughly 80 per cent did not consider returning to Turkey. Yet these people were denied full participation in the political life of the societies they lived in on an equal footing. The primary issue which faced the migrant workers was their status since they were legally “foreigners” in their respective countries of residence. They also lacked equal opportunities in employment, education and housing and turned into outcasts. There was also discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic background which bred racism. These people became the main target of xenophobia and racial violence. They now lived under constant threat of harassment, if not murder or arson.
Policies of integration, but not assimilation, should be pursued. An important element of the integration process would be to allow these people to participate in the political process of the country of residence. Another significant step for integration would be permission or facilitation of dual citizenship.
ESTEBAN PERNOD (Costa Rica) said there was a link between the defense of migrants' rights and the need to avoid discrimination against them -- the Special Rapporteur had seen that matter correctly. Migrants' rights had to be looked at as a whole, including consideration of the causes that had led people to move from their homelands. Looking at the matter from a preventive point of view was important -- if the causes of migration, which often were negative, could be ameliorated, then the "right not to migrate" could be better respected. Many migrants actually had not wanted to leave, but felt they had no choice.
Costa Rica had always been a receiving country, especially over the last 20 years. Following the consolidation of peace in Central America, migration flows had changed -- migrants now arrived for economic and environmental reasons. The Government and Costa Rican citizens sought consistently to integrate migrants into national life and to extend to them the full range of human rights; currently more that 15 per cent of the total population of the country consisted of immigrants. A number of policies to extend the protections and of rights migrants had been adopted and implemented.
GIUSEPPE BERTELLO (the Holy See) said that people had always moved from one country to the other, but it had become a phenomenon in the modern world. First this movement had been the driving force for development; however, today, supply of foreign labour was excessive to demand. There was also growing disparity between developed and developing countries. The Governments of the industrialized countries were now adopting harsher laws to strengthen border controls to stop this flow, but this was not stopping the illegal migrants. The result was that a considerable number of people in the host countries were expressing xenophobic and racism reactions and were making foreigners scapegoats. The Special Rapporteur had drawn up a plan of action which could lead to specific measures which could help. The phenomenon of xenophobic reactions seemed to be increasing.
The Holy See welcomed the focus the Special Rapporteur had put on women and children migrants. Women migrants needed guarantees of equal treatment and measures to integrate them into society. The situation was particularly difficult for children who had to live in a new and very different social environment and felt the rejection of this new society. There was a need to open up new prospects to help migrants overcome their difficulties and create measures to help them to integrate into their new societies.
SYLVIE AREZES, of the International Organization for Migration, said the report on migrants by the Special Rapporteur illustrated the complexity and scope of the problem; migrants were from a variety of backgrounds and changed locations for a number of reasons, but violations of human rights of one sort or another were often the spur that set them in motion.
One of the IOM's objectives was to ensure respect for the dignity and well-being of migrants. It sought to achieve this goal directly and indirectly; IOM hoped the Special Rapporteur would act as a spokesperson for those who could not speak for themselves, would promote positive preventive measures, and would act as a link between various groups who worked on behalf of migrants. Objective, reliable information for potential migrants was one potential service that would be very valuable. Strengthening of consular services for migrants also could yield positive results. The key notion must be effective protection of the rights of migrants.
M. YUSHKEVICH (Belarus) spoke about the observance of the rights of the national minorities in his country. Around 19 per cent of the population was made up of national minorities. There were more than 100 nationalities in the country. In recent years, increased attention had been paid to their situation and problems. Legislation had been updated to guarantee their rights. The equal rights of all citizens of Belarus, regardless of their origin, was guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. At present, there were some 200 associations for citizens from more than 17 nationalities. Many had a big influence in Belarus, more than some political parties.
There were schools and individual classes which taught Polish, Lithuanian and Hebrew. The Polish language was taught in many official schools. Concerning citizens of Russian origin, Russian was the second State language and it was also taught in schools. Belarus had ratified or signed 16 international human rights instruments. It had set up the Committee on Religions and Nationalities which dealt with national communities and consisted of representatives of minority communities and Government bodies.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Working Group on Minorities, after five years, had still not yet become an ideal forum for dialogue on minorities; the reason was a lack of political will on the part of States, including Western States. Minority groups often lacked the resources to come to Geneva to participate in sessions of the Working Group. More donations to fund such participation were needed. States should participate more actively in the Working Group to carry on dialogues with their own minorities; and the Working Group should carry out its intention to visit various countries and to convene regional seminars. Slovenia and Mauritius, to their credit, had invited the group to visit, and a regional seminar was set for Tanzania in May of this year.
It was hoped that soon the group would be able to make recommendations to States on how to better implement the declaration of the rights of minorities. A definition of "minority" still had not been achieved by the international community, it should be noted, and it seemed appropriate for the Working Group to consult States, NGOs and others on the matter before it began drafting an international convention.
GLORIA MORENO FONTES CHAMMARTIN (the International Labour Office) said the organization was greatly concerned about the protection of the rights of men and women migrant workers. The total number of migrants around the world now surpassed 120 million and continued to grow. While many of the constraints to trade and the free flow of capital had been removed, the doors to labour migration had been progressively shut. The recent trends in migration patterns indicated an increasing vulnerability of migrant workers and a deterioration of their working, living and employment conditions. Many found themselves in deplorable situations where they were easy targets of abuse, exploitation and violations of their human rights. The ILO had last year started a data base on the working and living conditions of migrant workers with the purpose of compiling information on violations of their human and labour rights.
PEKKA HUTANIEMI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Netherlands, said minorities must not be denied the right to enjoy their own cultures, profess and practice their religions, and use their languages. The principle of non-discrimination was of vital importance for human rights and for the protection of minorities. More had to be done by Governments to ensure the rights of the Roma and Sinti communities; these groups were still deprived of equal opportunities, particularly in the economic, cultural and social fields.
In addition, too few voices spoke up to protect persons from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such discrimination was contrary to fundamental human-rights standards, yet intolerance and social rejection and discriminatory treatment of homosexuals still occurred all over the world. All Governments must protect human-rights defenders active on this subject and should take up constructive dialogues with them to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) regretted that the vast majority of conflicts today involved one or more minority issues. Understanding the underlying reasons for conflicts was therefore a condition for their prevention, and this must be complemented by education in tolerance, understanding and respect for minorities. Austria advocated a culture of conflict prevention. Experience in the Balkans had shown that efforts and capacities in the area of conflict prevention must be further developed. Ensuring the rights of minorities was an important part of such activities. Austria considered international arrangements to be an important tool for minority protection.
Austria believed the Working Group on Minorities was an important forum and that its potential as an early warning mechanism and its contribution to conflict prevention could be further strengthened. The protection of minorities was particularly high on the agenda of Austria's domestic and foreign policy. Austrian legislation stipulated that ethnic groups and their members enjoyed the protection of the law and that the preservation of ethnic groups and the safeguard of their existence be ensured, and their language and customs be respected. Concerning displacement, it had been increasingly recognized that the protection of and assistance to the millions of people displaced within the borders of their own countries was a particular challenge. Austria was going to introduce draft resolutions on the rights of persons belonging to minorities and on internally displaced persons.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that although a cease-fire had been achieved in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a settlement had not been reached, and Azerbaijan still coped with the presence of many refugees and displaced persons in a situation that was "frozen" and now losing the attention of the international community, which seemed to be suffering from "donor fatigue". Continuing emergency international humanitarian aid was critical while a lasting, peaceful settlement to the conflict was being pursued.
Azerbaijan considered that respect for the rights of minorities contributed to the social and political stability of States. However, minorities also had an obligation to respect national legislation and the rights of majorities and of other minorities. Failure to observe these reciprocal obligations by States and minorities was a frequent cause of conflict. The Commission should pay more attention to the issue of the duties of minorities.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus) said he wished to share a few thoughts based on his country’s own traumatic experiences following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the massive, forceful displacement of one-third of the population of Cyprus that had been living in the area that Turkey had occupied. During the invasion, Turkey not only embarked on a policy of forcefully evicting all Greek Cypriots from their homes in the area it occupied but it additionally proceeded with the implantation of almost 120,000 of its own citizens as colonists in the occupied area. Turkey had not permitted and forcefully prevented the return of the displaced to their homes. In light of these facts, it was clear that endeavours in standard setting, commendable as they were, needed to be urgently complemented and supplemented with serious determined and convincing measures and policies for ensuring the respect and implementation of these standards and the responsibilities that States freely undertook.
DEBORAH HINES, of the World Food Programme (WFP), said food often was one of the most urgent needs of internally displaced persons, sometimes because they had lost access to their land and in some cases because they were forced to leave their homes with nothing. In its work, the WFP sought to understand the root causes of displacement, constraints to access to food, and the links between the protection needs of all displaced groups, be they women, children, the elderly, or the disabled. Although there were some situations in which it was necessary to specifically target displaced populations for food assistance, in general these groups were much better assisted through programmes aimed at broader segments of the population, especially when displacement was accompanied by ethnic tension.
The internally displaced still received insufficient humanitarian response compared to that given to refugees, even when the two groups lived in close proximity, and the lack of a clear legal and institutional framework for assisting them was a telling problem. WFP's wide field reach and its work with over 5 million conflict-displaced persons gave it a strong presence near those in need of protection, and it would continue to advocate for a better response to their needs.
JEAN-MARIE NOIRFALISSE (Belgium) said the contemporary forms of slavery was a crucial subject. Belgium wished to emphasize the importance of the struggle against the slave trade in children. Belgium’s commitment had been unjustly questioned. Belgian authorities were ever ready to help the Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and were available to answer any questions in more detail. Belgium had already taken a number of initiatives and wanted to make some facts and information available to the Commission in the spirit of transparency, respect and cooperation. For example, the 1995 laws on child pornography and sexual abuse of children were being re-evaluated, especially after the tragic events that took place four years ago. The effectiveness of the laws was being strengthened and there was also new legislation to improve the legal system to protect children against abuses of all forms.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia) said his country sought to ensure all human rights to its minorities, which included Kurds, Russians, Jews, Assyrians, Greeks, Yezidis, Ukrainians, Georgians, Poles, and Germans. The Kurds, for example, made up 2 per cent of Armenia's population and had their own schools, newspapers, and associations. The President of Armenia recently had appointed an advisor on relations with national minorities, and the advisor's office had quickly organized a Congress of National Minorities which had been a successful event and also had pointed out that there were areas needing further improvement.
Armenians were more numerous outside the country than inside it, stemming from massive flows of refugees around the world in the wake of the genocide carried out against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire at the start of the 20th century, which had resulted in the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians. The descendants of most of those who had fled were now totally integrated into all aspects of life in their host countries.
BRITA SYDHOFF, of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, speaking on behalf of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation and the International Catholic Migration Commission, said the number of internally displaced persons escaping from conflicts continued to grow at an alarming rate without ensuring the appropriate response. The overall UN response to the plight of the 20 to 25 million persons was far too limited, sketchy, sporadic and uncoordinated. Many millions were left to fend for themselves. The speakers hoped that this revitalized debate would lead to better coordination. They paid tribute to the important achievements of the Representative of the Secretary-General on displaced persons. One of his most important achievements had been the development and dissemination of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.
Africa had most of the internally displaced populations in the world. The war in Chechnya, the Russian Federation, had also caused hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons. The speakers were appalled by the atrocities committed by the Government troops against civilians and by the armed opposition groups. The Turkish Government should also respect the rights of the Kurdish people. And the speakers urged the Commission to urge all Governments to respect human rights and humanitarian law in order to prevent forced displacement.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said 21 Copts had been massacred in upper Egypt early in January; this was the 40th massacre and massive attack on Copts in Egypt over the past 30 years. The UN should monitor the current situation of the Copts, particularly of those who lived in upper Egypt, and not ignore their ongoing plight.
The Working Group on slavery recently had defined slavery as a crime against humanity, and the Commission should categorically reject any attempt to replace the word slavery with the term "abduction". The revival of slavery in Sudan had been described in 10 reports of the former Special Rapporteur Gaspar Biro and in the report of Special Rapporteur Leonardo Franco last year. Referring to these African slaves as "abducted women and children" was grotesquely insulting to the victims and greatly contributed to the perpetuation of this subhuman practice in Sudan. The Commission must clearly condemn the slave trade and similar institutions in Sudan and call for international and independent organizations to participate in their abolition.
GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of the International Association for Religious Freedom, said that States should take measures so that minorities, including religious minorities, could exercise all human rights without any discrimination and in full equality. Many minorities, including religious minorities, could not enjoy all human rights. They were the victims of discrimination, intolerance and persecution. For example, in Kashmir, there were terrible terrorist attacks against the Hindu and Sikh minorities. In Pakistan, the Ahmadis were not allowed to be called Muslims and many had been executed. In Iran, the Baha’is were victims of lengthy imprisonment. In China, religious minorities had limited freedom and were persecuted. Tens of thousands of followers of Falun Gong had been imprisoned. Laws were also being adopted in European countries to deny the freedom of religious minorities. Situations in Turkmenistan and France were referred to.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Cuba, speaking in right of reply, said Cuba could not agree with the statement this morning of the Foreign Minister of Canada. Once again a rich northern country had elected itself a judge on human rights and thought itself qualified to pass judgement on the countries of the South. This was not the behaviour Cuba expected from a State so close to Cuba geographically.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said that once again, the Greek Cypriot representative had portrayed the Cyprus question as a problem of invasion and occupation and had cited the Fourth Geneva Convention. In an interview in a Greek Cypriot daily, an elected Greek Cypriot parliamentarian had said that the Cyprus problem was not a problem of invasion and occupation and it had not started in 1974 but in the 1960s. As such, the Turkish intervention was not an invasion but a legal right and obligation and the Turkish presence in Cyprus was not an occupation but a lawful presence. Also, the Fourth Geneva Convention could not be applied in the case of Cyprus because the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus had its own democratically elected Government. In the 1977-79 summit agreements, the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides had agreed on bi-zonality as a basis for a future settlement. Therefore it was hypocritical for the Greek Cypriot side to speak about the return of refugees.
The representative of Cyprus, speaking in right of reply, said the Turkish representative once again had failed to talk away his country's grave violations of human rights in Cyprus. As early as 1954, Turkey had announced that it considered Cyprus "an extension of continental Turkey", and in 1953 it had announced that Cyprus would be divided into two parts, one of which would be part of Turkey. Turkey had long planned aggression against Cyprus, well before the 1974 invasion. Turkey's aggression against Cyprus could not be justified, nor could Turkey's violation of the human rights of all Cypriots. Turkey did not consider itself bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, apparently.
The representative of Armenia said in right of reply that the majority of the delegations had been surprised to hear the improvised version of the undeniable fact of the Armenian genocide which took the lives of 1.5 million Armenians living under the Ottoman Empire. The statement of Turkey was an insult to the memory of the Armenians who had been killed. Next week, Armenians all around the world would commemorate the 85th anniversary of this crime which still required world wide acknowledgement. Armenia would never allow anyone to deny the Armenian genocide. It had not been the delegation’s intention to talk about the Armenian genocide or to revert to the dark pages of the Ottoman rule. It only wished to speak about it in the context of Armenian minorities living abroad.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said the Greek Cypriot representative had conveniently forgotten that the situation in Cyprus had not come about in 1974 but had resulted from previous attempts to unite Cyprus with Greece. There had indeed been an invasion of Cyprus in 1974 -- by Greece.
The representative of Cyprus, speaking in a second right of reply, said the statement just made by Turkey was a perfect example of what impunity and the total disregard of the international community could lead to. Turkey had been found guilty for massive violations of human rights in Cyprus by many international bodies; the Commission itself had pronounced itself on the situation. Yet Turkey still dared to come before the Commission and try to shift the blame from that country. The issue was simple. Was Turkey ready to conform with international legality and respect for human rights?
* *** *
56th session
13 April 2000
Afternoon
Debate Continues on Rights of Migrant Workers, Minorities, Displaced Persons
and Other Vulnerable Groups and Individuals
The Commission on Human Rights approved this afternoon a consensus resolution on the "right to development", calling, among other things, for all States to strive to eliminate all obstacles to development by pursuing the promotion and protection of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and by implementing comprehensive development programmes at the national level, integrating those rights into development activities, and promoting effective international cooperation.
The resolution also noted that a number of developing countries had experienced rapid economic growth in the recent past and had become dynamic partners in the international economy, but at the same time the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide and developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process -- that many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from the benefits of globalization. The participation of developing countries in the international economic decision-making process needed to be broadened and strengthened, the resolution declared.
Following adoption of the resolution, the Commission carried on with the debate under its agenda item on "specific groups and individuals", under which are listed migrant workers, minorities, persons involved in mass exoduses, displaced persons, and "other vulnerable groups and individuals".
Among national delegations addressing the topic, a number stressed that preventive measures that could keep crises from developing were by far the best response to looming difficulties for minorities and other vulnerable groups. A representative of Hungary said experience showed that prevention was the most effective form of protection for minorities in danger, and also showed that post-conflict peace-building would not work without taking into account the rights of national minorities. The Ukraine contended that for all matters under this agenda item, one simple truth was that prevention was better than a cure.
Once crises had occurred, speakers said, international responses had to be practical and well-coordinated, and safe access to stricken or uprooted populations should be provided for relief teams. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) backed a sub-regional approach to internal displacement in which humanitarian action was flexible, with resources not stuck in one budget line or programme but targeted where the need was greatest.
Speaking at the afternoon meeting were representatives of Romania, Ecuador, Argentina, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Georgia, Hungary, Singapore, Ukraine, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), UNICEF, Ireland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Costa Rica, the Holy See, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Belarus, Switzerland, the International Labour Office (ILO), Finland (on behalf of the Netherlands), Austria, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, the World Food Programme (WFP), Belgium, and Armenia.
The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered statements: the International Commission of Voluntary Agencies (speaking on behalf of three other NGOs); the Association for World Education; and the International Association for Religious Freedom.
Cuba, Turkey, Cyprus, and Armenia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
Following adjournment at 6 p.m., the Commission immediately began an evening session scheduled to continue as late as midnight and during which it was expected to conclude the debate on the rights of "specific groups and individuals" and begin discussing "indigenous issues".
Action taken on draft resolution
In a resolution on the right to development (E/CN4./2000/L.14), adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries, in particular the developing countries, as an integral part of their fundamental human rights, as well as the potential contribution its realization could make to the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It reiterated, among other things, that the essence of the right to development was the principle that the human person was the central subject of development and that the right to life included existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; and for peace and stability to endure, national action and international action and cooperation were required to promote a better life for all in larger freedom, a critical element of which was the eradication of poverty.
The Commission further reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, were interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and in that context affirmed, among others, that a number of developing countries had experienced rapid economic growth in the recent past and had become dynamic partners in the international economy; at the same time, the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide and developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process, and many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits. The participation of developing countries in the international economic decision-making process needed to be broadened and strengthened.
The Commission urged all States to eliminate all obstacles to development at all levels by pursuing the promotion and protection of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and by implementing comprehensive development programmes at the national level, integrating those rights into development activities, and by promoting effective international cooperation.
Statements
IOAN MAXIM (Romania) said that over the past decade the Balkans had witnessed one of the most terrible humanitarian disasters since World War II in terms of victims, human displacement and human rights abuses. In less than ten years, thousands of people had perished, millions had been displaced and torture and massacres had occurred. As a result, communities had disintegrated, States dissolved, internal borders appeared and ethnic cleansing became the rule. Concrete action was needed most of all at the grassroots levels. It was a well established fact that when democracy was endangered, human rights were lost. The international community was urged to back up every initiative that stood for the realization of democratic norms and values.
In the turbulent context of the last decade, Romania had done its utmost to improve the record of the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. It had rapidly acceded to all major international and regional instruments and was the first to sign the European Framework Convention for protection of persons belonging to national minorities. It had also concluded treaties with neighbouring countries, with special provisions which addressed the issue of bilateral cooperation in the field of preserving the identity of persons belonging to national minorities. Important measures had also been taken at the national level to facilitate the participation of minorities in the political, economic and social life of the country.
JUAN CARLOS CASTRILLON (Ecuador) said his country wished to add to the remarks, which it supported, which had been made by GRULAC; the Special Rapporteur's report on migrant workers had been valuable and had suggested some value strategies. Ecuador was experiencing migration, as were most countries of the world; for decades the country had welcomed millions who had come from elsewhere, many of them poor and fleeing violence. But times had changed; the new dynamics of globalization had led to a mobile labour force, and many Ecuadoreans had pursued work opportunities in countries such as the United States.
Ecuador sought to respect all international instruments related to the human rights of migrants; in fact, migrants often required better protection than citizens did, as they were more vulnerable. Ecuador had received complaints about the treatment of migrants, and restated its conviction that the rights and guarantees offered to migrants should be implemented, and that racism and intolerance were unacceptable when applied to migrants as they were unacceptable under any circumstances.
LEANDRO DESPOUY (Argentina) said that migration was often a non-voluntary act since migrants could not decide on their fate, which was determined by soci-economic factors. Migrants were separated from their families and frequently suffered a cultural shock and loss of material goods. Their integration into their host society was also particularly difficult. They were often exposed to ill-treatment, discrimination and xenophobia. Argentina had favourable policies towards migrants. This was reflected in its rules on nationality and citizenship and constitutional provisions which guaranteed the full integration of foreigners. Argentina also frequently granted amnesty to those migrants who did not have papers.
DANIEL HELLE, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the task of providing protection and assistance to millions of internally displaced persons was immense and required the active involvement of all organizations possessing the necessary expertise and capacity. It was furthermore important that all organizations have their roles defined as clearly as possible. The ICRC recently had issued a paper in which it presented its involvement with internally displaced persons affected by armed conflict. As a neutral intermediary, the ICRC sought to bring protection and assistance to victims and it gave priority to those most in need. National authorities bore the prime responsibility, but it had to be remarked that internally displaced persons were fully entitled to international human-rights law protection.
The high figures for displacement did not allow for complacency. Lack of access and lack of security for humanitarian workers was a frequent problem. The ICRC considered it important as well that its cooperation with other organizations did not put at risk the perception of the ICRC as a neutral, impartial and independent organization. All States should assume their responsibilities to ensure respect for international humanitarian law in relation to the internally displaced.
AMIRAN KAVADZE (Georgia) said that Abkhaz separatists had exterminated 10,000 Georgians and had driven another 230,000 Georgians from the region which they had captured. These Georgians were still being denied the chance to return home. According to the separatists, Abkhazia should not include any Georgians. The separatists had pillaged and looted Georgian homes and used the Georgians still in the area as slave labour. The Government fully supported the various UN bodies which were trying to maintain peace and human rights in the region. However, the separatist paramilitary groups were continuing their repression of Georgians. Georgia believed there should be more monitoring of the situation and that measures be drawn taken to protect the rights of the local population. At present, the separatists were making the conditions to make the return of the expelled Georgians irreversible. They were giving the homes of Georgians away to mercenaries and foreign citizens.
ISTVAN LAKATOS (Hungary) said the international community should remain committed to the principle that respect for human rights could not be considered exclusively an internal affair of any given State but a matter of legitimate international concern, and Governments were accountable for violations of international human-rights standards. They also were responsible for bringing to justice persons who had committed grave human-rights violations. Most major crises since 1990 had been triggered by internal conflicts in which ethnic identity was a prominent source of division. Experience showed that prevention was the most effective form of protection for minorities in danger, and also showed that post-conflict peace building would not work without taking into account the rights of national minorities.
A seminar organized last December in Geneva on the autonomy of the Aland Islands clearly proved that one of the main preconditions for sustainable and flexible solutions involving minorities was that the rule of law should prevail in a country.
ANN HEE KYET (Singapore) emphasized that the welfare of migrants was important to all States, including Singapore. All migrants, as human beings, should enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms. In Singapore, all migrants, whether permanent or temporary, had the same rights to the protection of the law as citizens did. However, there should be a clear distinction between respect for the human rights of migrants and the State's right to set immigration policies. A clear distinction should also be drawn between legal migrants and illegal migrants. While immigration policies lay within the domain of individual States, much could be done at the international level to protect migrants from exploitation and human rights violations. Extra efforts must be made to stem illegal migration and human trafficking, particularly at the source. There was a need for greater cooperation between sending and receiving States to track illegal migration, punish human traffickers, raise international awareness of the problems relating to illegal migration and facilitate the orderly return of illegal migrants.
OKSANA BOYKO (Ukraine) said that Ukraine, as a State with more than 110 minority groups, had always paid special attention to and had respected the rights of minorities. International instruments related to minorities had been respected, and tolerance between minorities was the rule in Ukraine. Minorities were guaranteed the right to preserve their cultures and to study in their own languages. A number of religious organizations were connected to the concerns of national minorities.
A major challenge facing the world today was internal displacement. The problem had grown in magnitude and dealing with it required that States take the primary responsibility for respecting and ensuring the rights of displaced persons. The return of Tatars from Ukraine to their former homeland in the Crimea had been the focus of much effort by Ukraine. In matters under this agenda item, one simple truth was that prevention was better than a cure after the fact.
CATHERINE YON HEIDENSTAM (Sweden), on behalf of the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway, said some groups were more exposed to discrimination than others. One such group was persons with disabilities. A person with disability must not be seen as a problem or a burden. Given support and opportunities, he or she would be able to contribute to the community as everybody else. Physical restrictions often barred persons with disabilities from public buildings and transport. Persons with disabilities were also very often faced with social attitudes that excluded them from taking part in cultural life and normal social relationships. Governments should see that persons with disabilities were given opportunities to make their own choices.
There was a strong interrelationship between disability and poverty. It was estimated that there were more than 500 million people with special needs around the world. An estimated 80 per cent of the world's disabled people lived in developing countries, most were very poor and lacked services. Despite economic constraints, Governments had to give careful consideration to them and take into account their inclusion in Government policies. Disabled women and girls often faced multiple discrimination. Children with disabilities, especially those who lived in poverty, were also particularly exposed to discrimination. Governments must take responsibility and make sure that the dimension of discrimination of persons with disabilities was taken into account in the work of the United Nations.
LESLEY MILLER, of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), said UNICEF was working with internally displaced persons in more than 40 countries. In southern Sudan it was reaching 350,000 children in 1,774 schools, many of them displaced several times. In the past year, so-called "days of tranquillity" had been organized in Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Sudan to immunize children and to eradicate polio. In the long term, such initiatives might lay the ground for lasting peace.
UNICEF actively promoted the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement among its field staff and partners. It supported a collaborative inter-agency response to internal displacement. It supported efforts to improve the application of the Consolidated Appeals Process to internal displacement and backed a sub-regional approach to internal displacement in which humanitarian action was flexible, with resources not stuck in one budget line or programme but targeted where the need was greatest. Internal displacement had to be looked at holistically.
EAMONN MAC AODHA (Ireland) thanked the Special Rapporteur on Disabilities for his report. There was continued isolation and exclusion of persons with disabilities in societies today. The Special Rapporteur had highlighted the fact that children and women with disabilities were particularly exposed to discrimination and exclusion, despite efforts to improve the living conditions for all persons with disabilities. One of the most effective tools was the set of UN Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. They had been making a difference since they were adopted in 1993. However, they were guidelines and had no binding force and it had become apparent that there were shortcomings in their application which should be addressed. The idea of a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities had been put forward on a number of occasions.
Accessibility to the built environment was essential to enable people with physical mobility difficulties to access education, vocational training, health, social and other public services. Ireland had recently introduced proposals to make all new houses visitable by people with disabilities on or after 1 July 2000. Other measures had also been taken like the establishment of a new Equality Authority and Office of Equality Investigations. Ireland would present a draft resolution to the Commission on human rights of disabled persons.
PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said no country in Europe had achieved a complete, wholesome integration of the Roma, and very often the traditions and cultures of the Roma were used as an excuse for not integrating them. The Bulgarian Government realized that no integration programme would work without in-depth involvement of Roma. Bulgaria had hence set up a national commission representing 11 ministries and four national State institutions for integration of the Roma, which had consulted extensively with over 150 Roma organizations. A long-term framework programme had then been adopted.
Among steps already taken to implement the programme were measures to ensure employment of the Roma in the Council of Ministers and various Government ministries; and on the regional and local levels, 17 out of 28 regional administrations had already employed experts to coordinate action on ethnic and demographic issues. Despite budgetary constraints, the Government was working hard to procure the means to carry out its framework programme for the Roma. It was perfectly aware that it was practice that mattered and only the implementation of result-oriented Governmental policies would bring Bulgaria into line with the highest standards of respect for minorities.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said there were some 2.7 million Turkish citizens living in western Europe. The polls showed that roughly 80 per cent did not consider returning to Turkey. Yet these people were denied full participation in the political life of the societies they lived in on an equal footing. The primary issue which faced the migrant workers was their status since they were legally “foreigners” in their respective countries of residence. They also lacked equal opportunities in employment, education and housing and turned into outcasts. There was also discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic background which bred racism. These people became the main target of xenophobia and racial violence. They now lived under constant threat of harassment, if not murder or arson.
Policies of integration, but not assimilation, should be pursued. An important element of the integration process would be to allow these people to participate in the political process of the country of residence. Another significant step for integration would be permission or facilitation of dual citizenship.
ESTEBAN PERNOD (Costa Rica) said there was a link between the defense of migrants' rights and the need to avoid discrimination against them -- the Special Rapporteur had seen that matter correctly. Migrants' rights had to be looked at as a whole, including consideration of the causes that had led people to move from their homelands. Looking at the matter from a preventive point of view was important -- if the causes of migration, which often were negative, could be ameliorated, then the "right not to migrate" could be better respected. Many migrants actually had not wanted to leave, but felt they had no choice.
Costa Rica had always been a receiving country, especially over the last 20 years. Following the consolidation of peace in Central America, migration flows had changed -- migrants now arrived for economic and environmental reasons. The Government and Costa Rican citizens sought consistently to integrate migrants into national life and to extend to them the full range of human rights; currently more that 15 per cent of the total population of the country consisted of immigrants. A number of policies to extend the protections and of rights migrants had been adopted and implemented.
GIUSEPPE BERTELLO (the Holy See) said that people had always moved from one country to the other, but it had become a phenomenon in the modern world. First this movement had been the driving force for development; however, today, supply of foreign labour was excessive to demand. There was also growing disparity between developed and developing countries. The Governments of the industrialized countries were now adopting harsher laws to strengthen border controls to stop this flow, but this was not stopping the illegal migrants. The result was that a considerable number of people in the host countries were expressing xenophobic and racism reactions and were making foreigners scapegoats. The Special Rapporteur had drawn up a plan of action which could lead to specific measures which could help. The phenomenon of xenophobic reactions seemed to be increasing.
The Holy See welcomed the focus the Special Rapporteur had put on women and children migrants. Women migrants needed guarantees of equal treatment and measures to integrate them into society. The situation was particularly difficult for children who had to live in a new and very different social environment and felt the rejection of this new society. There was a need to open up new prospects to help migrants overcome their difficulties and create measures to help them to integrate into their new societies.
SYLVIE AREZES, of the International Organization for Migration, said the report on migrants by the Special Rapporteur illustrated the complexity and scope of the problem; migrants were from a variety of backgrounds and changed locations for a number of reasons, but violations of human rights of one sort or another were often the spur that set them in motion.
One of the IOM's objectives was to ensure respect for the dignity and well-being of migrants. It sought to achieve this goal directly and indirectly; IOM hoped the Special Rapporteur would act as a spokesperson for those who could not speak for themselves, would promote positive preventive measures, and would act as a link between various groups who worked on behalf of migrants. Objective, reliable information for potential migrants was one potential service that would be very valuable. Strengthening of consular services for migrants also could yield positive results. The key notion must be effective protection of the rights of migrants.
M. YUSHKEVICH (Belarus) spoke about the observance of the rights of the national minorities in his country. Around 19 per cent of the population was made up of national minorities. There were more than 100 nationalities in the country. In recent years, increased attention had been paid to their situation and problems. Legislation had been updated to guarantee their rights. The equal rights of all citizens of Belarus, regardless of their origin, was guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. At present, there were some 200 associations for citizens from more than 17 nationalities. Many had a big influence in Belarus, more than some political parties.
There were schools and individual classes which taught Polish, Lithuanian and Hebrew. The Polish language was taught in many official schools. Concerning citizens of Russian origin, Russian was the second State language and it was also taught in schools. Belarus had ratified or signed 16 international human rights instruments. It had set up the Committee on Religions and Nationalities which dealt with national communities and consisted of representatives of minority communities and Government bodies.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Working Group on Minorities, after five years, had still not yet become an ideal forum for dialogue on minorities; the reason was a lack of political will on the part of States, including Western States. Minority groups often lacked the resources to come to Geneva to participate in sessions of the Working Group. More donations to fund such participation were needed. States should participate more actively in the Working Group to carry on dialogues with their own minorities; and the Working Group should carry out its intention to visit various countries and to convene regional seminars. Slovenia and Mauritius, to their credit, had invited the group to visit, and a regional seminar was set for Tanzania in May of this year.
It was hoped that soon the group would be able to make recommendations to States on how to better implement the declaration of the rights of minorities. A definition of "minority" still had not been achieved by the international community, it should be noted, and it seemed appropriate for the Working Group to consult States, NGOs and others on the matter before it began drafting an international convention.
GLORIA MORENO FONTES CHAMMARTIN (the International Labour Office) said the organization was greatly concerned about the protection of the rights of men and women migrant workers. The total number of migrants around the world now surpassed 120 million and continued to grow. While many of the constraints to trade and the free flow of capital had been removed, the doors to labour migration had been progressively shut. The recent trends in migration patterns indicated an increasing vulnerability of migrant workers and a deterioration of their working, living and employment conditions. Many found themselves in deplorable situations where they were easy targets of abuse, exploitation and violations of their human rights. The ILO had last year started a data base on the working and living conditions of migrant workers with the purpose of compiling information on violations of their human and labour rights.
PEKKA HUTANIEMI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Netherlands, said minorities must not be denied the right to enjoy their own cultures, profess and practice their religions, and use their languages. The principle of non-discrimination was of vital importance for human rights and for the protection of minorities. More had to be done by Governments to ensure the rights of the Roma and Sinti communities; these groups were still deprived of equal opportunities, particularly in the economic, cultural and social fields.
In addition, too few voices spoke up to protect persons from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such discrimination was contrary to fundamental human-rights standards, yet intolerance and social rejection and discriminatory treatment of homosexuals still occurred all over the world. All Governments must protect human-rights defenders active on this subject and should take up constructive dialogues with them to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) regretted that the vast majority of conflicts today involved one or more minority issues. Understanding the underlying reasons for conflicts was therefore a condition for their prevention, and this must be complemented by education in tolerance, understanding and respect for minorities. Austria advocated a culture of conflict prevention. Experience in the Balkans had shown that efforts and capacities in the area of conflict prevention must be further developed. Ensuring the rights of minorities was an important part of such activities. Austria considered international arrangements to be an important tool for minority protection.
Austria believed the Working Group on Minorities was an important forum and that its potential as an early warning mechanism and its contribution to conflict prevention could be further strengthened. The protection of minorities was particularly high on the agenda of Austria's domestic and foreign policy. Austrian legislation stipulated that ethnic groups and their members enjoyed the protection of the law and that the preservation of ethnic groups and the safeguard of their existence be ensured, and their language and customs be respected. Concerning displacement, it had been increasingly recognized that the protection of and assistance to the millions of people displaced within the borders of their own countries was a particular challenge. Austria was going to introduce draft resolutions on the rights of persons belonging to minorities and on internally displaced persons.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that although a cease-fire had been achieved in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a settlement had not been reached, and Azerbaijan still coped with the presence of many refugees and displaced persons in a situation that was "frozen" and now losing the attention of the international community, which seemed to be suffering from "donor fatigue". Continuing emergency international humanitarian aid was critical while a lasting, peaceful settlement to the conflict was being pursued.
Azerbaijan considered that respect for the rights of minorities contributed to the social and political stability of States. However, minorities also had an obligation to respect national legislation and the rights of majorities and of other minorities. Failure to observe these reciprocal obligations by States and minorities was a frequent cause of conflict. The Commission should pay more attention to the issue of the duties of minorities.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus) said he wished to share a few thoughts based on his country’s own traumatic experiences following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the massive, forceful displacement of one-third of the population of Cyprus that had been living in the area that Turkey had occupied. During the invasion, Turkey not only embarked on a policy of forcefully evicting all Greek Cypriots from their homes in the area it occupied but it additionally proceeded with the implantation of almost 120,000 of its own citizens as colonists in the occupied area. Turkey had not permitted and forcefully prevented the return of the displaced to their homes. In light of these facts, it was clear that endeavours in standard setting, commendable as they were, needed to be urgently complemented and supplemented with serious determined and convincing measures and policies for ensuring the respect and implementation of these standards and the responsibilities that States freely undertook.
DEBORAH HINES, of the World Food Programme (WFP), said food often was one of the most urgent needs of internally displaced persons, sometimes because they had lost access to their land and in some cases because they were forced to leave their homes with nothing. In its work, the WFP sought to understand the root causes of displacement, constraints to access to food, and the links between the protection needs of all displaced groups, be they women, children, the elderly, or the disabled. Although there were some situations in which it was necessary to specifically target displaced populations for food assistance, in general these groups were much better assisted through programmes aimed at broader segments of the population, especially when displacement was accompanied by ethnic tension.
The internally displaced still received insufficient humanitarian response compared to that given to refugees, even when the two groups lived in close proximity, and the lack of a clear legal and institutional framework for assisting them was a telling problem. WFP's wide field reach and its work with over 5 million conflict-displaced persons gave it a strong presence near those in need of protection, and it would continue to advocate for a better response to their needs.
JEAN-MARIE NOIRFALISSE (Belgium) said the contemporary forms of slavery was a crucial subject. Belgium wished to emphasize the importance of the struggle against the slave trade in children. Belgium’s commitment had been unjustly questioned. Belgian authorities were ever ready to help the Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and were available to answer any questions in more detail. Belgium had already taken a number of initiatives and wanted to make some facts and information available to the Commission in the spirit of transparency, respect and cooperation. For example, the 1995 laws on child pornography and sexual abuse of children were being re-evaluated, especially after the tragic events that took place four years ago. The effectiveness of the laws was being strengthened and there was also new legislation to improve the legal system to protect children against abuses of all forms.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia) said his country sought to ensure all human rights to its minorities, which included Kurds, Russians, Jews, Assyrians, Greeks, Yezidis, Ukrainians, Georgians, Poles, and Germans. The Kurds, for example, made up 2 per cent of Armenia's population and had their own schools, newspapers, and associations. The President of Armenia recently had appointed an advisor on relations with national minorities, and the advisor's office had quickly organized a Congress of National Minorities which had been a successful event and also had pointed out that there were areas needing further improvement.
Armenians were more numerous outside the country than inside it, stemming from massive flows of refugees around the world in the wake of the genocide carried out against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire at the start of the 20th century, which had resulted in the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians. The descendants of most of those who had fled were now totally integrated into all aspects of life in their host countries.
BRITA SYDHOFF, of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, speaking on behalf of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation and the International Catholic Migration Commission, said the number of internally displaced persons escaping from conflicts continued to grow at an alarming rate without ensuring the appropriate response. The overall UN response to the plight of the 20 to 25 million persons was far too limited, sketchy, sporadic and uncoordinated. Many millions were left to fend for themselves. The speakers hoped that this revitalized debate would lead to better coordination. They paid tribute to the important achievements of the Representative of the Secretary-General on displaced persons. One of his most important achievements had been the development and dissemination of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.
Africa had most of the internally displaced populations in the world. The war in Chechnya, the Russian Federation, had also caused hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons. The speakers were appalled by the atrocities committed by the Government troops against civilians and by the armed opposition groups. The Turkish Government should also respect the rights of the Kurdish people. And the speakers urged the Commission to urge all Governments to respect human rights and humanitarian law in order to prevent forced displacement.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said 21 Copts had been massacred in upper Egypt early in January; this was the 40th massacre and massive attack on Copts in Egypt over the past 30 years. The UN should monitor the current situation of the Copts, particularly of those who lived in upper Egypt, and not ignore their ongoing plight.
The Working Group on slavery recently had defined slavery as a crime against humanity, and the Commission should categorically reject any attempt to replace the word slavery with the term "abduction". The revival of slavery in Sudan had been described in 10 reports of the former Special Rapporteur Gaspar Biro and in the report of Special Rapporteur Leonardo Franco last year. Referring to these African slaves as "abducted women and children" was grotesquely insulting to the victims and greatly contributed to the perpetuation of this subhuman practice in Sudan. The Commission must clearly condemn the slave trade and similar institutions in Sudan and call for international and independent organizations to participate in their abolition.
GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of the International Association for Religious Freedom, said that States should take measures so that minorities, including religious minorities, could exercise all human rights without any discrimination and in full equality. Many minorities, including religious minorities, could not enjoy all human rights. They were the victims of discrimination, intolerance and persecution. For example, in Kashmir, there were terrible terrorist attacks against the Hindu and Sikh minorities. In Pakistan, the Ahmadis were not allowed to be called Muslims and many had been executed. In Iran, the Baha’is were victims of lengthy imprisonment. In China, religious minorities had limited freedom and were persecuted. Tens of thousands of followers of Falun Gong had been imprisoned. Laws were also being adopted in European countries to deny the freedom of religious minorities. Situations in Turkmenistan and France were referred to.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Cuba, speaking in right of reply, said Cuba could not agree with the statement this morning of the Foreign Minister of Canada. Once again a rich northern country had elected itself a judge on human rights and thought itself qualified to pass judgement on the countries of the South. This was not the behaviour Cuba expected from a State so close to Cuba geographically.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said that once again, the Greek Cypriot representative had portrayed the Cyprus question as a problem of invasion and occupation and had cited the Fourth Geneva Convention. In an interview in a Greek Cypriot daily, an elected Greek Cypriot parliamentarian had said that the Cyprus problem was not a problem of invasion and occupation and it had not started in 1974 but in the 1960s. As such, the Turkish intervention was not an invasion but a legal right and obligation and the Turkish presence in Cyprus was not an occupation but a lawful presence. Also, the Fourth Geneva Convention could not be applied in the case of Cyprus because the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus had its own democratically elected Government. In the 1977-79 summit agreements, the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides had agreed on bi-zonality as a basis for a future settlement. Therefore it was hypocritical for the Greek Cypriot side to speak about the return of refugees.
The representative of Cyprus, speaking in right of reply, said the Turkish representative once again had failed to talk away his country's grave violations of human rights in Cyprus. As early as 1954, Turkey had announced that it considered Cyprus "an extension of continental Turkey", and in 1953 it had announced that Cyprus would be divided into two parts, one of which would be part of Turkey. Turkey had long planned aggression against Cyprus, well before the 1974 invasion. Turkey's aggression against Cyprus could not be justified, nor could Turkey's violation of the human rights of all Cypriots. Turkey did not consider itself bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, apparently.
The representative of Armenia said in right of reply that the majority of the delegations had been surprised to hear the improvised version of the undeniable fact of the Armenian genocide which took the lives of 1.5 million Armenians living under the Ottoman Empire. The statement of Turkey was an insult to the memory of the Armenians who had been killed. Next week, Armenians all around the world would commemorate the 85th anniversary of this crime which still required world wide acknowledgement. Armenia would never allow anyone to deny the Armenian genocide. It had not been the delegation’s intention to talk about the Armenian genocide or to revert to the dark pages of the Ottoman rule. It only wished to speak about it in the context of Armenian minorities living abroad.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said the Greek Cypriot representative had conveniently forgotten that the situation in Cyprus had not come about in 1974 but had resulted from previous attempts to unite Cyprus with Greece. There had indeed been an invasion of Cyprus in 1974 -- by Greece.
The representative of Cyprus, speaking in a second right of reply, said the statement just made by Turkey was a perfect example of what impunity and the total disregard of the international community could lead to. Turkey had been found guilty for massive violations of human rights in Cyprus by many international bodies; the Commission itself had pronounced itself on the situation. Yet Turkey still dared to come before the Commission and try to shift the blame from that country. The issue was simple. Was Turkey ready to conform with international legality and respect for human rights?
* *** *