PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:

FM Oskanian Addresses UN Commission on Human Rights
Addresses Genocide and Karabakh¹s Self-Determination

Minister Vartan Oskanian addressed the 61st session of the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva today. This is the first year of Armenia¹s second term
on the 53-member Commission.

The minister explained that Armenia¹s membership in this Commission is not
simply an organizational matter. He said that membership is ³as much a
product of our sense of responsibility as of our deep, immediate daily
awareness that individual human rights, the basic human rights of a society,
and individual and collective security are all inextricably, inarguably,
expressly interconnected.² For Armenians, he said ³the human rights
principle, the concept of man¹s inalienable rights touches a raw nerve. We
spent the greatest part of the last century under a regime that endured
solely because of the absence of human rights. Immediately prior to that
period, we had the dubious honor of being the century¹s first victims of
genocide. At the end of the century, we were still fighting to secure the
rights of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.²

Then the Minister focused on Genocide and the issue of Nagorno Karabakh
self-determination.

On Genocide, he explained that for Armenians, ³As a minority, living in the
Ottoman Empire, their call for the application of the lofty principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity, led to their death sentence. Today, their
survivors, living within and outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the
world¹s avowal of the universality of those same noble principles will lead
to recognition that Genocide was committed against Armenians.²

Referring to recent calls by the Turkish leadership for a historical debate,
the Minister reiterated Armenia¹s readiness for dialogue.

³Let¹s not confuse the two kinds of dialogue,² he said. ³One is a debate
about history. The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by
various Turkish administrations for historical debate simply delay the
process of reconciling with the truth.²

On the struggle of the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination,
the Minister remarked, ³Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have
learned to support the victims of domestic violence, we have not yet
graduated to offering the same support to victims of international or
government violence. At best, the world watches silently as the victims
attempt to defend themselves, and if somehow, against great odds, they
succeed, then the world quickly pulls back, as the state loudly cries foul
and claims sovereignty and territorial integrity.
³Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so then, does a government that commits and promotes violence
against its own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the
notion of self-determination is significant and legitimate.²

The Minister concluded his remarks with, ³Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and
protection of human rights is not an abstract principle. It is the
difference between survival and annihilation. We believe it is the same for
many in the world. Yet, our individual and collective tendency is to ignore
or neglect problems for which we have no immediate answer or prospect for
solution. This is even more true in situations which defy belief, surpass
common norms, and shake our very assumptions and values. For these very
reasons, in our ever-shrinking world, what is required is resolve on the
part of the committed in order to expand the engagement of those still
hesitant.²

On the margins of the Commission¹s annual meeting, the Minister met with
Dimitri Rupel, Slovenia¹s Foreign Minister and Chairman-in-Office of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He also met with the
Foreign Minister of Finland, Laila Freivalds. He also met with the President
of the ICRC, Jacob Kellenberger, and Sergei Orjonikidse, Director General of
the Geneval office of the United Nations.

Below is the full text of the Minister¹s statement.

Mr. Chairman,

This is a special year for multilateral diplomacy as we celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the United Nations. This is also a critical year as we
contemplate the reforms necessary to bring this institution, the UN, in line
with the various evolutions and revolutions that the world has seen in this
past 60 years. The UN is the place where we have built security institutions
and structures on the foundations of human freedom and economic access.
Here, we both take from and give to a more interdependent world. With the
future in mind, this is place where we will eventually look to find ways to
avoid threats as we broaden and enlarge human rights and civil liberties.

It is noteworthy that the Commission on Human Rights is the only
non-principal UN body which has been mentioned in the High Level Panel
Report and for which far-reaching reforms have been recommended for this
commission. That is because I believe all of today¹s biggest challenges
affect and are affected by the absence of or adherence to human rights. This
makes the nature of the report very important. How and with what instruments
and mechanisms those rights are to be protected is the concern addressed by
the report and by each of us. Everyone in the international community need
to become engaged as we contemplate that report.

The international community¹s increased focus on shared responsibility for
promoting human rights and freedoms at the national level requires open and
enhanced international co-operation. To justify the need to make new
decisions about old problems, do we need to constantly remind ourselves that
our world is not the same as it was 60 years ago, or even 15 years ago?
Then, local human rights abridgements were local or domestic tragedies.
Today, such abridgements are the first step toward international
catastrophes. Hiding behind national sovereignty in order to avoid
responsibility for to provide protection to human rights, today, risks
proliferation of injustice, insecurity, misery and conflict,
internationally.

Mr. Chairman,
Armenia¹s membership in the Commission on Human Rights is as much a function
of our sense of responsibility as of our deep sense of belief and conviction
that the basic human rights of a society, and individual and collective
security are all inextricably, inarguably, expressly interconnected. For
Armenians, the human rights principle, the concept of man¹s inalienable
rights touches a raw nerve. We lived the greatest part of the last century
under a regime that endured solely because of the absence of human rights,
civil liberties and freedoms. Immediately prior to that period, we had the
dubious honor of being the century¹s first victims of genocide. At the end
of that century and today still, we were still fighting to secure the rights
of self-determination of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.

Let me reflect on each of these.

After living, as I said, under an ideologically different helmet only
fourteen years ago, our domestic experience has been difficult and sometimes
bumpy. We have learned to believe less in snap changes, we have our reasons
to be sceptical of revolutions, we know that smooth public relations do not
last as long as decent human relations. Therefore, as last year, so next
year, we will continue to build on our successes, through evolutionary,
incremental ways: poverty reduction, protecting the rights of conscientious
objectors and religious sects, reforming the judicial system, strengthening
political diversity and free expression, protecting and promoting the rights
of women and children, fighting human traffickers.

As for Genocide, Mr. Chairman, it is the ultimate manifestation of the
violation of human rights. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide. Two-thirds of the Armenian population perished between
1915 and 1918. As a minority, living in the Ottoman Empire, their call for
the application of the lofty principles of liberty, equality and fraternity,
led to their death sentence. Today, their survivors, living within and
outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the world¹s avowal of the
universality of those same noble principles will lead to recognition that
Genocide was committed against Armenians.

Ninety years after the event, we still live with the memory of suffering
unrelieved by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition. In this we
are not alone. The catharsis that victims deserve and societies require in
order to heal and move forward together, obliges me to appeal to the
international community to call things by their name, to remove the veil of
obfuscation, of double standards, of political expediency.

Very recently, at the highest levels, the Turkish leadership called for a
historical debate. They suggested that historians from Turkey and Armenia go
thru archives and sort out this issue. My immediate response that Armenia
would not participate in a historical debate was interpreted as rejection of
dialogue.

Let¹s not confuse the two kinds of dialogue. One is a debate about history.
The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by various Turkish
administrations for historical debate simply delay the process of
reconciling with the truth. The facts are clear. The historical record is
clear. We know well what happened to our forebears. Even in the first days
of the Turkish Republic, the local Turkish authorities who had actually
carried out the genocidal acts were tried and found guilty by their own
Turkish courts. The Turks themselves, for their own reasons, put aside that
historical record and moved away from that honest, dignified approach to one
of denial and rejection. Turkey owes the world¹s generation that recognition
so we move forward.

Mr. Chairman,

This slice of our history is even more reason for the international
community to denounce genocide, once and for always, as a political tool. We
commend the Secretary General¹s 5-point action plan, we believe in
strengthening the capacity and mandate of his Advisor on Genocide, and we
believe that governments who commit Genocide must be persecuted and
prosecuted the governments who commit genocide.

Inability to continue down this path means we have failed structurally and
institutionally. It also means we have failed to make the difficult policy
choices because of short-term political costs, even though we know well that
there will be long-term human and international consequences. A financially
bankrupt government is turned over to international organizations until it
reforms and renounces its wrongs. Can we tolerate any less of a government
which is morally bankrupt? Do we want successive generations to believe that
genocide is inevitable in each generation, on each continent? Can we allow
governments to commit such massive violence against their own people? How
can we explain why a report on Threats Challenges and Change must consider
genocide a threat, even at the beginning of the 21st century?

Finally, the third human rights issue is that of the self-determination of
the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.

Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have learned to support the
victims of domestic violence, we have not yet graduated to offering the same
support to victims of international or government violence. At best, the
world watches silently as the victims attempt to defend themselves, and if
somehow, against great odds, they succeed, then the world quickly pulls
back, as the state loudly cries foul and claims sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so does a government that commits and promotes violence against its
own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the notion of
self-determination is significant and legitimate.

This is exactly what happened to the people of Nagorno Karabakh during the
days of the collapse of the USSR when they opted, peacefully, for
self-determination. The government of Azerbaijan immediately not only
rejected the peaceful dialogue but resorted immediately to forceful
suppression of those aspirations. Azerbaijan continued to militarily
respond. At one point, the people of Nagorno Karabakh were on the verge of
annihilation had there not been the last minute mobilization and their
determination to fight for their lives, homes and their homeland. Today the
government of Azerbaijan has lost the moral right to even suggest providing
for their security and their future, let alone to talk of custody of the
people of Nagorno Karabakh.

Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and protection of human rights is not an
abstract principle. It is the difference between survival and annihilation.
We believe it is the same for many in the world. Yet, our individual and
collective tendency is to ignore or neglect problems for which we have no
immediate answer or prospect for solution. This is even more true in
situations which defy belief, surpass common norms, and shake our very
assumptions and values. For these very reasons, in our ever-shrinking world,
what is required is resolve on the part of the committed in order to expand
the engagement of those still hesitant.

END

“AUTHORITIES WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ATTACKS ON THE PRESS”

A1+
15-03-2005

Press conditions are deteriorating badly throughout Russia and most of
the other former Soviet republics, the Committee to Protect
Journalists detailsin its newly released analysis of press conditions
worldwide, Attacks on the Press in 2004.

Armenia

The Armenian government failed to protect journalists during violent
demonstrations in April against President Robert Kocharian. In some
cases, authorities were directly involved in attacks on the press.

On April 5, police stood by during an opposition rally while two dozen
men attacked several journalists and cameramen. A Yerevan court
convicted two men of the attack, fining them 100,000 drams (US$182)
each for “deliberately damaging property,” the journalists’
cameras. Some victims and the opposition media claimed that the trial
was merely a government attempt to create the appearance of
accountability, the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty reported.

During another opposition rally the next week, police destroyed the
cameras of journalists from the Russian TV station Channel One and the
daily Haykakan Zhamanak (Armenian Time). At least four journalists
were injured when police officers used batons, stun grenades, and
water jets to disperse several thousand demonstrators.

The impunity surrounding these attacks made journalists more
vulnerable. In August, Mkhitar Khachatryan, a photojournalist with
Fotolur news agency whowas reporting on environmentally damaging
housing construction in central Armenia, was beaten by an unidentified
man who threatened him with death and forced him to hand over his
photos. Khachatryan had been taking photos near the mansion of a
former police chief.

Although a private citizen was sentenced in October to six months in
prison for the assault, a security guard for the police chief who
reportedly ordered the attack was neither detained nor charged, the
Yerevan-based Association of Investigative Journalists in Armenia
reported.

Television coverage of the spring opposition rallies and other
politically sensitive issues favored Kocharian, who ensured that TV
stations remained in the hands of government supporters or those who
would not criticize his policies. For the second year in a row,
politicized media regulators kept A1+, an independent and influential
TV station that has sharply criticized government policies, off the
air. The National Council on Television and Radioâ=80’a government
body that regulates broadcasting frequencies and is stacked with
Kocharian supporters-shuttered A1+ in April 2002 and has since
rejected eightapplications from the station for a broadcasting
license.

Broadcasting authorities also kept local television channels that were
moderately independent-such as Yerevan station Noyan Tapan, which was
also shuttered in April 2002-off the air. No new frequency tenders are
planned until 2009.

Unlike television, the print media enjoy greater autonomy from
government control, but most publications are controlled by political
parties and wealthy businessmen, compromising their editorial
independence and professional standards. According to the U.S.-based
media training organization IREX ProMedia, low salaries encourage
widespread corruption among reporters.

Journalists also faced declining legal protection, with the government
continuing to ignore calls from press freedom organizations, the
Council ofEurope, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe to repeal criminal defamation and insult laws added to the
Criminal Code in April 2003. The statutes threaten journalists with up
to three years in prison and have increased self-censorship, according
to IREX.

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 15 2005

`Azerbaijani people’s patience not endless’ – President

Baku, March 14, AssA-Irada
The recent ceasefire breaches are useless amidst Azerbaijan’s
strengthening position, President Ilham Aliyev told journalists last
week.
`The ceasefire violations represent a purposeful subversion by
Armenian separatists,’ he said.
President Aliyev said that Azerbaijan is ready for any future
developments. `If they [Armenians] attack, we will respond in a way
that will make them feel sorry for it’.
Aliyev went on to say that Armenia’s illegal policy is not supported
politically and the double standard policy of Armenian Diaspora and
some political organizations impede improvement of the situation.
`However, justice will prevail. We won’t give up an inch of our
territory. Everybody should know this. First of all, Armenia should
know that the Azerbaijani people’s patience is not endless.’
President Aliyev said that Azerbaijan will make every effort to
settle the Upper Garabagh conflict peacefully.
`Otherwise, we will halt peace talks and solve the conflict by other
means. Noone should doubt this’, Aliyev added.*

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 15 2005

Prague talks may assist in conflict settlement – President

Baku, March 14, AssA-Irada

Baku believes that the `Prague talks’ will assist in settling the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper Garabagh and talks are
underway on the level of the two countries’ foreign ministers,
President Ilham Aliyev said in a meeting with the Turkish Deputy
Foreign Minister Ahmed Uzumcu on Monday.
Uzumcu said Turkey is in political consultations with the Foreign
Ministry of Azerbaijan on a peace resolution of the Garabagh
conflict.
On the same day, President Aliyev received the Director of
Kazakhstan’s National Security Committee Border Service Bolat
Zakiyev.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Former Azeri opposition leader not to leave politics, party head says

ANS TV, Baku
14 Mar 05

The newly-elected chairman of the opposition Azarbaycan Milli Istiqlal Party,
or the National Independence Party, has said the party’s former leader Etibar
Mammadov might reappear on the political stage to head completely new forces.

“It cannot be ruled out that Etibar bay [form of address] will return to the
political arena with completely new forces and new qualities,” Ali Aliyev said
in an interview with private ANS TV on 14 March.

Aliyev went on to say that AMIP might facilitate the creation of a major
movement in Azerbaijan, which could, like in Ukraine and Georgia, decide the
country’s political fate.

“Processes might intensify and become global. One has to know that Etibar bay
has not yet had a final say in politics and that he is still in politics,”
the AMIP leader said.

Aliyev described as false the reports that AMIP members are mainly those who
come from Armenia.

“I was born in Baku and have nothing to do with the place you mentioned. But
I was elected party chairman in a run-off. I think this is the best answer to
your question,” Aliyev said.

“AMIP has been a nationalist party from the outset. One of the tasks of the
newly-elected leadership today is to conduct nationalist propaganda in the
country,” the party chairman said.

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 15 2005

Bush administration does not support false `genocide` resolution

Baku, March 14, AssA-Irada
The Bush administration does not support the draft resolution on the
so-called `genocide of Armenians’, to be discussed at the US Congress
next month, says Alan Makovsky, assistant to Congressman Tom Lantos.
Makovsky said that Turkey and US are strategic partners and will
continue supporting each other.
`Turkey may be proud of its history. President George Bush will not
back any resolution which compares this country to Nazi Germany.’*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 15 2005

Armenians in Georgia oppose withdrawal of Russian military bases

Baku, March 14, AssA-Irada
Armenians residing in the Akhalkalaki city of Georgia held an action
on Sunday in protest against the withdrawal of Russian military bases
from the country.
6,000 people participated in the action, Armenian sources reported.
The Georgian law-enforcement bodies said, however, that the real
figure was 1,500.
The protesters claimed that the local population will become
unemployed if the Russian military bases are withdrawn from the
country, as half of them work at the bases. They said that they will
further appeal to the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili over
this.
Akhalkalaki is densely populated by Armenians.*

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
March 15 2005

AZERBAIJAN, TURKEY: FRIENDLY AND BROTHERLY RELATIONS CONTINUE
[March 15, 2005, 12:05:02]

Foreign minister of the Azerbaijan Republic Elmar Mammadyarov on
March 14 has met the delegation led by the deputy foreign minister of
Turkey, ambassador Ahmad Uzumchu.

In the meeting, Mr. Elmar Mammadyarov emphasized the developing
bilateral relations between two countries. He gave to the guest
detailed information on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, saying that the OSCE fact-finding mission has visited the
region to establish settlement of the Armenians in the occupied
Azerbaijan territories. As is known, the final report of the mission
will be disclosed on March 16 at the sitting of the OSCE Permanent
Secretariat.

Foreign minister of Azerbaijan stressed necessity of bringing to the
notice of world community of the policy of genocide and ethnic
cleanse of the Armenian aggressors pursued against peaceful people of
Azerbaijan during the conflict. He assessed ignorance of the true
history as distortion of reality.

Deputy foreign minister of Turkey, ambassador Ahmad Uzumchu conveyed
greetings of his country’s foreign minister Abdullah Gul to Mr.
Mammadyarov and stressed confidence for further development of the
fraternal relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. He highly
appraised the consultations in the course of his visit to Azerbaijan.

Touching upon the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the
Turkish diplomat said Turkey would always support efforts of
Azerbaijan for peaceful settlement of the conflict.

The parties also exchanged views on a range of questions of mutual
interest.

Velvet revolution inevitable in Armenia – opposition leader

Iravunk, Yerevan
11 Mar 05

Armenian opposition leader Vazgen Manukyan has said that a velvet
revolution is inevitable in Armenia. In his interview with Iravunk
newspaper, he stressed that a referendum and elections will be held in
Armenia soon, after which people will speak about changing the
government. Either the government should try to change something in
cooperation with other forces or the people will revolt one day,
Manukyan said. At the same time, he added that he does not see any
force that would be able to come to power and take specific steps. The
following is an excerpt from Piruza Meliksetyan report by Armenian
newspaper Iravunk on 11 March headlined “They are constantly trying to
fool external forces, but are fooled themselves”. Subheadings have
been inserted editorially:

An interview with the leader of the National Democratic Union, Vazgen
Manukyan.

Foreign policy is an important factor

[Correspondent] Being a member of the Justice bloc, why did the
National Democratic Union leader join the trio [Vazgen Manukyan, Ashot
Manucharyan, the political secretary of the Union of Socialists Forces
and Intelligentsia, and Paruyr Ayrikyan, the leader of the
Self-Determination Association]?

[Manukyan] These two units have been formed in different ways and for
different goals. Justice was formed during the presidential run-off of
2003 between Robert Kocharyan and Stepan Demirchyan. Having registered
unprecedented violations in the first round, we naturally joined the
people and supported Stepan Demirchyan in the run-off.

[Passage omitted: Justice bloc won seats in parliamentary elections]

But there are also foreign policy and the Karabakh problem. Foreign
policy is not only the government’s business. It is a very important
factor in society and is conducted at different levels at the same
time. Armenia has no mechanisms of conducting its foreign
policy. There is even no relevant council in the country let alone
wider structures. That is why those feeling responsibility for foreign
policy have united not in parties, but in persons in an attempt to
create certain mechanisms and to raise certain issues.

[Passage omitted: The Justice bloc has proved to be wise enough to
take this trio calmly without unnecessary suspicion]

People in opposition to government

[Manukyan] Today the government is trying to prove that there is no
opposition in its true sense in Armenia. They think that if there are
no rallies and no clashes, there is no opposition. Meanwhile, I know
that a great number of Armenians are in opposition to what the
government is presently doing in the economy and politics. They are in
opposition to illegality and corruption. They are blaming the
government and calling it illegal. If people are in opposition,
naturally the parties that have been fighting together with them in
the past years are also in opposition.

[Correspondent] By saying there is no opposition, the government might
mean the ways in which this opposition is expressed.

[Manukyan] There are the following ways of expressing opposition:

a) in the parliament (which the opposition is boycotting for known
reasons);

b) rallies;

c) discussions, press conferences and interviews.

Rallies will take place soon. But this is not only for the opposition
(and not only by chanting “Government, go away!”), but also for the
government itself to search for ways out. Presidents come and go –
Kocharyan is in power today but will go tomorrow – but the parties
which have already been in politics for many years and want to stay
there in the years to come should be trying to find some
solutions. Hostility is not a way out. The parties of the ruling
coalition should also be interested in developing the country. They
also want to have power, but they should know that everything has its
price.

[Passage omitted: Manukyan denies that he was recently offered the
post of prime minister. Asked if government reshuffles can bring some
substantial improvements in terms of democracy, Manukyan said that he
gives priority to an effective constitution, qualified civil servants
and active public involvement]

Velvet revolution inevitable

[Correspondent] Speaking of democracy in the light of recent coloured
revolutions, many Armenian politicians say that unlike the Georgians
or Ukrainians, the Armenian opposition has failed to achieve tangible
results.

[Manukyan] Let’s not forget that the first attempt to stage a velvet
revolution was made in Armenia in 1996 because of the Karabakh
problem. It is true that there were broken cordons and shootings, but
in content it was a velvet revolution. Velvet is a nice term, but in
reality the illegal regime was trying to retain power while masses
were fighting to bring their own people to power. It was quite
natural. Simply in Georgia and Ukraine there were external forces who
tried to find a compromise and warned the ruling regimes against
applying force. I believe that the external forces want the
post-Soviet republics to be non-criminal and democratic. The
democratic West is interested in these countries as they will
integrate into the West sooner or later. And I would very much like
this to happen in Armenia without external interference. This will be
difficult to avoid, but I think that the example of Georgia and
Ukraine will show Armenia how to act in the future.

[Correspondent] So you think there will be such developments in
Armenia?

[Manukyan] I think this is inevitable. We will soon hold a referendum
and elections, and whether you like it or not, the people will speak
about changing the government, too.

[Passage omitted: Asked if there will be drastic changes by 2008,
Manukyan says that this is quite possible. What is impossible is to
change something in one or two months as the opposition is saying now]

Unnatural situation

[Manukyan] Today I cannot see any programme that could make Armenia
prosperous and democratic in, say, some six specific steps. I see no
such way now. But this unnatural situation cannot continue for
long. There are different ways: either seeing the crisis the
government itself will try to change something in cooperation with
other forces or the people will revolt one day. But those saying that
this will happen in one or two months are just expressing their wish.

[Correspondent] Do you think that the government change is enough?

[Manukyan] The National Democratic Union believes that the government
change is too little for having the country we want to have and for
fulfilling the task that has been set.

[Correspondent] Do you see any force in the country who can take power
and take some specific steps?

[Manukyan] No, I don’t.

[Correspondent] You said that this unnatural situation will not last
long. Don’t you think that the government will shortly try to change
this situation by reproducing itself through a revolution from above?

[Manukyan] There are two ways: either the government will try to cheat
its own people and external forces, which will be difficult to
do. They are constantly trying to fool external forces, but are fooled
themselves. The people, too, feels and quickly reacts to what is
natural and not. So deceit is not a way out. The other way is very
unlikely – the government will take serious steps to lead us out of
this situation.

[Passage omitted: The world is developing very quickly and our
internal processes are failing to keep pace, Manukyan concluded]

Slovene OSCE chair stresses resolve to stop intolerance, discrimination

STA news agency, Ljubljana
15 Mar 05

GENEVA

The OSCE is determined to stop intolerance and discrimination, OSCE
Chairman-in-Office and Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel
underscored in his address to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva
on Tuesday [15 March].

“In order to firmly embed basic human rights in our societies, we have
to raise awareness among the youth. The Slovene OSCE chairmanship will
therefore dedicate special attention to human rights education,” Rupel
told the assembly.

We have to gradually create an environment that will support cultural
diversity and the integration of migrants, he also said.

In its political and military dimension, the OSCE insists on the
preservation of fundamental human rights principles even when facing
security challenges, according to Rupel.

“Slovenia advocates the promotion and respect of human rights, and
supports the activities of the UN Commission and its mechanisms,” he
stressed.

On the margins of the session, Rupel is expected to meet later today
his Armenian counterpart Vardan Oskanyan and ICRC [International
Committee of the Red Cross] Director General Jakob Kellenberger.