UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF INALIENABLE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF GUARANTEEING FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD
UN General Assembly
Nov 6 2012
Universal recognition of the inalienable right to self-determination
was the most effective way the global community could guarantee
protection of fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social,
Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today, as it concluded discussion
on several human rights issues.
“Whether this right is taken away by military intervention,
aggression, occupation, or even exploitation, the world cannot
condone its deprivation from any peoples in any region,” the Maldives
representative said.
All States facing questions of self-determination must include
broader ethnic and linguistic groups in decision-making processes,
said delegates, as the Committee heard from some 35 speakers in a
day-long debate that concluded its consideration of the elimination
of racism, and the right of peoples to self-determination, then moved
on to consideration of human rights protections.
The representative from the youngest Member State, South Sudan,
said his people’s experiences were “an excellent lesson for the
international community” on matters of racism and self-determination,
since South Sudanese political parties and personalities had not
been consulted in discussions on independence from colonial Britain,
which led to distrust and decades of war.
The racial and religious discrimination faced by South Sudan for more
than six decades should not have happened, with the Charter and the
watchful eyes of the United Nations to guard against such indignities,
he said. Nonetheless, despite all the hardship inflicted, South Sudan,
which finally became a Republic in 2011, would like to put suffering
behind, and seek a good relationship with Sudan.
During the discussion, a number of countries supported realization
of self-determination for the Palestinian people, calling on the
Security Council to recommend that the General Assembly accept the
Palestinian application for United Nations membership and heavily
criticizing Israel’s policies.
Malaysia’s representative said he had personally witnessed the
suffering of Palestinians under Israel’s military occupation and
blockade, which destroyed the economy and minimized employment
opportunities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. “The sooner
the solution is found, the sooner members of both sides can find
themselves living in peace and security,” he said. “The only option
is to make the two-State solution, based on 1967 borders with East
Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, a reality,” he said.
The Palestinian observer said Israel had violently withheld the
inherent right to self-determination of the Palestinian people,
but those people remained committed to peace and had not forsaken
their legitimate national aspirations. Israel should not be allowed
to continue obstructing and dictating the terms of the Palestinian
exercise of the right to self-determination, she said.
Speaking in right of reply, Israel’s representative said that it was
committed to advancing the self-determination of Palestinians and
to a two-State solution. The Palestinian delegate, among others,
had neglected to mention that Israel’s Prime Minister had offered
to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority President without
preconditions but had been rebuffed “time and again”. If the
Palestinian delegate cared about self-determination, she would stop
berating his country and start working with it, he said.
In the afternoon, the Committee also resumed its discussion on the
promotion and protection of human rights, in which most delegates vowed
to continue engaging in the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic
Review, a cornerstone of the international human rights architecture.
During the debate, the representative of Nigeria said the most severe
human rights problems in the world today were caused by poverty,
discrimination, conflicts and diseases. Political instability and
conflicts, particularly in Africa, were intrinsically linked to
economic development, he said, calling for an increase in development
and financial assistance to realize the Millennium Development Goals.
The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said the work of the international
community in promotion and protection of human rights should take into
account principles of respect for national sovereignty, territorial
integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
“Freedom, progress and national stability are promoted by a balance
between the rights of the individual and those of the community,
through which many individual rights are realized, as provided for
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said.
The European Union’s representative said 2012 had been a year in which
the long path of transition in many countries continued worldwide.
“There may be temptations, once power is gained, to refuse to grant
to some the full enjoyment of all human rights. But, democracy can
only flourish when it gives its entire people, whatever their gender,
religion, disability, language or ethnic identity, an equal say and
equal rights, guaranteed in law and practice,” he said.
Also speaking today in the debate on racism and self-determination
were the representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Albania, Malaysia,
Bolivia, Norway, Syria, India, Costa Rica, Armenia, Iceland, Egypt
and Azerbaijan.
Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the
representatives of Armenia, Pakistan, Syria, India and Azerbaijan,
as well as a representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of
Palestine.
In the debate on the protection and promotion of human rights
the Secretary-General of the Ministry for Human Rights of Burkina
Faso spoke, as did the representatives of India, United Republic of
Tanzania, Morocco, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Latvia, Barbados (on behalf of
Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Chile (on behalf of the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States), Brazil (on behalf of Southern
Common Market (MERCOSUR)), Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Venezuela, United
States, Australia, Japan and Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
Exercising the right of reply were the representatives of China,
Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba,
Bahrain, Viet Nam and Japan.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 7 November, to
begin its consideration of refugees and hold a dialogue with the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Background
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today
to continue its consideration of elimination of racism, racial
discrimination and related intolerance as well as the right of peoples
to self-determination, and to continue its discussion of promotion
and protection of human rights.
Statements on Racism and Self-Determination
NURBEK KASYMOV ( Kyrgyzstan) rejected all forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. He also rejected
the recent film entitled “The Innocence of Muslims”, saying also it
was unacceptable to direct violence against diplomatic staff. There
were more than 100 nationalities in Kyrgyzstan, and one third of the
population was comprised of ethnic minorities. In 1994, Kyrgyzstan
had become party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, reaffirming its attachment to equality and non-discrimination.
The constitution enshrined equal rights for all. It was pursuing
a policy of multicultural education and transparent governance. A
council on inter-ethnic development also had been established under
the President’s auspices.
Noting that more than 10 years had passed since the adoption of the
Durban Declaration, he said implementation of that instrument and its
Programme of Action had been unsatisfactory, as racism persisted in
all corners of the world. He shared the Secretary-General’s appeal
for more political will and stronger measures to reverse the trend
of racist and xenophobic violence. Intercultural dialogue and respect
for diversity were extremely important in combating such behaviour.
Political platforms based on such attitudes should be condemned as
incompatible with democratic principles and he urged States to change
legislation, guarantee the rule of law and carry out appropriate
educational work.
Mr. RAHMAN ( Iran) said the right of Palestinians to self-determination
was an inalienable right, yet Palestinians were being deprived
the exercise of that right. Flagrant international human rights
violations by the occupying Power continued unabated. The international
community should not be indifferent to that travesty of justice and
humanity. Palestinians deserved liberation and self-determination and
international measures had been inadequate. As long as that question
remained unresolved, peace could not prevail in the region. The
question of Palestine was at the core of the Middle East conflict. The
root cause of the problem should be addressed. The final outcome
should be an independent, democratic Palestine with Al-Quds Al-Sharif
as its capital.
Turning to racism, Mr. ANSARI said racism, in different forms and
manifestations, was among the root causes of internal and international
conflicts, and threatened ethnic and religious minorities. Racial and
xenophobic actions had increasingly targeted minorities, especially
Muslim communities, indigenous peoples, immigrants, people with African
or Asian origins, and Roma. The growing tendency of politicians to
stigmatize people on the basis of religion, race, colour, descent
and national or ethnic origin was also alarming. The world had seen
a recent upsurge of “Islamophobia” in certain parts of the world,
a trend manifested in attacks on Muslim places of worship, among
other things. He was gravely concerned at the desecration of Muslim
sanctuaries, saying such Islamophobic acts only cultivated animosity
among different peoples and nations.
ERVIN NINA ( Albania) welcomed the contribution of the Special
Rapporteur in his report on the increased use of the Internet to
promote, fuel and disseminate racist ideas. Dialogue among different
cultures and civilizations should be seen as an ongoing process that
required dedication, goodwill and care. “We cannot permit that the
reckless sporadic actions of disruptive groups through the Internet
obstruct us from a genuine effort to reach a better understanding of
each other in a world everyday more globalized,” he said.
Albania shared the view that the global fight against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was an issue that
concerned all and in which the international community must be united.
But, it was also convinced that the fight against intolerance began
at the community level, and no society could progress unless every
aspect of discrimination was fought vigorously and continuously.
HUSSEIN HANIFF ( Malaysia) said the long struggle for
self-determination still eluded Palestinians, and the expansion of
Israeli settlements was tantamount to that country’s encouragement
of settler violence against Palestinian people and property. Israeli
policies and practices of displacement and dispossession only served
to worsen the disempowering and vulnerable conditions endured by
the Palestinian people. He urged the international community and
the Middle East Quartet to take firmer action to stop the illegal
Israeli settlements, confiscation of Palestinian land and resources
and demolition of Palestinian homes, property and infrastructure. The
practices of administrative detention and extrajudicial execution
also required a stronger international response.
In addition, the Palestinian right to self-determination had been
denied with illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, where for five years
1.6 million Gazans had been living with insecurity, he said. He had
personally witnessed the sufferings of the military occupation and
blockade, which destroyed the economy and minimized employment
opportunities in the occupied Palestinian territories. Under
restrictive and oppressive conditions, Israel’s control over every
entry and exit of all people, goods and services in and out of Gaza
was definitely done to slow the Palestinian path towards achieving
self-determination. “The sooner the solution is found, the sooner
members of both sides can find themselves living in peace and
security. The only option is to make the two-State solution based on
1967 borders with East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine a reality,”
he said.
INGRID SABJA ( Bolivia) said her country prohibited all forms
discrimination based on age, colour, origin, culture, religious belief,
political or philosophical affiliation, economic status, educational
level, and other factors aimed at undermining the enjoyment of equal
conditions for all people. The Constitution protected and promoted
human rights in rejection of all forms of racism. Yet, various forms
of racism had come to the fore during the President’s election among
those unable to accept such changes. That had led to confrontations
against farming and rural communities.
She said racial discrimination affected the poor, which led to conflict
and exacerbated poverty. On 8 October, the President enacted a law
against racism that established mechanisms for preventing racism and
all forms of discrimination. In line with international human rights
treaties, Bolivia sought to consolidate policies for the prevention
of racist crimes. Under a supreme decree of 2008, the justice sector
worked with indigenous groups and others to draft an action plan for
2009-2013. Another decree established the organizational structure
for a general director to combat racism. In addition, “good faith
agreements” between Government and civil society bodies to combat
racism, discrimination and xenophobia had strengthened the standing
mechanism for dialogue.
AHMED SAREER ( Maldives) said among our most inherent rights was
that of self-determination. It was only through the realization of
self-determination that the global community could begin to address
other fundamental rights such as dignity, justice, progress and
equity. “Whether this right is taken away by military intervention,
aggression, occupation, or even exploitation, the world cannot condone
its deprivation from any peoples in any region,” he said. The primary
focus of all States facing questions over self-determination must
be to create and engage in consultative mechanisms encouraging the
exchange of information and ultimately, the incorporation of ethnic
and linguistic groups into the decision-making process.
It was clear that shortcomings in the consultative process had left
many peoples exploited in the name of development, and natural
resources had been used without regard for cultural integrity or
preservation. “While Maldives deplores excessive exploitation of
natural resources and the potential for adverse impacts, we also
deplore the abuse of peoples without regard to human dignity and
national commitments to international law,” he said. Taking note of
the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
in Palestine, Maldives strongly believed that a two-State solution
with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace was the only
way forward, and therefore, called upon the United Nations to seek
the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people.
TINE MRCH SMITH ( Norway) said her country was becoming increasingly
culturally diverse, which posed challenges, but also enriched society
and created opportunities. The Government had made integration and
tolerance key priorities. “Racism and xenophobia remains one of
the most dangerous forms of discrimination”, she said, as it could
easily lead to hatred, violence and, in the worst cases, crimes
against humanity and genocide. Now more than ever it was important
to confront extremist ideologies and stereotypes of cultural and
religious intolerance. Misperceptions attached to minorities must be
continuously fought.
She went on to urge strengthened efforts to ensure that terms like
“cultural diversity” and “multiculturalism” were associated with
mutual respect, tolerance and a person’s freedom to make his or her
own choices. Interpretations of what was discriminatory would differ.
In some cases, it could be extremely difficult to decide whether one’s
freedom of expression had violated the rights of others, or amounted
to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constituting
incitement to hostility and violence. She strongly supported the
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, saying the main battle
against racism must be fought at the national level. Coordinated
international efforts to combat such abuse were also vital.
NADYA RASHEED, Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine, said Israel
had violated, trampled on and violently withheld the inherent right
to self-determination of the Palestinian people it held captive in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The occupying
Power’s continuation of its illegal policies, building settlements
and related infrastructure, was a clear attempt to strengthen its
subjugation and strangulation of the Palestinian people and to
entrench its illegal occupation. “There can be no justification for
the deliberate planning and expansion of settlements, as well as the
continuation of its expansionist Wall, and there can be no explanation
other than that the Israeli Government is neither interested in the
two-State solution, nor is it interested in peace and security,”
she said.
Continued illegal settlement had led to a point where many now openly
questioned the attainability of the two-State solution. “The failure
to bring a halt to Israel’s settlement campaign and thus enable us
to overcome the impasse threatens to unravel all achieved to date
and to usher in an era of even greater instability and uncertainty,”
she said. The Palestinian people remained committed to peace and
had not forsaken their legitimate national aspirations; Israel, as
the occupying Power, should not be allowed to continue obstructing
and dictating the terms of the Palestinian exercise of the right to
self-determination. The Security Council’s duties, the responsibilities
of Member States, and the obligations of the High Contracting Parties
to the Fourth Geneva Convention were clear.
Serious, practical measures had to be undertaken to compel Israel to
halt illegal settlement activities and begin moving towards ending
its illegitimate, belligerent 45-year occupation.
MONIA ALSALEH ( Syria) said communications technologies and other
efforts had been used to distort cultures and falsely elevate one
culture, which only fuelled a false superiority of some racial or
religious groups. That threatened international peace and security and
undermined the positive contributions of a culture of dialogue. Racism
in her region had increased in a “crude and dangerous” fashion due to
the Israeli apartheid system. Israel refused to accede to international
conventions related to the repressing crime of segregation. It
had built a racial separation wall and built a racial entity that
would exclude Palestinians, under a mantra of the importance of the
“Jewishness of the State of Israel”.
In addition, Israeli authorities were building a separation in the
Syrian Golan, she said, a futile attempt to separate the Golan from
its motherland, Syria. Those efforts were marked by the theft of
water, land and property, which contravened the Geneva accords. Those
calling for upholding the rights of Syrians could not ignore their
right to restore their occupied territory. Explicit manifestations of
racist practices included Israeli violations in the occupied Syrian
Golan in the areas of health culture and language. Also, Israel was
holding nine prisoners from the Syrian Golan on the charge of burning
false Israeli identity cards and choosing to maintain their Syrian
citizenship. Israel’s protectors continued to ignore its crimes,
which only led Israel to persist in its abuses.
ANYAR MADUT ( South Sudan) said the experiences of his people in
dealing with racism and self-determination was an excellent lesson
for the international community. In 1953 in Egypt, the British had
a consultative meeting with northern Sudanese representatives to
discuss the future independence of Sudan; however, it did not include
any South Sudanese political parties or personalities. There opinion
was not sought or consulted, and that led to distrust. As a result
of that discontent, it escalated into a guerrilla armed struggle,
which lasted 17 years and displaced hundreds of thousands from their
homes. In 1972, an agreement was reached to give South Sudan greater
autonomy, but that agreement lasted only ten years. The South Sudanese
were forced to rebel, with the declared objective to fight for a
secular South Sudan free from discrimination.
The second war lasted 23 years, and ended in 2005, as they exercised
their right to self-determination in a national referendum and declared
South Sudan a Republic on 9 July 2011. The first comprehensive peace
agreement in 1972 had been initially aimed at the principle objective
of uniting Sudan under an agreement that would be free of the racist
discrimination in the old Sudan, but that had not lasted. The racial
and religious discrimination faced by South Sudan for over six decades
should not have happened, with the Charter and the watchful eyes of
the United Nations to guard against such indignities. Nonetheless,
despite all the hardship inflicted on them, the people of South
Sudan would like to put their suffering behind them, and seek a good
relationship with Sudan.
ANNU TANDON, Member of Parliament of India, said her country had
a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multilingual society. Indians
had contended with racism under colonialism, but the leaders of the
freedom struggle had ensured that the principles of equality were
enshrined in the constitution and anchored in a comprehensive legal
framework. India had been involved in drafting the Convention on
the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Expressing
concern at increased racist incidents in some countries, she urged
also taking effective national measures, including those to ensure
an attitudinal change. Education strategies would perhaps provide the
surest guarantee against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia.
She said India’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause was a
cornerstone of its foreign policy. India supported their aspiration
for enhanced status at the United Nations, and for a Palestinian
State with East Jerusalem as its capital and living alongside Israel,
as outlined in the Road Map and Arab Peace Initiative. Ethnic or
religious segregation could not be legitimized by an argument that
society be created along homogenous lines. That would only aid
forces of extreme nationalism. She rejected Pakistan’s statement
about Jammu and Kashmir, whose people had regularly reaffirmed their
will through free and fair elections held there. Pakistan only sought
to turn attention away from its record of human rights violations,
including in the Pakistan-occupied area of Jammu and Kashmir.
SAUL WEISLEDER ( Costa Rica) said his country was privileged to be a
multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, and was committed to ending
of all forms of discrimination. That was why protection of all groups
that were not majorities was key to shaping the democratic nature
of the country. Costa Rica recognized that people of African and
Asian descent, as well as indigenous peoples, remained vulnerable to
discrimination, and were also victims of colonialism and continued
to suffer its effects. Costa Rica was addressing, as a society,
the challenge of racism by ensuring vulnerable ethnicities had
access comprehensive development and growth. It was working on
a systematic approach against discrimination, submitting reports
to treaty bodies and continuing to fine tune its national plan,
with significant support of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The development of the plan was an
inclusive and participatory process which had to include all stake
holders; it was hoped the national plan would pave the way for a
State-wide policy to combat discrimination and promote affirmative
action to create opportunities for all.
Among other measures, Cost Rica’s inclusive new law on migration was
part of the direct struggle against xenophobia, while the 2011 census
established self-identification categories for better analysis to
inform policies. But, racist phenomena had not been eradicated, and
no country could claim to be free from their destructive consequences.
Costa Rica was convinced of the need to depoliticize the manner in
which the agenda item was addressed and focus on the needs of the
victims. Intercultural dialogue was necessary when confronted with
discrimination. Only specific measures and human rights-based education
that promoted understanding between nations, races and ethnic groups
based on the Universal Declaration would help build societies that
were democratic and truly respected equality.
GAREN NAZARIAN ( Armenia) considered the right to self-determination
a major component of respecting human rights around the world. Its
universal recognition was the most effective guarantee of the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That right was
a binding and universally recognized norm of international law.
Obstacles against the exercise of the right to self-determination
led to armed conflict, destruction, internal displacement and
refugee crises. While wounds were trying to heal in Nagorno-Karabakh,
Azerbaijan was trying to launch a new war with anti-Armenian efforts
at the national level. The alarm had been sounded by international
and intergovernmental bodies specialized in combating racism.
He said Azerbaijan continued to disseminate false accusations against
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. It was spreading hate propaganda.
Azerbaijan’s pardon of Ramil Safarov, who slaughtered an Armenian
soldier in his sleep simply because he was Armenian, had been cited
as a sign of patriotism by Azerbaijani youth. Future murderers were
now aware of the impunity they could enjoy for murder driven by hatred.
Such alarming acts contradicted international law and challenged the
entire human rights system. He expected the United Nations to continue
to voice its concern and react promptly to those developments.
Azerbaijan had carried out crimes on ethnic grounds over the decades.
That had not contributed to an atmosphere of trust and only raised
questions about its understanding of the United Nations goals of
peace and tolerance.
GRTA GUNNARSDTTIR ( Iceland) said her country’s Constitution
prohibited discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin, religion
or belief. Two provisions in the General Penal Code specifically
safeguarded against such discrimination, and the Code also made it
clear that any kind of hate speech against a person or a group of
persons based on nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or sexual
orientation was not tolerated. “Hate speech that violates the human
rights of individuals is not protected by free speech,” he said,
noting that it was recently reaffirmed by a landmark European Court
of Human Rights judgement. Iceland also deeply valued freedom of
expression as a fundamental right, and had undertaken a comprehensive
review of its laws, collecting best practices from around the world.
It was essential to work toward universal adherence and full
implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination
on All Forms of Racial Discrimination, he said, urging all States
who had not yet done so to become parties. The Convention bore in
mind daily expression of racism around the world, including in such
sports as soccer, where Iceland applauded FIFA for its strong stand
against that scourge. Iceland also continued to support the Durban
Declaration as well as the outcome document from the Review Conference,
seeing them as important tools to deal with the scourge of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Turning to
self-determination, he reiterated his country’s long-standing support
to people’s right to determine their future. Iceland was determined
to contribute to the realization of that inalienable right for the
Palestinian people, and continued to call upon the Security Council
to recommend that the General Assembly accept Palestine’s application
for United Nations Membership.
MONZER FATHI SELIM ( Egypt) said “the right to self-determination
was essential for the promotion and protection of all human rights
for all peoples without exception”. But, the United Nations,
despite achievements, remained politicized when it came to that
right for Palestinians, who had lived under foreign occupation for
over 65 years. He voiced grave concern towards Israel’s decision to
unilaterally suspend its cooperation with the Human Rights Council,
which set a dangerous precedent. If not addressed, it would undermine
the Council’s functioning. After more than three years of Israel’s
war on Gaza, Egypt reiterated its call for the full implementation
of recommendations in the report by the United Nations independent
international investigation committee.
He said Egypt also welcomed the report and recommendations of the
special procedure on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967. The main theme of the General Assembly
in bringing about adjustment or settlement of international disputes
or situations by peaceful means underscored the need to ensure that
mediation was fair and effective. The decolonization process was
incomplete and more effective efforts were needed to achieve it. The
United Nations was obliged to ensure full realization of the right
to self-determination, and full enjoyment of human rights, especially
for Palestinians. He called for upholding that responsibility through
building confidence among all parties, with the aim of reaching a
just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, on the
basis of all terms of reference, United Nations resolutions and the
land-for-peace principle.
TOFIG MUSAYEV ( Azerbaijan) said acts of foreign military intervention
suppressed peoples’ rights to self-determination and should be halted.
In certain instances, there continued to be a flagrant
misinterpretation of self-determination; it should be made clear
that international law was unambiguous about not creating grounds
for non-consensus secession. Claims of secession were unsustainable
when they violated international law and when they were coupled with
external aid.
That was evidenced in Armenian efforts against Azerbaijan. “We have
witnessed this approach once again in the statement by Armenia,” he
said. The attempted unilateral secession of a part of Azerbaijan
included the use of force and other egregious violations of
international norms. That had been affirmed in relevant resolutions
in the Security Council and General Assembly. Armenia’s revisionist
claims about the principle of self-determination were unsustainable
under international law. “Law is more important than force,” he said.
Right of Reply
Exercising his right of reply, Israel’s delegate said he found it
surreal to listen to Syria’s delegate speak about protecting human
rights when her Government continued to slaughter its own people. It
was time Syria stopped using Israel to sweep its crimes under
the carpet in efforts to distract from the atrocious crimes of the
Assad regime. To comments by the Palestinian delegate, he said that,
contrary to those false statements, Israel was committed to advancing
the self-determination of Palestinians and to a two-State solution.
The Palestinian delegate, among others, had neglected to mention that
Israel’s Prime Minister had offered to negotiate with the Palestinian
Authority President without preconditions but had been rebuffed “time
and again”. If the Palestinian delegate cared about self-determination,
she would stop berating his country and start working with it.
Pakistan’s delegate said Kashmir was an internationally recognized
disputed territory. Numerous statements had been made by India at the
United Nations and other fora. As for the Kashmiri’s elections, it was
known that such elections had been rejected by the Security Council
and by Kashmiris themselves. No electoral activities could substitute
for a free and impartial plebiscite mandated by the Security Council.
He regretted the reference to the so-called human rights situation in
Pakistan, saying: ” Jammu and Kashmir is not India’s internal issue”.
Pakistan’s statement to which India had referred was based on what
Kashmiris and the international media had been saying. Pakistan
would continue to support the right of people in Jammu and Kashmir to
choose their destiny, in line with Security Council resolutions on that
matter. Resolution of those issues could only happen in an environment
of cooperation, to which Pakistan remained committed. Ongoing
discussions must move forward.
Armenia’s delegate regretted that an attempt had been made by
Azerbaijan’s delegate to mislead, by misrepresenting the causes
and consequences of the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia had
never started any aggression. It was Azerbaijan that had started
the full-scale war against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, forcing
them to take up arms to protect their lives. There were systematic
breaches of the rule of flaw, fundamental freedoms and human rights,
including the right to self-determination.
He said the current situation in the region stemmed from Azerbaijan’s
decision to use force to suppress the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
and keep them from exercising their right to self-determination. It
was Azerbaijan that had violated Security Council resolutions urging
parties to pursue negotiations in the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group framework. Azerbaijan’s
refusal to engage in direct talks with elected representatives of
Nagorno-Karabakh, and its hostile stance against Armenia, was the main
impediment to resolving that issue. Armenia had used its good offices
with the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership to find a peaceful solution to
the conflict.
Syria’s delegate said the representative of the occupying Power, having
heard condemnations of its racist policies, had found himself in a
perilous situation, which was why he had tried to divert attention
from events in his country. She would not respond to his lies. He
represented an authority that murdered, raped, and imposed a blockade
on people for more than 60 years. Today, that representative tried
to find solutions that suited his own purposes. Syria impatiently
awaited the evacuation of the Golan Heights by the Israeli occupying
Power. Syria would always remind the international community of that
country’s activities as it pursued its occupation of Arab lands.
Exercising the right of reply, the representative of Palestine said
she regretted to have to take the floor to respond to the statement of
the representative of Israel. Year after year the same assertions were
made, but Israel continued to violate international law on the ground,
which did not offer support to the false claim that Israel wanted peace
and was a peace-loving country. It continued to demolish Palestinian
homes and displace people, building illegal settlements and unleashing
racist settlers. “Is this what they mean by peace?” she said.
Israel should stop wasting the time to make those false statements of
peace and end its violations. Only when Israel ended its occupation
and violations would peace and security prevail.
Exercising right of reply, India’s representative said the
representative of Pakistan had regrettably made a fallacious claim.
Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and its people had
chosen their destiny in a democratic way.
Azerbaijan’s representative, in right of reply, said the comments
by Armenia were illustrative of the country’s purposeful efforts
to mislead the international community. Its claims had never been
consistent with international legal norms. The situation following
the independence of Azerbaijan and actions of Armenia were clear: it
had unleashed a war, occupied Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakhand seven
regions and conducted ethnic cleansing. The most serious crimes had
been committed in the course of the war. In 1993, the Security Council
adopted four resolutions that condemned Armenia’s actions, called for
its withdrawal and confirmed Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan.
The international community had made it clear that any attempt by
Armemia in that regard was a violation. What Armenia described as
the peaceful right to self-determination has been described by the
international community as the illegal use of force.
Pakistan ‘s representative, in response, urged his Indian colleague
to read the relevant Security Council resolutions. The only ways
to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute was to address it in an
international forum and through meeting the aspirations of the Kashmiri
people. Pakistan was committed to a peaceful resolution to the dispute,
he said.
The representative of Armenia, is a second intervention, said he was
responding to another distorted statement by Azerbaijan. The references
to occupation and aggression were baseless and the provocative
statement showed it was not interested in a legal solution. The
people of Nagorno-Karabakh had exercised their inalienable right to
self-determination, and Armenia attached the utmost importance to
international law to maintain peace and security in the region.
Azerbaijan’s delegate said the Armenian delegate’s latest comments
showed how that country was not engaging in a search for peace in the
region. Armenia’s delegate had not introduced anything new. He had
not listened to what Azerbaijan had outlined, preferring instead to
read out a pre-written text of falsifications. Azerbaijan had heard
out-of-context comments that failed to respond to its arguments.
Moreover, he said Armenia bore responsibility for unleashing war
against Azerbaijan. Armenia, which had purged its territory of
all non-Armenians and had created a mono-ethnic culture, should
be the last to speak about the rule of law and justice. That was
an open challenge to the conflict settlement process and threatened
international peace and security. He was confident that Armenia would
be obliged to denounce territorial claims and establish civilized
relations with all countries in the region.
Statements on Human Rights
ANNU TANDON, Member of Parliament of India, said her country attached
great importance to the work of the Human Rights Council, whose
strength lay in its adherence to the principles of objectivity,
transparency, non-politicization and non-confrontation. Also, the
enthusiastic participation by Member States in the Universal Periodic
Review underscored the success of that innovative mechanism. India also
welcomed the ongoing inter-governmental consultations on treaty bodies,
and firmly believed those should now be the focal point in the process
to strengthen them, with final recommendations undoubtedly taking into
account views of relevant bodies and civil society representatives.
It was important that the Special Rapporteurs ensured their conclusions
and recommendations on a particular Member State were first shared
with the concerned Government and that they were given adequate time
to respond; also, in public statements concerning allegations of human
rights violations, Special Rapporteurs had to fairly indicate the
responses by concerned States. “We must remember that the objective
is to assist national Governments and that task can only be done in
cooperation with them and not despite them,” she said.
She also highlighted the need for adequate and equitable allocation
of financial and staff resources to all mandate holders, and said
the financial status of the Office of the High Commissioner was in
a critical situation.
ELLEN AZARIA MADUHU (United Republic of Tanzania) said her country
was a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, among others, and was committed to fulfilling its obligations.
It had also submitted its combined initial, second and third report on
the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, which would be considered in November. The
Government expected to submit its consolidated seventeenth and
eighteenth report on the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2013.
She went on to say her country implemented human rights instruments
in various ways, including through the constitution, the supreme law
of the land, which provided procedures for enforcing basic rights
and duties. The Government had put in place a national strategy for
growth and reduction of poverty and a “Development Vision 2025”, both
of which focused on the promotion and protection of human rights. It
also was in the final stages of drafting the national human rights
action plan, which would provide the necessary framework for that work.
USMAN SARKI( Nigeria) said the most severe human rights problems in
the world today were caused by poverty, discrimination, conflicts
and diseases. Nigeria was concerned that Africa suffered as a
result of that situation; while those problems had been attributed to
underdevelopment, the nexus between security and development had given
those problems a concrete human rights dimension. Political instability
and conflicts, particularly in Africa, were intrinsically linked to
economic development, he said, calling for an increase in development
and financial assistance to developing countries, particularly in
the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, which could be
achieved through a renewed commitment by all to deploy 0.7 per cent
of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to overseas development assistance.
Despite concerted efforts by the international community, more
must be done to implement the Durban Declaration and its Plan of
Action, he said, urging States to establish the political conditions
necessary to sensitize all segments of society on the evils of racial
discrimination. The plight of irregular migrants was also a matter of
great concern to Nigeria, which condemned the way they were rounded
up and detained under conditions that were inhuman and degrading. “We
call on States engaged in this practice to uphold minimum standards
of decency in the way irregular migrants are treated, especially the
conditions under which they are detained,” he said.
MOHAMED ACHGALOU ( Morocco) underscored that it was the primary
responsibility of States to protect and promote the rights of people
within their territories. The centrality of human rights had seen
important institutional developments, including with the Human
Rights Council. Further, the impact of political change on human
rights had been seen in recent years, with democratic changes in the
Arab world and others in the Sahel challenging the United Nations
to find resources and strategies for meeting the needs of countries
in democratic transition or post-crisis. While the attitude towards
United Nations human rights mechanisms was positive, there had been
negative behaviour in implementation efforts.
He urged eliminating the perception that human rights was being used as
a simple way of achieving political objectives. That should also cover
certain politically motivated non-governmental organizations. In
Morocco, human rights today stemmed from a debate among all
stakeholders. He commended Moroccan civil society, which had proven
its capacity to act to preserve constitutional achievements. Morocco
also had gradually adapted to international standards. The attempt
to reach equity and reconciliation, a “pioneering” experience for
transitional justice, was now part of its constitution. Also, Morocco
was committed to discussions with all United Nations human rights
mechanisms, including the Universal Periodic Review, having adopted
almost all of its recommendations. A national programme also had been
created for its follow up.
LE HOAI TRUNG(Viet Nam) said respect, protection and promotion of human
rights was the consistent policy of his country, detailing mechanisms
and measures implemented that were both in line with international laws
and respectful of the social and cultural tradition of the nation. With
a policy that puts people at the centre of the socioeconomic process,
Viet Nam considered acceding to international Conventions on human
rights a steady policy that reflected its resolve and commitment to
safeguard those legal standards.
Besides establishing and refining its legal system, Viet Nam had
accelerated reform and efficiency and increased democracy to better
guarantee human rights. Judges, lawyers, investigators and the police
were increasingly well-trained and increasing in number, he said. Viet
Nam also attached importance to preparation of periodic reports on
implementation of Conventions to which it was a member. Those reports
were an opportunity to review and reassess achievements, as well as
the challenges to realizing human rights.
Mr. KVAS ( Ukraine) said in order to implement fully the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action, a global alliance for human
rights must be developed. Contributions from all actors were needed:
Governments, international organizations and civil society all had
vital roles to play. Genuine and effective prevention was a pragmatic
alternative against human rights violations. The adoption by the
Human Rights Council of the resolution initiated by Ukraine, “The
role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”,
co-sponsored by more than 40 countries, showed the vital importance
and strong potential of preventive strategies, policies and measures
to ensure respect for human rights.
Ukraine was strongly committed to the Universal Periodic Review
mechanism, he said. It went through its first Review in 2008 and
presented its progress report in 2010. On October 24, Ukraine
successfully underwent the second Universal Periodic Review at the
Human Rights Council. The Special procedures were one of the most
dynamic and effective mechanisms for the protection and promotion of
human rights; Ukraine welcomed further strengthening and enhancing
transparency in the selection of mandate holders, as well as ensuring
their independent status. Being committed to the promotion and
protection of human rights worldwide, Ukraine would be a candidate for
Council membership for the 2018-2020 term. Ukraine remained determined
to engage constructively in the work of the Council, and would exert
every effort to ensure it fulfilled its mandate in a most effective
and essential manner.
LLENE KONDRATZUKA ( Latvia) acknowledged the important role played by
the treaty bodies monitoring implementation of obligations, and gave
serious consideration to their recommendations to further improve the
human rights situation in her country in accordance with universal
standards. Being one of the first States to issue a standing invitation
to all special procedures, Latvia actively promoted that practice. “We
believe that issuing a standing invitation to the special procedures
is an unambiguous signal of the strength and commitment of a country
to the promotion and protection of human rights and demonstrates a
tangible contribution to the strengthening of the whole UN system
of human rights protection, of which the special procedures are an
integral and important part,” she said.
To further demonstrate its commitment to the promotion and protection
of human rights, Latvia had put forward its candidature for the Human
Rights Council elections for 2014. “Having gone through a challenging
transformation process and achieving considerable progress, we believe
that as a Human Rights Council Member State we will have much to
contribute to the joint efforts in the global promotion and protection
of human rights,” she said. Promotion and protection of human rights
had been high on Latvia’s agenda since regaining independence in
1991; in the tough situation of the economic crisis, the Government
always made sure those rights were protected and support programmes
continued to be implemented within the available budget. Despite
those achievements, Latvia was realistic and understood there was
still room for improvement and development. It was determined to
continue seeking cooperation in implementing its commitments, to
ensure future challenges could be met.
JOSEPH GODDARD (Barbados), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM), said it was fundamental for States to address
the serious challenges facing the human rights treaty body system
by making proposals to guarantee its effective functioning. That
would help safeguard the basic tenets of human rights. CARICOM would
participate in the intergovernmental process, which was to resume in
early 2013. He reiterated concerns voiced during the dialogue with the
High Commissioner for Human Rights about the selective implementation
of recommendations contained in her report.
He went on to say that, although development was a human right for all,
challenges in its realization continued unabated, due to multiple
interrelated crises facing developing countries, especially small
developing States. It must not be forgotten that all human rights were
interrelated and indivisible. It also was crucial to ensure quality
education and affordable healthcare. Indeed, education was a human
right and vital in the fight against poverty.
He said the Special Rapporteur on the right to food had referred to the
outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,
which stressed the contribution of global fisheries to the right to
food and food security. Residents of developing coastal countries
were most vulnerable to the challenges facing global fisheries and he
underlined the importance of regional cooperation in that regard. He
could not stress enough the need to preserve the Caribbean Sea,
which was critical to the region’s food security and employment.
HUSSEIN HANIFF (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),said the work of the international
community in the promotion and protection of human rights should
take into account principles of respect for national sovereignty,
territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs
of States. “Freedom, progress and national stability are promoted
by a balance between the rights of the individual and those of the
community, through which many individual rights are realized, as
provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said.
ASEAN has made remarkable progress in the promotion and protection of
human rights since its reaffirmed support for the Vienna Declaration
in 1993, among other things, creating the ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights, which planned to conduct thematic studies
each year of its five-year work plan on topics such as corporate social
responsibility, migration, trafficking in persons, juvenile justice
and the right to health. Beginning last year, the Commission focused
on the drafting of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, which would be
a landmark political document, reflecting the aspirations of the people
of the region and setting the landscape for human rights cooperation.
Despite different levels of development within ASEAN, the region’s
commitment to advancing the status of women was clearly demonstrated
by the fact that all Member States were party to the Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. A recent
consultative meeting in Manila helped highlight good practices and
experiences on the implementation of laws, policies and actions aimed
at overcoming the invisibility of violence. Human rights cooperation
required the full participation of all Member States. “While we
seek to set the agenda for the promotion and protection of human
rights in the region, there is a need to take into account the
non-confrontational and constructive manners of engagement in view
of regional particularities, variegated cultures, religions and
traditions,” he said. Nonetheless, it would be crucial to ensure
the effective promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms
in order to realize an ASEAN Community by 2015 that was inclusively
strong with empowered peoples.
OCTAVIO ERRAZURIZ (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said he would focus
on respect for the human rights of all migrants. The composition
of current societies was the result of historic and contemporary
migratory flows; migration enriched societies by making them more
diverse, promoting an exchange of ideas and their evolution. Migrants
made significant contributions to their countries of origin through,
for example, remittances, but their contributions to economic and
social development of host societies were not sufficiently taken
into account. The international economic and financial crisis had,
in many countries, resulted in deteriorating working and employment
conditions for migrant workers and their families.
In that context, he highlighted the increasing reverse of migrant
flows between the Latin American and Caribbean region and developed
countries, which not only included the return of migrants to their
country of origin, but also the arrival of migrants from these
developed countries. CELAC acknowledged Governments had the right to
formulate laws and policies to regulate the flow of migrants through
their territories, but regretted the adoption of laws and regulations
that criminalized the act of migrating. It encouraged Member States to
end excessive detention periods for people who had not committed any
crime, and to unconditionally respect the inherent dignity and human
rights of migrants, urging all States to eliminate laws with political
objectives that stimulated unsafe migration, causing a loss of life.
Turning to violence against women migrant workers, he encouraged
States to implement gender-sensitive policies to ensure all women,
including care workers, were legally protected against violence
and exploitation. CELAC Member States were also concerned about the
current exploitation of migrants, and the fact that international
criminal networks had targeted the traffic of migrants in their
criminal activities. All States needed to strengthen appropriate
coordination between countries of origin, transit and destination
in order to combat those crimes, he said. CELAC looked forward to
convening next year the Second High-Level Dialogue on International
Migrations and Development, with a view to addressing those and
other crucial issues. “This approach must start off on the basis that
the migration phenomenon is constituted by human beings, who cannot
be simply handled or managed in a mechanical way. It is crucial to
promote and respect their human rights and dignity at the centre of
our considerations,” he said.
ALAN SELLOS (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common
Market (MERCOSUR), reaffirmed that human rights were indivisible and
inter-related. Since 2005, the Meeting of High ranking Authorities in
Human Rights had allowed for MERCOSUR States’ coordination on issues
related to children, gender discrimination, education and the right
to truth, among others. In 2010, it established an institute for
public policy, to help strengthen the rule of law in States Parties
and consider human rights as a fundamental MERCOSUR strategy.
He went on to say that in no case could the situation derived from the
economic and financial crisis be used as an excuse to decrease States’
obligation to the promotion and protection of human rights and he
appealed for more efforts in that regard. Developed countries must
comply with their obligation to allocate 0.7 per cent of their GDP
to official development assistance. As for the incitement to hatred
for religious reasons, he said it was unacceptable that people were
discriminated against because of their faith. He reaffirmed the right
of everyone to freedom of religion or belief.
To combat violations against people due to their sexual orientation
or gender identity, he urged enhanced commitment via public policies
that included recognition and coexistence of people for the benefit
of peace. MERCOSUR was working towards the greatest social inclusion
in their public policies, including girls, boys, women, indigenous
and elderly peoples. In that context, he referred to a June decision
seeking to establish a gender equality policy. In sum, MERCOSUR
reiterated its support for the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons against Forced Disappearances, emphasizing
also its commitment to strengthening the Human Rights Council.
THOMAS MAYR-HARTING, of the delegation of the European Union, said
2012 had been a remarkable year for the Union in the field of human
rights. For the first time, it adopted a unified Strategic Framework
setting out principles, objectives and priorities to further improve
Union human rights policy. And last July, the first ever Special
Representative for Human Rights was appointed to enhance effectiveness
and visibility of Union action, with a clear remit to enhance dialogue
with third countries, and international and regional organizations. It
had also been a year in which the long path of transition in many
countries continued worldwide. “There may be temptations, once power
is gained, to refuse to grant to some the full enjoyment of all human
rights. But, democracy can only flourish when it gives its entire
people, whatever their gender, religion, disability, language or
ethnic identity, an equal say and equal rights, guaranteed in law
and practice,” he said.
Countries part of the Arab Spring — Tunisia, Egypt and Libya —
successfully organized democratic elections, and expectations were
high in countries of the region which had embarked on reforms,
such as Morocco, Algeria and Jordan. The Union had also welcomed the
increased cooperation of a number of North African countries with the
Special Procedures, as well as positive developments in Burma/Myanmar,
but recent inter-communal unrest in Rakhine state had drawn attention
to one of the many issues that remained to be addressed. In Bahrain,
some positive steps had been taken, but more should be done to end the
violence and rebuild trust, so that genuine national reconciliation
could start. Transition to a peaceful and sustainable future required
ending impunity and ensuring accountability for past human rights
violations and crimes, which should be prosecuted in domestic courts
and, when necessary, the International Criminal Court. The Union
encouraged Sri Lanka’s Government to implement the recommendations of
the Lessons Learned Reconciliation Commission, and address allegations
of violations of international law.
The Union continued to be alarmed by the deteriorating human rights
situation linked to ongoing conflicts worldwide, he said. The
intensification of violence in Syria continued to shock the world,
and the Union fully supported the efforts of Mr Brahimi to find a
political solution to the crisis, condemning ever increasing use
of force by the regime. Among other things, the Union was also very
concerned at disturbing reports of violations and acts of violence in
Mali; the rapidly deteriorating situation and escalation of violence
in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo; recent legislation in
the Russian Federation; Venezuela’s denunciation of the American
Convention on Human Rights; the unabated crackdown on human rights
defenders in Iran; violations relating to land reform and convictions
of human rights defenders in Cambodia; a more restrictive approach
to freedom of expression and media in Viet Nam; the tragic wave of
self-immolations in the Tibetan regions of China; and persistent,
grave, widespread and systematic violations of human rights in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The General Assembly, as the
United Nations’ premier and universal human rights forum, needed to
address those situations.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER ( Liechtenstein) urged taking a critical look at
the United Nations’ capacity to respond, saying that two elements must
come together for it to bring about decisive change on the ground:
political will and adequate tools. Protecting rights and freedoms
often did not prevail over other political interests in international
decision-making and he urged making every effort to ensure that
preventing grave and systematic violations of international law was
the highest priority in decision-making processes. Preserving the
independence of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was essential
in ensuring she remains the primary advocate for implementing
human rights. Liechtenstein was fully committed to preserving the
institutional arrangements among the General Assembly, the Human
Rights Council and the United Nations Secretariat, while encouraging
different stakeholders in the human rights architecture to strengthen
their cooperation.
Indeed, the Council had established itself as the central standing
body to address all human rights questions. He called on States
to continue engaging in the Council’s Universal Periodic Review,
recalling the collective responsibility to ensure the Review continued
to be a cornerstone of the human rights architecture. Should a State
cease to cooperate, that would challenge the equal applicability of
agreements in the human rights field and put that State’s commitment
to the principle of inclusive multilateralism into question. He also
urged a clear focus on resources in treaty body discussions. In that
regard, States must respond to the ad hoc requests for additional
funding from treaty bodies in the most precarious situations. Those
requests provided an opportunity to pilot innovative proposals, such
as the meeting of treaty bodies in parallel chambers when they deemed
it appropriate.
JAMAL SHARIFUDDIN JOHAN ( Malaysia) said his delegation shared the
view that in certain parts of the world, human rights deteriorated
as a consequence of escalating internal conflict, as well as due to
recent political upheavals. The key component to ensuring continued
exercise of fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, food,
health, adequate water and sanitation was the provision of urgently
needed humanitarian aid. Malaysia called upon all parties to ensure
unimpeded access to humanitarian aid and assistance and called upon the
international community to halt the flow of armaments to belligerents,
which not only prolonged conflict, but also caused unacceptable loss
of life and destruction of property.
For its part, Malaysia had signed the Instruments of Accession of the
two Optional Protocols to the Child Rights Convention, underscoring its
commitment to protecting children. It had also announced the repeal
of legislation inherited from the colonial period, which allowed
individuals to be detained without trial based on considerations of
national security and public safety. New legislation, currently in
the final stages of the legislative process, would provide clearer and
stronger safeguards in comparison to the now repealed laws. Sustainable
development could only be achieved when the rights of all stakeholders
were respected and upheld, and Malaysia attached importance to
continued promotion and protection of human rights not only at the
national, but also at the regional and international levels.
JULIE NIGNA-SOMDA, Secretary-General of the Ministry for Human
Rights of Burkina Faso, said the Universal Periodic Review, while it
could be improved, was the favoured framework for assessing human
rights progress. Burkina Faso had undergone the Review in 2008 and
subsequently organized activities to present its results. Among
other measures, it had set up a committee to follow-up on its
recommendations. Awareness-raising campaigns also sought to abolish
torture, eliminate early and forced marriage and ban female genital
mutilation.
She said Burkina Faso also had adopted a series of laws on: the
promotion and protection of human rights; repression of terrorist
acts; a gender quota in legislative and municipal elections; and land
tenure. Two decrees focused on, respectively, a council to prevent
violence in schools and gender policy. To prepare for its next
appearance before the Council in June 2013, Burkina Faso was taking
other efforts, but it also faced challenges in the economic, social and
climate areas. The country needed international support in the form of
technical and financial assistance, as well as best practices in the
implementation of the Review recommendations. Burkina Faso was doing
its utmost to coordinate actions through the Ministry for Human Rights.
JORGE VALERO ( Venezuela) said there had been a deterioration of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in developed States; poverty and
inequality in the world was being spread, as social programmes were
cut. At least a billion people were seriously disabled or suffering
the serious effects of malnutrition. The struggle against terrorism
was used to increase fear and abolish legal and civil rights, as 8
of 10 deaths caused by unmanned drones were civilians. There were
also extrajudicial executions, torture was justified, prisoners of
war were killed and their deaths were celebrated. It was unacceptable
that countries of the European Union held themselves to be sacrosanct
defenders of human rights, when they caused the suffering of millions
of human beings through their policies. The picture of human rights in
the world was certainly not encouraging. Capitalism in its neo-liberal
phase was violating the rights of the people of the South.
Since 1999, Venezuela had consecrated in the broadest possible way
human rights and guarantees, he said. It recognized the rights of
indigenous communities and environmental rights, and had established
institutions to exercise those rights. During the last decade, poverty
and inequality had been reduced at surprising speed in Venezuela, a
participatory democracy where the benefits of development were enjoyed
and human rights were for all, not just for the few and privileged.
Venezuela repudiated any action that diminished human rights and
fundamental freedoms; today there was no death penalty, nor torture,
nor secret prisons. Venezuela was fully committed to deepening
cooperation with the Human Rights Council, and hoped that system would
be strengthened to encourage genuine implementation of human rights.
TED DINTERSMITH ( United States) said the human rights situation in
Syria had worsened in the last year, with more than 30,000 people
killed. Government forces had escalated violence against civilians
and medical facilities. In Iran, repression against citizens also
merited the strongest condemnation. Iran must uphold its international
obligations, respect its own laws to protect its citizens, and
release all those jailed for their religious beliefs. Further,
he called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect
human rights by dismantling political prison camps. That Government
subjected its people to forced labour and denied the freedoms of
association, expression and movement, among others. Sudan continued
to attack civilians in Darfur, sustaining a climate of impunity and
denying various freedoms. In Blue Nile and South Kordofan states,
the Government’s bombardment was causing civilian displacement and
a worsening humanitarian crisis.
The United States strongly supported the July establishment of a
Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus, he said,
where the Government continued to curtail the freedom of association
and right to a fair trial. He also was concerned at the crackdown
on human rights activists. In Eritrea, the severe curtailment of
fundamental freedoms had led to large numbers of people fleeing the
country. The Government also had not accounted for those who had
disappeared after arrest. In Cuba, a perennial human rights violator,
security forces continued to beat citizens for peacefully expressing
freedoms of expression and assembly. China continued to impede the
freedoms of expression and association. The Government in Burma had
started a noteworthy reform process, but recent events in Rakhine
state had been profoundly distressing. The United States remained
committed to that reform process.
TANISHA HEWANPOLA ( Australia) said that, as a proud multi-faith,
multi-ethnic and multicultural society, Australia encouraged respect
for religious differences and protected the rights of people of all
religions to practice their beliefs without intimidation. Legislation
protected those rights, while multicultural policy advances supported
harmonious relationships between people of different backgrounds.
Australia firmly believed in the freedom to voice one’s opinions or
beliefs as an essential feature of the human rights framework.
She deplored all acts of violence instigated to discriminate against a
person’s religion or beliefs, as well as those provoked by a lack of
tolerance for freedom of expression. She was deeply concerned about
recent violence stemming from the conflicting exercise of those two
freedoms. Governments were obliged to encourage healthy dialogue on
cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity that allowed for
expression of opinion. On other matters, she called on Syria to abide
by a ceasefire and end the violence. She also condemned widespread
human rights abuses in Iran, urging the Government to engage with
United Nations human rights mechanisms, and expressed deep concern
at violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well
as human rights abuses in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
KAZUO KODAMA ( Japan) said his country appreciated the recent measures
by the Government of Myanmar in the areas of democratization and
reconciliation, and Japan hoped to continue to play a positive role
helping improve living standards, foster human resources and maintain
infrastructure and institutions. The human rights situation in Cambodia
had been progressively improving since its peace accord 20 years
ago, however the country still faced several challenges, including
its land rights issue. Japan encouraged the Cambodian Government to
cooperate with the international community to make further efforts
on the remaining challenges. Japan was also gravely concerned by
human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
and was very much disappointed that it refused to cooperate with the
United Nations human rights mechanisms, he said.
Ten years had passed since the Pyongyang Declaration between Japan and
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, yet the abduction issue
remained outstanding. “Twelve Japanese citizens who were abducted
by the DPRK have not yet returned to their homeland. There are still
other cases of missing persons in which the possibility of abduction
by the DPRK cannot be ruled out. This issue should be resolved as
soon as possible, as the victims of abduction and their families are
becoming old,” he said, asking all Member States to lend support for
the situation of human rights in the country. Further, Japan was deeply
concerned by continued serious violations of human rights in Syria,
urging the Government to stop oppression and violence against its
own people. Japan also conducted its eighth human rights dialogue
with Iran, and appreciated the Government’s constructive manner.
However, it was concerned by the human rights situation in the country
and urged the Government to ratify all treaties, calling upon it to
cooperate with the international community by allowing the Special
Rapporteur into the country.
KANYA KHAMMOUNGKHOUN (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) addressed
concerns about a lack of legislation prohibiting the use of the
death penalty against children, saying that children’s rights were
promoted and protected in the constitution. The Government had adopted
a number of measures, including the law on the protection of the
rights and interests of children, as well as the national programme
on anti-trafficking and sexual exploitation of children. Article 32
of the penal code outlined the death penalty as a punishment to be
imposed in especially serious cases. A death sentence was prohibited
for offenders under the age of 18 years at the time of their offence.
He said that although the death penalty had been retained in national
legislation, a de facto moratorium on it had been observed for several
decades. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic was party to seven of
the nine core international human rights instruments, including the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two Optional Protocols.
Its appearance in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review
in 2010, as well as submission of other national reports under other
human rights instruments, testified to its compliance in that regard.
Right of Reply
Expressing her right of reply, China’s delegate categorically
rejected allegations made by the representatives of the European
Union and the United States, both of which were deeply crippled by
their notorious human rights records. She strongly urged the European
Union and United States to review their own human rights situations
and resolve differences with other countries by engaging in dialogue.
The representative of the Russian Federation, responding to the
European Union delegate’s remarks, said that in July, several
amendments had been introduced to publish information on non-profit
groups participating in political activities and, at the same time,
receiving foreign funding. They aimed to increase the transparency of
non-governmental organizations receiving foreign financing. The adopted
amendments did not forbid foreign financing of those organizations. No
punishment, other than cessation of activities, had been outlined for
groups that were hiding their activities. The Russian Federation had
borrowed what had long been used by its western partners. In fact,
the law was modelled on United States legislation concerning foreign
agents, with the Russian version being somewhat softer.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
rejected the fictitious allegations made by the representatives of
the United States, European Union, Australia and Japan. Those claims
were nothing more than a political game to isolate his country in
pursuit of hostile United States policies that had spanned more than
half a century. He advised them to reflect on their own human rights
situations. He also urged refraining from killing civilians in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere.
He said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would reject the
country specific resolution against his Government in the strongest
terms. The abduction issue alleged by Japan had been completely
resolved. If any such issue was to be resolved, it was to that to
confirm the fate and whereabouts of 8.4 million Koreans who Japan had
abducted during its military occupation. Japan was diverting attention
from its unresolved crimes against humanity committed against Koreans
in the last century. It should apologize and compensate victims,
especially comfort women.
Cuba’s delegate, responding to the United States delegate’s comments,
said the United States could have apologized for 20 years of not
recognizing the many General Assembly resolutions requesting it to
lift the blockade against her country. Instead, the Committee had
heard a repetition of arguments that did not convince anyone. False
librettos did not exempt the United States from the consequences of
its attacks against human rights and fundamental freedoms.
She said that country supported mercenaries in countries of the global
South, whose main activity was to encourage terrorism and regime
change. The United States had no moral right to criticize others. She
urged the United States to stop imposing prescriptions and promoting
regime change against Cuba. The United States must respect a people
who were prepared to sacrifice themselves for the legitimacy of their
ideas. It must stop its harassment.
Bahrain’s delegate thanked the European Union for supporting its
efforts, saying that her country had implemented the majority of
recommendations made by the independent commission of inquiry. In
addition, Bahrain had undertaken its second round in the Universal
Periodic Review in September, where it fully accepted 145 of 176
recommendations, and partially accepted 13 more. It was in the process
of implementing them, as well as those brought forth by the national
consensus dialogue. All such efforts showed her country’s commitment
to the promotion and protection of human rights.
In right of reply, the delegate of Viet Nam said he was responding to
the statement of the European Union, which referred to the so-called
restrictions of freedom of expression in his country. Freedom of
expression was clearly expressed in Viet Nam’s Constitution. Viet Nam
now had 954 media outlets and 17,000 licensed journalists, and had
more than 30 million internet users, ranking first in Southeast Asia.
It encouraged the use of blogs and internet forums to express views.
However, it believed that freedom of expression came with obligations,
including obligations to protect national security, public health,
public order and public morals. Any action that incited religious
hatred or violence was prohibited under law. The European Union
delegation should be mindful of the fact that many European countries
had adopted similar laws that would constitute limiting freedom
of expression.
Japan’s representative, exercising right of reply, said the statement
by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea delegate that the
abduction issue was completely settled had been incorrect and
contradicted a bilateral agreement. In August 2008, both countries
agreed on the modalities of an investigation of the abduction issue.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had abducted citizens of
other nationalities, as well. As for numbers of past abuses, they
were totally groundless and as to the comfort women issue, he did
not intend to explain that issue again.
Responding, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea representative
said he was obliged to respond to the misleading statement of Japan.
All survivors had been returned home, along with remains of the dead.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had done everything it
could do and thought the issue had been resolved once and for all. The
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also had documentation of the
extent of past Japan abuses. Without settling past crimes, Japanese
authorities were continuing to crack down on Korean residents in
Japan. His delegations urged Japan once again to settle its past
crimes.
In response, Japan ‘s representative said he would refrain from
engaging in any more detail rebutting the statement of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea. It was deeply regrettable that the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not responded with any
concrete actions to any concerns of the international community.
Instead of merely exercising the right of reply, Japan expected
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respond concretely to
those concerns.