THIRD COMMITTEE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ADDRESS HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN MYANMAR, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, IRAN
10 Texts Approved; Migrants, Unilateral Coercive Measures,
Trafficking in Women, Anti-Racism Convention, Enforced Disappearances among Issues
By the terms of three draft resolutions approved today in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), the General Assembly would address the human rights situations in three Member States -- Myanmar, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Iran -- despite strong objections by numerous delegations over the ongoing tabling of country-specific resolutions.
The three texts, approved by recorded votes, were among the most divisive of the 10 drafts approved today, as delegates argued that such texts ignored progress made by a country and compromised the role of the Human Rights Council and its newly operational Universal Periodic Review.
The representative of Myanmar, speaking prior to the vote on the draft on his country, called the resolution a “yearly ritual” meant to ratchet up political pressure under the pretext of promoting and protecting human rights. “If left unchallenged, [it] will set a dangerous precedent for all developing countries”, he said. Not only did it contain elements that infringed on his country’s sovereignty, it was also clearly aimed at derailing the Government’s road map to democracy, by using the bloc voting power of the European Union.
At the same time, he said it ignored significant progress that had been made in political and humanitarian arenas, including the Government’s cooperation with the United Nations to coordinate a humanitarian response in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, with the help of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and others. Moreover, despite that progress, the current text of the draft was even more harshly written than it had been in the past.
The draft, tabled by France, was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, with 63 abstentions (Annex V).
France’s delegate, who had also tabled the draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said both texts were aimed at drawing the attention of the international community to worrying human rights situations, in an effort to mobilize action on all sides. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, he said there had been few positive developments in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and ongoing violations of human rights -- including, among others, torture, inhumane conditions of detention, and a failure to respect the freedom of expression -- reflected a lack of will by the Government to protect its citizens. “The General Assembly should not remain silent”, he said, in the face of such acts.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea drew attention to the hypocrisy and double standards in the draft on his country, which had been co-sponsored by Japan, which he considered as a top human rights abuser in its own right. The resolution -- which was approved by a vote of 95 in favour to 24 against, with 62 abstentions (Annex III) -- was based on the political interests of some countries in changing the power structure within his country, and had little to do with the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, Canada’s delegate -- whose country was the main sponsor of the draft on Iran -- said that co-sponsors of country-specific resolutions did not take their task lightly and looked forward to a time when such resolutions would no longer be necessary. That said, the Third Committee had a right and responsibility to address human rights situations of concern, such as the situation in Iran. Not doing so would undermine the Committee’s credibility and, by extension, the credibility of the General Assembly at large. The draft on Iran was approved by a vote of 70 in favour to 51 against, with 60 abstentions (Annex VII).
Iran’s delegate pointed out that the pattern of voting, over recent years, had shown that the majority of delegates rejected such resolutions, either by voting against them or by abstaining. The draft on Iran was an example of selectivity and double standards, containing “falsified and unsubstantiated elements”, while ignoring the steady trend of improvements in the country. The international community should pay attention to human rights situation in all corners of the world, without exception, and end politicization and the manipulation of the human rights machinery by a few Member States.
The Human Rights Council, and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism, was now the most appropriate mechanism to deal with such issues, he said, echoing a view expressed by numerous other delegates. Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Cuba referred to the statement made by Heads of State and Government at the Movement’s fourteenth conference in September 2006, rejecting and condemning the practice of selectivity and double standards in protecting human rights and exploiting those rights as a pretext for attaining political ends. Speaking in his national capacity, he called for such resolutions to be dealt with solely within the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which had been created specifically to deal with such situations.
Among the other drafts approved today by recorded vote was a resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, which was aimed at affirming the need for a set of guiding principles for a democratic and equitable international order. On that draft, too, concerns were raised -- this time by France’s delegate on behalf of the European Union -- that some elements of the text might fall outside the purview of the Third Committee and that the Third Committee was not the appropriate forum in which to deal with such issues. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 52 against, with 7 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu) (Annex II).
The Committee also approved the draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions (Annex I).
In addition, after a lengthy procedural debate, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination -- usually adopted by consensus -- by a recorded vote of 178 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex IX).
Among the texts approved by consensus today were draft resolutions on: the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; the protection of migrants; and trafficking in women and girls.
Due to ongoing consultations, the Committee postponed consideration on the draft text on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions until Monday, 24 November.
Also speaking in connection to the various draft resolutions and/or no-motion actions were the representatives of Sweden, Argentina, United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Uzbekistan, Cape Verde, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Japan, and Singapore.
The representatives of Nepal, Malaysia, Panama, Ecuador, Egypt, Antigua and Barbuda, Colombia, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, China, Russian Federation, Norway, New Zealand, Guinea-Bissau, Barbados, Thailand, Belarus, Brazil, Niger, India, Costa Rica, Pakistan, Australia, Uganda, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Ireland, Namibia, Philippines, Peru, Slovenia and Belgium also made statements on the text.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 24 November, to take up outstanding draft resolutions.
Background
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on several outstanding draft resolutions, including drafts on: human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/63/L.31); the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/63/L.32); extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1) and its amendments, contained in documents A/C.3/63/L.74 and L.75; the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/63/L.38/Rev.1); the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (document A/C.3/63/L.41); the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/63/L.44); the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/63/L.26); the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/63/L.33), including its programme budget implications (document A/C.3/63/L.71); and on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/63/L.40). (For background please see Press Release GA/SHC/3939 from 20 November 2008.)
The Committee was also expected to consider a draft resolution on trafficking in women and girls (A/C.3/63/L.13/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly call upon Governments to discourage, with a view to eliminating, the demand that fosters trafficking for all forms of exploitation and to criminalize all forms of trafficking in persons, while ensuring that victims were not penalized for having been trafficked. Recognizing the challenges to combating trafficking in women and girls, owing to the lack of adequate legislation and implementation of existing legislation, the lack of availability of reliable sex-disaggregated data and statistics, and the lack of resources, the draft resolution would have the General Assembly urge Governments to devise, enforce, and strengthen effective gender- and age-sensitive measures to combat and eliminate all forms of trafficking in women and girls. The draft text also expresses serious concern that an increasing number of women and girls from some developing countries and from countries with economies in transition are being trafficked to developed countries, as well as within and between regions and States, and that men and boys are also victims of trafficking, including for sexual exploitation.
A three-part draft resolution on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1) would have the Assembly call on States to fulfil their obligation, under the Convention, to submit their periodic reports in due time. It would have the Assembly express its profound concern that a number of States parties had not fulfilled their financial obligations, and would have it appeal strongly to States parties in arrears to fulfil those obligations. The Assembly would strongly urge States parties to accelerate their domestic ratification procedures with regard to the amendment to the Convention concerning the financing of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It would note the Committee’s request that the Assembly authorize an extension of its meeting time, which was currently only six weeks per year, and decide to authorize the Committee to meet for an additional week per session as of 2010, as a temporary measure. The document containing the draft’s programme budget implications (document A/C.3/63/72) was also before the Committee for consideration.
By the draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/63/L.50/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries whose use could impede the right of people to self-determination, destabilize Governments, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States. It would request States to impose a ban on interventions by companies in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize constitutional regimes, and would call on States that had not done so to consider acceding to, or ratifying, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call on States to investigate the possibility of mercenary involvement if terrorist criminal acts were to occur, and to bring to trial or consider the extradition of those found responsible. It would also request the Working Group to continue the work that had been done by Special Rapporteurs to strengthen the international legal framework against the use of mercenaries, and to take account of the proposed legal definition of a mercenary in the Rapporteur’s report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixtieth session.
The Committee was also expected to take action on a draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly recognize that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred had become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion. In that respect, the Assembly would also express a deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism, and would reiterate the commitment of all States to the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The text would have the Assembly note, with deep concern, the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and deplore the use of print, audio-visual and electronic media to incite acts of violence, as well as targeting of religious symbols.
By the terms of the draft, the Assembly would emphasize that everyone had the right to hold opinions, without interference, and the right to freedom of expression. It would also emphasize that the exercise of those rights carried with it special duties and responsibilities and might, therefore, be subject to limitations as provided for by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security, or of public order, public health or morals. It would reaffirm that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination -- which stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred was compatible with freedom of opinion and expression -- was equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred.
By a draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/63/L.34), the Assembly would urge States to step up efforts to eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief. To that end, the Assembly would have States ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief without distinction, by providing effective remedies in cases of violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practise one’s religion freely, including the right to change one’s religion of belief. Among other things, the resolution would have States ensure that no official documents were withheld for reasons grounded in a person’s religion or belief, and that if religious affiliation was mentioned in such documents, the individual had the right to refrain from disclosing that type of information, or to indicate “other religion” or “no religion”.
Recognizing the complex character of the worsening of the current global food crisis, which would threaten to violate the right to adequate food on a massive scale, the Assembly would -- by the resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42) -- reaffirm that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity, requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international level, for its elimination. The text would have the Assembly consider it intolerable that more than 6 million children still died every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday, and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population.
The text would have the Assembly express concern that, in many countries, girls were twice as likely as boys to die from malnutrition and preventable childhood diseases, and that twice as many women as men were estimated to suffer from malnutrition. Accordingly, it would have the Assembly encourage all States to take action to address gender inequality and discrimination against women, including through measures to ensure the full and equal realization of the right to food, and to ensure that women had equal access to resources, including income, land and water so as to enable them to feed themselves and their families.
By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call for a successful, development-oriented outcome of the Doha Development Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization, as a contribution to creating international conditions that permit the full realization of the right to food. It would call on Member States, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders to support national efforts aimed at responding rapidly to the food crises occurring in Africa, and to express deep concern that funding shortfalls were forcing the World Food Programme (WFP) to cut operations across different regions, including southern Africa. The draft would also have the Assembly request the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Action on Draft Resolutions
The Committee was to have begun its meeting by addressing the draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/63/L.31), but at the request of the representative of Cuba, turned instead to the draft on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/63/L.32). Its main sponsor, Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, made corrections to preambular paragraph 2, removing the word “all” in the third line, and to operative paragraph 7 of the text, removing the phrase “as well as by the elimination of double standards and politicization”. The proposed draft would have States reaffirm their commitment to promotion of international cooperation, and set guidelines on the promotion and protection of human rights. He commended the text for adoption by consensus.
The Committee then approved the draft as orally revised and without a vote.
Returning to the draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/63/L.31), its main sponsor, the representative of Cuba, speaking again on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, reiterated the concern that such measures continued to be implemented in contravention of international law and the United Nations Charter, and with negative consequences to economic development. They affected populations, such as women and children, undermining their well-being and their ability to enjoy the right to food, medical care –- including access to medication -- and social services. He urged delegations to lend support to the draft.
The CHAIR announced that a vote had been requested, and in response to the representative of Cuba, said that it had been requested by the United States.
The draft was then approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions. (See Annex I for voting details.)
The Committee next turned to the draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1). The representative of Sweden said negotiations on the text were still ongoing and asked that action be deferred to Monday, which the Chair agreed to.
It then took up the draft on the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (document A/C.3/63/L.41), hearing a statement by its main sponsor, the representative of Argentina. She said her country was convinced that the Convention was an important contribution to the fight against impunity, and was grateful for the cooperation shown by Member States during negotiations on the text, which was then approved without a vote.
The representative of the United States said he had been pleased to join the consensus, because his Government shared the concern of others on the need to respond decisively on that issue. However, the United States had not signed or ratified the Convention because of problems with the Convention that his Government had verbalized on previous occasions, including in his country’s 2006 submission to the Human Rights Council.
Turning next to the draft on the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/63/L.38/Rev.1), the Committee heard a statement by the main sponsor, the representative of Mexico, who made oral amendments to paragraphs 8 and 11of the text. He said the draft had been the subject of intense negotiations and that several new provisions had been included in this year’s draft relating to illegal migrants. The draft also took note of alternative measures used in place of detention, which were worthy of consideration by all States, as well as attempts to review and modify the length of detention of migrants, to prevent their detention for excessively long periods. He voiced hoped that the draft would send a strong message to the international community on the importance of upholding the rights of migrants regardless of their migrant status.
The Committee approved the resolution, as orally revised, without a vote.
Speaking after action, the representative of Venezuela said that a fruitful discussion and exchange of ideas had led to a compromise agreement on the text, which had allowed it to be adopted by consensus. The direct and indirect social implications of international migration required a comprehensive approach. Venezuela viewed the issue of the criminalization of irregular migration as one of the most important issues on the subject. Xenophobia and discrimination had often been seen in the approaches taken to such migration, which was not constructive in the least. In dealing with irregular migration, it would be necessary to show a deep respect for all human and fundamental freedoms. More specifically, on operative paragraph 12, he said that, while there was a personal right in regard to returning to the country of origin, the right to return referred to individuals only. For that reason, countries that wished to invoke that right could not do so. In closing, he expressed pride over the fact that many countries, including Venezuela, had received European migrants and migrants from all over the world, in the case of famine, war or otherwise.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of France said his delegation had joined the consensus, despite certain reservations regarding the draft. The European Union welcomed the inclusion, in the draft, of a clear reference to the obligation of States to ensure that citizens returning home were welcomed in the appropriate manner. However, it did not reflect the need to regulate migration, in a balanced manner, and to protect and promote human rights and the obligations of States in that regard. The migratory policy in the European Union was balanced, globally comprehensive and had a rule of law approach. That balanced approach should have been more carefully borne in mind in the resolution under consideration. Regarding operative paragraph 9, he underscored that any detention must be conducted in step with international human rights obligations and any conclusions regarding excessive detention should be considered in light of specific cases. The Forum on Migration and Development was an important global forum that allowed for greater dialogue and would contribute to the drafting of a global approach on the issue. There would be added value if the Forum was voluntary, informal, non-binding, and led by States and interested parties. He hoped that, in the future, subsequent resolutions would take a more global and balanced approach.
The representative of the United States said, after the substantial negotiations, his delegation had joined consensus on the draft. He pointed out that the “well-settled principle” under international law was that all States had the sovereign right to regulate the admission or expulsion of foreign migrants, into or out of their territory. The United States provided substantial protections to aliens living within the country, regardless of their migrant status. He expressed strong support regarding the responsibility of States to protect migrants within their territories, while calling attention to the need to ensure the expeditious return of migrants to their countries of origin, if appropriate.
Regarding the detention of migrants, something that international law did not prohibit, he expressed the United States’ shared concern that enforcing such laws should always be done in line with the established principles of international law. The resolution addressed the topic of migrants on a global scale, and it should, therefore, not be sidelined by bilateral matters, such as the bilateral legal matter referred to in preambular paragraph 8. The United States was both a nation of immigrants and a nation with more than 1 million citizens living outside its borders, and as such, he reaffirmed support for the efforts towards the protection of migrants.
The Committee then moved to take action on the draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/63/L.44), which contained no programme budget implications.
On points of order, the representatives of Zimbabwe and Ghana said their delegations were not present in the room during the vote, earlier in the day, on human rights and unilateral coercive measures. Both requested that their votes, in favour, be recorded in the notes. The Chair took note of their requests.
The representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft, said the draft was aimed at affirming that a democratic and equitable international order required a group of guiding principles, such as the right to self-determination, sovereignty over personal resources, international solidarity, and cooperation, among many others. He distributed a document containing a number of corrections to the text, including the insertion of a new preambular paragraph 6 that would stress that the responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social issues, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among all nations and exercised multilaterally, with the United Nations playing a central role. A new preambular paragraph 15 was also added, which would stress the need for adequate financing and technology to developing countries, in particular the landlocked developing countries and small island developing States. He then called on all delegations to show their commitment to the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order by voting in favour of the draft.
The CHAIR then announced that a recorded vote had been requested and, in answer to the representative of Cuba, said that it had been asked for by the United States.
The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said he believed it necessary to continue to work to reach an equitable international order. However, the European Union believed that some elements of the text fell outside the purview of the Third Committee and had been chosen in an arbitrary manner. In addition, the European Union reiterated that the Third Committee was not the appropriate forum to deal with those issues. The language in operative paragraph 12 was prejudicial with respect to the review process in the Human Rights Council. He would vote against the draft.
The Committee then approved the draft, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 52 against, with 7 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu). (Annex II)
The Committee then prepared to take action on resolutions submitted under the agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.
The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, reaffirmed the points made by the Heads of State and Government of the Movement at its fourteenth conference in September 2006, regarding country-specific resolutions. They had made a statement insisting on the need to prohibit the use of human rights for political ends, including by selectively singling out certain countries on irrelevant matters, and for taking actions that went against the founding principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations Charter. The Heads also rejected and condemned the practice of selectivity and double standards in promoting and protecting human rights and exploiting human rights as a pretext for attaining political ends. As the chair of the coordination bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Government of Cuba encouraged all member countries of the Movement to bear those principles in mind as they voted on country-specific resolutions.
The representative of Uzbekistan then took the floor to say he had been absent during voting on draft resolution L.44, and said he would have voted in favour of it. The Chair noted that the Committee was not addressing that particular agenda item. Agreeing, the Secretary said he could not take note of the statement by the representative of Uzbekistan now.
The representative of Venezuela said he agreed with the sentiment voiced by the representative of Cuba, explaining that he would vote against the resolutions on the human rights situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar and Iran, in line with his country’s policy on human rights and foreign policy in general. Those drafts amounted to acts of politicization, selectivity and double standards, which were against the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Human Rights Council was the most appropriate body for reviewing the human rights situations in countries, based on the principles of universality, impartiality, non-selectivity and international cooperation.
The Council, he said, by way of the Universal Periodic Review process, was mandated to undertake a review of human rights situations in specific countries, based on the principles of objectivity and informed by fully supportable data on the compliance of each State with their human rights obligations. That process provided for equal treatment for all States and allowed for the full participation of countries in question. Certain countries used human rights as a political weapon against third States with the objective of criminalizing them, yet those very countries were responsible for invasions and other crimes against humanity. For that reason, he urged that the practice of submitting country-specific resolutions not be repeated in the future. He called on all States to continue to be strident defenders of human rights, without hypocrisy.
The representative of Cape Verde said he was convinced that human rights were indivisible and universal. As recalled in numerous human rights texts, there could be no selective approach to human rights. The fight for human rights was “too important” to risk actions that could undermine their very foundation, by dealing with the issue in ways that introduced prejudice and ignored their universal qualities. He called on States not to make human rights a lever of pressure, or as a way to deflect criticism from their own situations. Also, by dealing with country-specific situations in New York, the Committee was contributing to the distortion of human rights and posed limitations on the global fight for human rights. The overall promotion of human rights could not be reduced to a subtle study of specific issues. His country tried to make human rights an essential pillar of society, and as such, its Government would seek to defend human rights as a means for all societies to live in peace.
The representative of Libya expressed support for the statement made by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and registered regret over the ongoing submission of political resolutions, targeting specific countries, and dealing with human rights in a selective manner. Such issues should be dealt with in the Human Rights Council for a number of reasons, but, in particular, to avoid duplication in the work of the Third Committee and the Council. The Council was an important institution, and it could help the international community avoid selectivity and politicization on human rights issues. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Libya reasserted the resolution of the fourteenth Summit, held in Havana in 2006, which rejected the targeting of any specific State, for the service of political interests. For all those reasons, Libya would vote against the draft resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar and Iran.
Sudan’s delegate, also aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that country-specific resolutions were being exploited to achieve political ends and had nothing to do with the protection of human rights. Politicization had debilitated the work of the former Human Rights Commission. Now that the Commission had been replaced by the Council -- with its Universal Periodic Review mechanism that dealt with all States “big and small” -- such resolutions were no longer necessary in the Third Committee. Some States tried to politically target specific countries and he noted that “all these countries are developing, from the South”. Against that backdrop, Sudan would vote against the country-specific resolutions and he called on all delegates to do the same.
The representative of Syria, also aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said her delegation fully rejected country-specific resolutions, which interfered with States on the pretext of human rights. The United Nations Charter called for equal sovereignty among all States. Responsible and objective dialogue, based on mutual respect and transparency, was the best way to achieve a rapprochement in views and to guarantee the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all. Syria would vote against the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Algeria’s delegate, also aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that country-specific resolutions were adopted every year and, over the years, had shown their limits. Far from promoting the protection of human rights, they exacerbated the situation, creating confrontations that undermined human rights. Constructive dialogue and communication should be the top priority and, in an effort to ensure that such a situation existed, she suggested that the human rights situation be reviewed to avoid compromising the Human Rights Council by such resolutions.
The CHAIR then moved to take action on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/63/L.26), which contained no programme budget implications.
The representative of France said the European Union and Japan were requesting the support of Member States on the resolution, which drew the attention of the international community to the ongoing violations of human rights being carried out in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The draft also took note of a number of positive signs, as well, such as the submission of a periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and further cooperation between the Government and the international community, through organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Food Programme. It also recognized the importance of inter-Korean dialogue and its potential benefits.
Unfortunately, positive developments were few, he said, and there continued to be systematic, widespread violations of human rights in the country. That situation reflected a lack of will by the Government to protect its citizens. Among the violations being reported in the country were violations regarding torture; inhuman conditions of detention; lack of due process and the rule of law; the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons; the situation of asylum seekers and restrictions on those attempting to leave the country; and concerns regarding freedom of expression. The draft also expressed concern over violations of economic, social and cultural rights in the country, including violations adversely affecting vulnerable groups, and dealt with cases of gender discrimination and violations of the rights of workers.
Continuing, he said the draft urged the Government to put an end to those violations and to prosecute those who would exploit trafficking. It also urged the Government to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the issue and other human rights mechanisms, and to give humanitarian actors, including United Nations, access to the people on the ground. The co-sponsors of the resolution “believe that the General Assembly should not remain silent” on the issue and he appealed to all States to vote in favour of the draft, with a view to drawing greater international attention to the very worrying situation.
The representative of Japan said human rights were universal and no Government should be allowed to shirk its responsibility to promote and protect them. Moreover, systematic violations of human rights should be addressed without delay. Japan and the European Union had submitted the draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea because of its concern over the human rights situation in that country, and appealed for support from other States on that draft, so that the situation might change.
He said that, to date, there had been non-substantial change in the human rights situation in that country. It had refused to engage in dialogue with the Special Rapporteur. That country must take action and engage in technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and grant full access to the Special Rapporteur and other United Nations human rights mechanisms and human rights organizations. He further asked that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea allow abductees to return to Japan and other countries of origin.
He said the draft had not been submitted for political reasons, nor because Japan practiced selectivity or double standards, but because it had wanted to promote genuine dialogue between the two countries. Japan had been trying to encourage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to improve its human rights situation, to no avail. Indeed, the resolution was needed because the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea denied it even had a problem. Also, while the Universal Periodic Review process was an important tool for the Human Rights Council to examine the situation in all Member States, countries were reviewed only once in four years. In the case of ongoing, widespread violations, the international community must not wait for the universal review process, but address them without delay. He underlined the fact that the Human Rights Council had a membership of 47 countries, while the Third Committee was an organ to which all United Nations Members States belonged. Both the Council and the Third Committee should be able to address such situations; indeed, the Special Rapporteur had recommended that the international community ensure a calibrated approach by using its leverage to influence positive change. He appealed to all to support the resolution and strongly requested the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the resolution seriously.
Seeking the floor for an explanation of position before the vote, the representative of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was told by the Chair that the Committee was still hearing general statements.
The representative of Singapore said that her country did not agree with country-specific resolutions as matter of principle, believing that they were politically motivated and acts of selectivity. They amounted to arbitrary attacks by countries that were no angels themselves. She regretted the misguided trend of tabling such resolutions in the Third Committee, when the human rights situation in countries should be taken up under the Universal Periodic Review process. That was the reason the Review Process had been created in the first place. For that reason, she would abstain from voting on this resolution and subsequent country-specific resolutions.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he understood that usually there was a vote, and the Chair said that was only the case if there was a formal request, which the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea then made.
The representative then proceeded to reiterate his strong objection to the draft, saying it had been a product of political conspiracy to enforce a change to the ideology and system of his country. It was the culmination of politicization and double standards in dealing with human rights. Its co-authors were countries that blindly obeyed the United States, the worst peace disturber and human rights violator in the world. Those countries connived with, and even supported, the United States’ armed invasions of sovereign States under the pretext of the war on terror. Those countries practiced racial discrimination, maltreatment of immigrants, defamation of religions, murder and rape. It was hypocritical for those countries to criticize the human rights situations in other countries.
He also pointed to Japan’s “disgraceful act” of sponsoring the resolution, as it was a criminal State, almost daily cracking down on the General Association of Korean Residents and Koreans in Japan. South Korea’s cosponsoring of the draft was a reckless anti-national and anti-reunification move, constituting an open challenge to his country’s dignity and system, and a grave provocation to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was also a total denial of the 15 June North-South Joint Declaration and the 4 October Declaration. South Korea had gone so far as to force a deletion, from the present resolution, of a paragraph supporting those declarations, which had been unanimously supported and welcomed by the United Nations, thus disclosing its ulterior intention of seeking confrontation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
He said his country was ready to participate in the Universal Periodic Review process and the reporting process of the various international human rights instruments. However, his Government could not accept the attempt to single out the country. Even with the repeated adoption of a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its people –- with its people-centred system of socialism -- would remain invincible, and grow ever more powerful and prosperous. He voiced hope that Member States would reject the attempt of the United States and Western countries to politicize the human rights issue.
The representative of Nepal supported the sentiment expressed in the draft regarding the need to resolve the issue of abduction of foreigners, and called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to act on that matter soon. However, he believed that country-specific situations should be dealt with by the Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review process, and for that reason, he would abstain from voting on the draft currently before the Committee, as well as subsequent country-specific draft resolutions.
The representative of Malaysia, aligning himself with the position taken by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that his country had long called for a non-confrontational approach, believing that human rights issues should be dealt with through dialogue, and on the principle of objectivity, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference, non-selectivity and transparency, while taking account of social, religious, and cultural characteristics of countries. Human rights should not be used for political purposes, targeting specific countries for extraneous purposes. He would vote against the draft and urged Member States to take advantage of the Universal Periodic Review to address human rights situations in a fair manner. He also urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to resolve bilateral issues.
The representative of Myanmar said his delegation was firmly against the politicization of human rights and said the promotion of those rights should be done in the context of cooperation, not confrontation. As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Myanmar stood in full support of the principles of the Movement and was fully against any attempt to exploit human rights for political reasons. As such, his delegation would vote against the draft resolution.
Panama’s delegate said the Secretary-General’s report on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had shown that the human rights situation in that country was of concern, and there continued to be substantial and ongoing violations of human rights. For that reason, Panama would vote in favour of the draft. However, Panama was also seriously concerned about the fact that country-specific resolutions continued to be addressed in the Third Committee. Addressing those situations was the work of the Human Rights Council, which had been created specifically to ensure the universal respect of human rights. The Third Committee should offer its support to the Council, not overlap with its work. Panama held that opinion in regard to all country-specific resolutions that would be considered.
The representative of Ecuador said the Human Rights Council was the body charged with dealing with human rights issues in a clear, non-political manner, and it was the ideal mechanism for such work, as its process was based on “equal footing”. Ecuador did share the concerns of others over the human rights situation in a number of countries across the world, and it encouraged the Council to address those situations, in special sessions if necessary. He informed the Committee that Ecuador would abstain from voting.
Egypt’s delegate said that, on principle, Egypt categorically opposed country-specific resolutions independent of the positive points contained in those drafts. Country-specific resolutions used double standards and selectivity, and prevented issues from being dealt with in an objective manner. The presentation of the draft resolution ran counter to efforts to promote international cooperation among all parties. That was particularly unfortunate now, as the world prepared to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Egypt categorically rejected attempts to impose human rights views on others through country-specific resolutions. International bodies should be strengthened, and a constructive dialogue with States should be undertaken. Egypt would, therefore, vote against the draft.
The representative of Cuba, speaking in his national capacity, said human rights matters must be dealt with on the basis of genuine international cooperation, and should not be based on selectivity or double standards. Cuba objected to the exploitation of human rights for political ends. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism had been created to deal specifically with the human rights situations in specific countries, and therefore, the Human Rights Council was now the appropriate body in which to deal with such issues. As such, Cuba would vote against the draft.
The representative of Antigua and Barbuda reaffirmed its support for the full respect of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Constructive dialogue, within the framework of international cooperation, should be used to address the most critical human rights issues. As such, Antigua and Barbuda would take a principled approach on the issue and would abstain on all country-specific draft resolutions.
Colombia’s delegate said her country would also abstain from voting on the draft at hand. At the same time, she drew the Committee’s attention to efforts made by Colombia to deal with the issue of kidnapping in the country and its efforts to “face off” against criminal organizations perpetrating such crimes. Colombia rejected kidnappings and the pretexts wielded by those who committed those crimes, and stood in solidarity with victims. As such, she called for the immediate release of all kidnapping victims and called for greater efforts to put an end to that crime.
The Committee then approved the resolution by a vote of 95 in favour to 24 against, with 62 abstentions (Annex III).
The representative of Indonesia said he had voted against the draft, regretting the fact that the Committee had once again had to deal with resolutions on country-specific situations. An underlying reason for reforming the United Nations human rights machinery and for establishing the Human Rights Council was to address such situations in a non-politicized and credible manner. He considered the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea an act of politicization and selectivity. He said the situation of human rights in specific countries should fall in the purview of the Human Rights Council. Member States must focus on policy-oriented discussions through the General Assembly, including on ways to support the Human Rights Council in enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights. He supported the international community’s determination to improve the human rights situation in all countries, including in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. But such issues should be pursued on the basis of mutual respect, dialogue and cooperation. He encouraged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to pay attention to the legitimate concerns expressed through the draft, including on the abduction of foreigners.
The representative of Viet Nam, aligning herself with the representative of Cuba, said she had voted against the draft, but shared the concern of others on the issue of abduction. Her Government did not support the practice of using resolutions to target specific countries on account of human rights. The Universal Periodic Review was the most appropriate organ for dealing with the human rights situation in specific countries.
The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said the protection and promotion of human rights were the obligation of every nation, and that, as a party to international conventions, his Government believed that human rights issues should be addressed in the context of mutually beneficial cooperation, based on transparency, non-politicization and non-selectivity, while taking account of the political, historical, religious and cultural specificities of each country. The draft text just passed had not been consistent with that principle and would contribute to the undesirable politicization of the General Assembly’s work. For that reason, he had voted against it. Regarding the issue of abduction, he extended his sympathies to the families of the victims and expressed hope that the international community would undertake preventive measures through a constructive and peaceful approach.
The representative of China said she believed that all countries should resolve their differences on human rights questions through dialogue and cooperation, on the basis of equality and mutual respect. She noted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a developing country facing numerous economic difficulties. She also noted that that country had made an effort to cooperate with the World Food Programme (WFP) and others with regard to humanitarian issues, and had submitted a report on rights of the child. With the Universal Periodic Review process in operation, every country would be reviewed in an open, transparent and equal basis. China was in favour of the international community continuing constructive dialogue with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on human rights. Naming and shaming would only serve to deepen confrontation.
The representative of Brazil said he had abstained from the vote, while noting with concern the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Brazil was encouraged by that country’s willingness to cooperate with human rights bodies and was similarly encouraged by the statement of commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Universal Periodic Review process, as expressed by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea today. He also noted that the Government had cooperated with the WFP and was resuming its interaction with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
He voiced concern at the situation of human rights, in particular, instances of inhumane detention, public executions, forced labour, infringements on the freedom of expression and association, and other human rights violations. He stressed the need to help support the Human Rights Council in protecting and promoting human rights. That body should strive to create an enabling environment to address human rights situations amid a spirit of genuine cooperation, while avoiding politicization. The submission of a national report by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Universal Periodic Review process would be a step towards an improved relationship between that country and the United Nations. The international community should show a willingness to cooperate with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to overcome its challenges.
The representative of Belarus said he supported the consideration of country-specific situations within the context of the Universal Periodic Review. The Third Committee did not have the time or tools to conduct an in-depth and expert study of human rights situations in individual countries. For that reason, he had voted against the resolution.
The representative of India expressed hope that the abduction issue would be resolved soon.
In a general statement, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Korean peninsula had been a “showcase of confrontation between the East and the West” during the cold war period. Though the cold war might have ended in other parts of the world, it continued on the peninsula. The resolution before the Committee was not based on human rights concerns; rather, it was an attempt by some countries to promote their own political interests.
He drew attention to comments made by the representative of Japan on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, calling Japan a “top-class” human rights abuser, having committed a number of human rights violations, including violations against Koreans. Japan refused to express regret or make reparations for those crimes. It was “disgusting” for Japan to talk about abduction issues when that issue involved little more than 10 individuals. Upon request, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had conducted a nationwide investigation, found 13 Japanese abductees, and had expressed formal regret over its actions. That was the reality, he said, of the “so-called” abduction issue.
Continuing, he said the promotion and protection of human rights was not the real intention of the resolution. The resolution was based on a desire by some countries to change the power structure within his country, and those countries had been “railroading” a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resolution since 2005. They would continue to do so until they achieved the ends they desired, but that day would never come. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to foster its own social system for the benefit of its citizens, and it would continue to grow ever more prosperous. In closing, he welcomed the support shown by countries who had cast votes against the draft.
The Committee then moved to take action on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/63/L.33).
On a point of order, the representative of Myanmar called for a no-action motion, as provided for in rule 116 of the rules of procedure. The co-sponsors of the draft had deliberately targeted his country, despite the cooperation it had shown to the Special Rapporteur and other human rights mechanisms, which was a “clear case of politicization”. He urged delegates to vote in favour of the no-action motion.
The CHAIR, in accordance with the rules of procedure, then gave the floor to two representatives to speak in favour of the motion and to two representatives to speak against.
Speaking in favour, the representative of China said her delegation had always opposed to the practice of using country-specific resolutions to exert pressure on a developing country. With the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism in operation, countries concerned about violations of human rights in particular regions should refrain from introducing country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee. In addition, she noted that the co-sponsors had generated strong doubt over their desire to build consensus and real dialogue, because of the exclusive nature with which they conducted consultations on the draft.
Also speaking in favour of the motion, the representative of the Russian Federation said that drafts of “selective, politicized and one-sided” country-specific resolutions often led to confrontations among Member States. The creation of the Human Rights Council and the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review offered new opportunities now to establish better international cooperation on human rights. With that in mind, the consideration of country-specific situations should now be conducted within the framework of the Universal Periodic Review, and not the Third Committee.
The representative of Norway, speaking against the motion introduced by Myanmar, expressed deep regret over the tabling of a no-action motion. Regardless of their content, all texts submitted to the Committee should be reviewed on their merits, and delegations should be allowed to comment on them. Procedural means should not be used to prevent action on substance and, for that reason, Norway opposed the no-action motion. While there had been much talk about selectivity, serious human rights situations merited consideration, and the Third Committee should remain a forum for addressing such cases. Criticism should be supplemented with dialogue, but dialogue should not preclude criticism when warranted. No-action motions were tantamount to the Committee “turning a blind eye” to human rights violations and ran counter to the principles of dialogue.
The representative of New Zealand, also speaking against the motion, said that, for more than 30 years, the General Assembly had passed resolutions on human rights situations of concern and such resolutions had, over time, achieved positive results. That said, such resolutions should only be adopted after negotiations with the countries concerned and the General Assembly had an important role to play in that regard. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism did not replace country-specific resolutions, for a number of reasons. For example, Myanmar would not be considered by the mechanism in the current year and would not be considered in the near future. For that reason, New Zealand would vote against the motion and urged others to do the same.
The Committee then rejected the motion by a recorded vote of 90 against to 54 in favour, with 34 abstentions (Annex IV).
Resuming its consideration of resolution L.33, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and other co-sponsors, called for support for the draft.
The representative of Myanmar raised a point of order to protest the incorrect usage of the name of his country by the representative of France, and the CHAIR reminded speakers to refer to States by their correct name.
Continuing his statement, the representative of France, first made an oral amendment to paragraph 3 (f) of the text. He then called on the authorities of the country subject to the resolution to engage in dialogue and to cooperate fully with United Nations mechanisms in the area of human rights. The draft would have the Assembly welcome efforts to improve cooperation and would encourage that such efforts continue and be strengthened. The Assembly would pay tribute to the work of the good offices missions of the Secretary-General.
He said the draft would also note that the previous resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar and the outcome of the fifth special session of the Human Rights Council had not been implemented. The recent constitutional referendum had produced few rules to promote and protect free and equitable elections, and to provide for freedom of expression and assembly. No attempt had been made to prosecute those guilty of repressing the acts of peaceful protest from a year ago, and to halt the use of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. Serious prison sentences were doled out to human rights defenders and members of civil society, as the result of unfair trials. There had been reports of new human rights violations, including the recruitment of child solders, the use of forced labour and instances of forced displacements. In tabling the draft, the European Union had wanted to mobilize the international community to deal with that worrying situation, and to call on that country’s authorities to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by the population. He expressed hope that the draft would be adopted.
The representative of Myanmar said the draft resolution was flawed procedurally and in terms of substance, and was part of a yearly ritual meant to put political pressure on his country under the pretext of promoting and protecting human rights. Compared to last year, it was a harsher text, which attested to the desire of its co-sponsors to maintain that political pressure. It had even attempted to politicize the tragic humanitarian disaster resulting from Cyclone Nargis.
In tabling the resolution, he said they were ignoring the position agreed to by their leaders in a statement at the seventh Asia-Europe Summit in Beijing in October, where leaders had acknowledged progress in assisting post-Nargis relief work by the Tripartite Core Group comprising Myanmar, the United Nations and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). He recalled that, on 22 October, the Secre
Published on: 2008-11-22
Limited copyright is granted for you to use and/or republish any story on this site for
any legitimate media purpose as long as you reference 7thSpace and any source mentioned in the story above. Please
make sure to read our disclaimer prior to contacting 7thSpace Interactive. To contact our editors, visit our online helpdesk. If you wish submit your own press release, click here. Media releases on this web site are also distributed to thousands of international journalists via OTS Alert service.
Social Bookmarking
RETWEET This! | Digg this! | Post to del.icio.us | Post to Furl | Add to Netscape | Add to Yahoo! | Rojo
|
|
