Commission on Human Rights addressed by eight government dignitaries, chief of UNAIDS

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
19 March 2003
Afternoon



Lydie Polfer, Vice-Prime Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, said among other things that it was important to bear in mind that however abject and unjustifiable the actions of terrorists, they should still benefit from the elementary rights of respect for the human person, since if this should be ignored, the moral justification of the prosecuting State or States would be lost. This was equally valid with regard to torture, Ms. Polfer said.
N. Dlamini Zuma, Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, said the country, which had voluntarily disarmed itself of weapons of mass destruction, believed in a world free of such weapons, but also was concerned about the growing pattern and practice of regime changes in various parts of the world. This practice undermined everything the United Nations stood for and ushered in new concerns about the nature of the current international political system which seemed, among other things, to be evolving outside the parameters of the United Nations.
Edgar Gutierrez Giron, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, said among other things that the country had been unable to reach in its post-conflict period a coherent political strategy that would lead to full reconciliation, social justice and the strengthening of its democratic institutions. The political culture of the elite continued to be one of confrontation instead of tolerance and reconstruction, he said, and although human rights progress and democratization had occurred, the country had yet to set up the institutions and mechanisms necessary for the implementation of peace agreements signed six years ago.
Shinako Tsuchiya, Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said among other things that since human rights were universal values, the human rights situations in individual States were a legitimate concern of the international community, and consequently such concern should not be dismissed as interference in the internal affairs of States.
Bill Rammell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, told the meeting that when a regime showed contempt for human rights, abandoned any semblance of democratic process at home, and armed itself with weapons of mass destruction, it became a threat to world stability, as well as to its own population -- and that was why it was essential that the international community both disarmed Iraq and took all necessary steps to secure the rule of law in that country.
Mariclaire Acosta, Deputy Foreign Minister for Human Rights and Democracy of Mexico, said the construction of a new international order, in which the validity of human rights was the reference framework, was the responsibility of the States that participated in the Commission, and beyond their differences, political or otherwise, was a common and universal criterion: the obligation, which could not be waived, to respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons and peoples of the world.
Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of UNAIDS, said the gaping global divide between those who had access to life-saving treatment for HIV/AIDS and those denied it was ethically unsustainable -- only 300,000 people with AIDS in the developing world, for example, were using antiretroviral treatment. That came to 5 percent of the nearly 6 million whose lives could be saved by it. In sub-Saharan Africa, Dr. Piot said, antiretroviral treatment reached less than 1 percent of those who needed it.
Ramon Gil-Casares, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain, said the promotion and protection of human rights in all countries was not only an ethical requirement but a legitimate preoccupation of the international community. Human rights were rooted in the dignity of the individual and were therefore of universal relevance, he said, and no cultural or traditional relativism could justify intolerable practices such as the multiple discrimination women suffered, or the cruel fact of torture.
And Dao Viet Tung, Assistant Minister for Foreign affairs of Viet Nam, said the whole world was following with great concern the looming danger of war in Iraq -- Viet Nam shared the opinion of all peoples of the world that such a danger of war must be driven back and that hard-won international peace must be maintained.
Representatives of India, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iraq, and Japan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, 20 March, for the final day of its high-level segment.

Statements
SHINAKO TSUCHIYA, Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said Japan believed the primary responsibility for protecting human rights rested with each government. Secondly, since human rights were universal values, the human rights situation in individual States was a legitimate concern of the international community. Consequently, such concern should not be dismissed as interference in internal affairs. Specific human rights situations were discussed in multilateral fora to bring about a tangible improvement of human rights in each State. In order to encourage each State to fulfil its primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights there was a need for a balanced approach, acknowledging improvements and encouraging further action. Thirdly, all human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, were indivisible and at the same time mutually dependent and reinforcing.
From this point of view, Ms. Tsuchiya said, there were serious concerns about the recent politicization and confrontation at the Commission. There was no need for hostile condemnation, but rather for practical and constructive dialogue. Only through exhaustive discussion would decisions carry weight and legitimacy. By taking a balanced approach of acknowledgement and encouragement, the Commission could bridge differences in opinion without excessive politicization.
Japan was saddened, she said, by the reality that grave human rights violations continued to take place, directly threatening the lives and freedoms of ordinary citizens around the world. The road ahead would not be easy, and it was vital to remember that all shared a common goal: to protect and promote human rights. By bearing this constantly in mind, with a spirit of open dialogue and cooperation, everyone would find that differences could be overcome and common ground identified.
BILL RAMMELL, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, said that despite important steps forward, the Commission had over recent years fallen on very difficult times. Its credibility was now in question. The picture last year had been one of confrontation and polemics. The Commission was the prime United Nations intergovernmental organ addressing human rights. If it was not working properly, this undermined all the work that the United Nations did on human rights, not only in Geneva and New York, but in the field. Most Governments  if not all  were guilty of some transgressions. His country did not have a perfect human rights record  no country did. That was why the international community needed the help and the support of the United Nations treaty system. It was essential that countries opened themselves up to the scrutiny of United Nations human rights mechanisms. This inevitably meant that the Commission must continue to identify transgressions and where necessary hold Governments to account for them.
But in cases where transgressions were not irredeemable, it was perhaps true that some countries had been too quick to resort to public condemnation without sufficient sensitivity to local difficulties. It was necessary to give due weight to issues such as poverty as well as Governments resources and administrative capacity, Mr. Rammell said. In such cases the members of Commission had perhaps sometimes failed to communicate enough with each other, to discuss difficulties, to suggest solutions, to offer assistance. Indeed, international assistance and cooperation were essential for the promotion of human rights. That was acknowledged in the relevant treaties. The international community, including the United Nations, must play its part. And so must countries that could afford to help others.
By contrast, Mr. Rammell said, when a regime showed contempt for human rights, abandoned any semblance of democratic process at home, and armed itself with weapons of mass destruction, it became a threat to world stability, as well as to its own population. That was why it was essential that the international community both disarmed Iraq and took all necessary steps to secure the rule of law in that country. The United Nations human rights system gave all countries a framework for promoting sustainable development by promoting respect for all human rights. That must be the task of the Commission. If member States were serious about human rights, they must protect the Commission and its instruments. States must be held accountable for the human rights of their citizens. This was a moral imperative, essential for economic development, for stability and for international peace.
MARICLAIRE ACOSTA, Deputy Foreign Minister for Human Rights and Democracy of Mexico, said that for decades the international community had made efforts to create adequate conditions for the full enjoyment of human rights. However, today, in all the regions of the world, serious abuses continued. The current state of affairs posed an enormous challenge and demanded the transparent, honest and unwavering commitment of each one of the countries that had been elected by the members of the United Nations for this purpose. It was time to pause and reflect consciously on the grave challenges that were confronted, and especially on whether or not the Commission on Human Rights had responded at all times in an effective manner. Over the last years, there had been frequent confusion of, if not deviation from, objectives and initiatives.
The validity of human rights should underpin the actions that were undertaken in order to defeat the ominous threat of terrorism, Ms. Acosta said. Respect for international human rights law did not limit the capacity of States to act, nor did it impinge on their compliance with their obligations to their nationals. Respect for fundamental rights, on the contrary, strengthened and legitimized these powers and responsibilities.
The Commission should be able to meet today’s challenges, Ms. Acosta said. . The construction of a new international order, in which the validity of human rights was the reference framework, was the responsibility of the States that participated in this forum. Beyond the differences, political or of another nature, among States, there was a common and universal criterion: the obligation, which could not be waived, to respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons and peoples of the world.
PETER PIOT, Executive Director of UNAIDS, said the AIDS epidemic had already spread further, faster and had a more devastating effect than any other disease in human history. The international community faced two imperatives. One was to ensure that the pursuit of human rights was integrated across all AIDS programming. The other was to ensure that national and global human rights instruments and organizations were vigorous in their action on behalf of people living with AIDS and on behalf of those affected by HIV. Today, people living with AIDS and the communities around the world that were struggling under the burden of the epidemic continued to face stigma and discrimination; frank and effective AIDS education programmes were still censored; property and other rights were still denied to women, making them vulnerable to AIDS; and children with AIDS still found themselves thrown out of school.
Dr. Piot said that the response to AIDS in relation to children was now part of formal international law, with all that this implied in terms of monitoring and accountability. States had been specifically asked to report on HIV-related measures they had put in place to protect children. Not surprisingly, the right to health was also a central instrument in relation to the realization of HIV-related rights. The gaping global divide between those who had access to life-saving treatment and those denied it was ethically unsustainable. Free access to treatment was becoming a reality in an increasing number of countries – but it remained the exception, not the rule. Today, only 300,000 people with AIDS in the developing world were using antiretroviral treatment - 5 percent of the nearly 6 million whose lives could be saved by this treatment. And in sub-Saharan Africa, this treatment reached less than 1 percent of those who needed it.
Dr. Piot said experience had shown that AIDS must be treated explicitly in national anti-discrimination laws. Such laws must be coupled with the implementation of strategies addressing the rights of vulnerable groups. Overcoming the global HIV epidemic was a compelling case for global solidarity. AIDS was everywhere, and one of foremost weapons for defeating it was ensuring that human rights, too, were a reality everywhere.
LYDIE POLFER, Vice-Prime Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, said that in less than one month, the European Union would sign in Athens the documents admitting ten new Member States. This event could only have taken place after incredible progress in respect for human rights over the last decade within Europe. The realization of universal and individual rights was a common responsibility of humanity, and this forum represented the world both in its diversity and in its community of ideals. This common responsibility was not easy to assume, and antagonisms, both real and imaginary, between different parts of the world were an obstacle to the global vision of human rights.
Respect for individual liberties should never be taken for granted, Ms. Polfer said. Arbitrariness, absolutism, and human degradation were not phenomena that were disappearing. They could reappear in the most peaceful and just society after a crisis, a threat, or more sneakily after a relaxation of the fight against violations of the most basic human rights. Because human rights were a common value to humanity, the international community had the duty to examine individually the situation in each country to make a clear and concise judgement, to warn without prejudice, and to foil every attempt to disregard the rights of the person. However, it should not be forgotten that discreet critical dialogue could be of great encouragement to ensure countries to persevere along the path of better respect for human rights.
The fight against terrorism in which the international community had become collectively engaged after September 11 called for greater levels of vigilance with regard to individual liberties, Ms. Polfer said. It was also important to bear in mind that however abject and unjustifiable the actions of the terrorists, they should still benefit from the elementary rights of respect for the human person, since if this should be ignored, the moral justification of the prosecuting State or States would be lost. This was equally valid with regard to torture. It was, she said, unlikely that violations of human rights would ever completely disappear, and it was therefore all the more important that any lack of respect paid to human rights should be punished.
N. DLAMINI ZUMA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, said the current political tensions affecting the international system must strengthen solidarity and resolve to deal with current challenges in a fair and transparent manner. Her Government believed that the international dialogue on human rights could no longer take place in abstract terms. The enjoyment of human rights, including the operationalization of the right to development, had to be made practical and find expression in the political and economic empowerment of individuals and societies. Despite five decades of the promotion of human rights by the Commission, much remained to be done to secure effective implementation. Like many other States, South Africa was convinced that combating racism represented a major unfinished task of the international community. Not only was racism still prevalent in many parts of the world, but it was constantly mutating into new insidious forms requiring constant vigilance by the international community.
South Africa continued to prioritize the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable in society, particularly women and children. The Government was paying particular attention to the advancement and improvement of the quality of life of all women, especially in rural areas. Ms. Zuma said national legislation in these areas took into account the provisions of international law. The elimination of violence against women and children remained a priority area, as well. The Government had also introduced multi-disciplinary service centres as a means of responding effectively and promptly to the needs of women and children, who were often victims of other forms of violence.
Concerning international issues, Ms. Zuma said there could be no doubt that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination had been denied for too long. For this reason, South Africa had been hosting a series of meetings between Palestinian and Israeli opinion-makers in an attempt to strengthen dialogue and trust. South Africa  a country that had voluntarily disarmed itself of weapons of mass destruction -- believed in a world free of such weapons. Ideally, no member of the United Nations should possess such weapons. However, South Africa was concerned about the growing pattern and practice of regime changes in various parts of the world. This practice undermined everything the United Nations stood for and ushered in new concerns about the nature of the current international political system  it seemed among other things, to be evolving outside the parameters of the United Nations. To effectively address the complex challenges ahead, there was a need for States to act collectively for the common good of human kind. Only through concerted efforts could one hope to ensure a better life for all.
EDGAR GUTIERREZ GIRON, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, said that some six years ago Guatemala had signed peace agreements closing the chapter on one of the most violent armed conflicts in Latin America. Although these agreements allowed for the return of tens of thousands of refugees, the reintegration of thousands of internally displaced persons and the demobilization of the insurgent forces and certain armed forces, Guatemala had been unable to reach in this post-conflict period a coherent political strategy that would lead to full reconciliation, social justice and the strengthening of its democratic institutions. The political culture of the elite continued to be one of confrontation instead of tolerance and reconstruction. Neither had Guatemala set up the institutions and mechanisms necessary for the implementation of these agreements. For these reasons, the peace process had been erratic. Major efforts had been undertaken to investigate the atrocities of the war. However, a debilitated justice and security system undermined these efforts. Human rights violators enjoyed impunity and labour, social, economic and cultural rights were violated.
Mr. Gutierrez Giron said that many victims had reconciled themselves with the past and the dead but had not reconciled with the living, while precarious material conditions prevented them from reconciling themselves with the present. In 2000, President Alfonso Portillo had established a policy of international responsibility of the State. This policy rested on three pillars: investigation of human rights violations, ensuring the dignity of the victims, and providing reparations for victims and their families. In 2002, the Government and victims associations had established a national reparations plan. Despite this positive development, however, human rights violations continued in Guatemala. Examples of such violations were constant threats against and harassment of human rights defenders, judges and witnesses, and the failure of the security and justice system to identify and punish the aggressors.
Mr. Gutierrez Giron said Guatemala would not be able to achieve peace without a national effort that eliminated the roots of injustice and ethnic and social exclusion that had given rise to the armed conflict. This would require progressive tax reform and efficient agricultural reform. A strategy to combat poverty was being implemented in rural communities and depressed areas and the country's land distribution program had been extended. Reform of the State was geared towards democratization and participation, especially by indigenous peoples and women. However, discrimination and racism, which continued to prevail in the legal, ideological, social and economic system of Guatemala, made the implementation of these measures difficult.
D. RAMON GIL-CASARES, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said Spain associated itself with the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, who was speaking as President of the European Union. The protection of human rights was the main pillar of any democratic system, and it constituted an acid-test for Spain and for the Euro-Atlantic world to which Spain belonged.
The protection of human rights was not an exclusive preoccupation of internal politics. There was a clear link between the respect for human rights on an internal level and international peace and security, as shown by the current crisis in Iraq. The promotion and protection of human rights in all countries was not only an ethical requirement, but a legitimate preoccupation of the international community. Human rights were rooted in the dignity of the individual and were therefore of universal relevance. No cultural or traditional relativism could in effect justify intolerable practices such as the multiple discrimination women suffered, or the cruel fact of torture. There was a need to reinforce the credibility of the Commission, and its two faceted role of codification of international law and vigilance over human rights and violations of human rights. Every attack against human rights should be denounced. Spain had applied for membership in the Commission as of 2005, and would continue both before and after its accession to work with the Commission, and to contribute to its work.
Terrorist violence, Mr. Gil-Casares said, was a particularly worrisome and insidious fact of today, and a major obstacle to the full fruition of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Terrorism was a sophisticated phenomenon which should be fought decisively, as it threatened international peace and security as well as the citizens of all countries. There was also a need to combat organized crime, since this was frequently involved in organizing and running illegal immigration rings, which led to the exploitation and suffering of thousands.
DAO VIET TRUNG, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, said at this very moment, the whole world was following with great concern the looming danger of war in Iraq. Viet Nam shared the opinion of all peoples of the world that such a danger of war must be driven back and that hard-won international peace must be maintained. The United Nations must demonstrate its ability to play its role in accordance with the Charter. As a nation having endured untold sufferings from war, Viet Nam fervently desired and strongly supported the peaceful and political solution to problems in international relations. War must be avoided. War, once breaking out, would certainly entail enormous human suffering and property losses and jeopardize international peace and stability. Vietnam also joined the international community in calling for an end to violence in the Middle East and for an early, fair and lasting solution to the conflict.
Human rights were integrated and indivisible, the Assistant Minister said. Human rights included, first and foremost, the right to live in peace, freedom and independence, the right to equality, and respect for human dignity. Both civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights must be promoted together. In this regard, poverty reduction and development must be seen as a top priority for the further promotion of human rights. This was all the more vital when 800 million people still lived in miserable conditions, without access to the most basic human needs such as food, clean water and health care. In a situation of continued inequality in international relations and unfair terms of trade, developing countries paid the highest price and suffered the most.
Priority must therefore be given to the acceleration of the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, he said. The promotion of human rights must be pursued through dialogue and cooperation to enhance mutual understanding and assistance. It was essential that each nations historical, traditional, social or cultural characteristics be respected. In addition, the practice of one country imposing standards upon others in the promotion of human rights must end. Given all the complexities of the world, it was high time for the international community to make further efforts to uphold international laws of peace, independence, sovereignty and cooperation for development.

Rights of Reply
A Representative of India, speaking in right of reply, said that while India welcomed the expression of appreciation for the people and Government of India by the Organization of the Islamic Conference yesterday, such positive sentiments about India were conspicuous by their absence. The representative of the Organization of Islamic Conference also had referred to some newspaper reports. India urged the Organization of thje Islamic Conference not to let journalism be the basis of its pronouncements. India rejected all gratuitous references by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 140 million Muslims of India.
A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in right of reply, said the country regretted the statement of Japan, which distorted reality with regard to the abductions of Japanese citizens by Korea, which had taken place during hostile relations. The two sides had agreed to resolve bilaterally all issues between them, including the past crimes of Japan, including the forced sexual slavery of Korean women and the treatment of Korean civilians during the Second World War. The abduction issue had been resolved, and it was regretable that Japan had brought it back up. Japan had consistently tried to cause the DPRK grief internationally, and had breached all bilateral agreements. Japan should live up to its commitments, and should show its sincerity by taking measures to resolve its past crimes and by behaving in good faith rather than by taking a confrontational approach.
A representative of Iraq, speaking in right of reply, said a response was needed to the statement made by the United Kingdom this afternoon. Before responding to that statement, he thanked other speakers for their words of justice and equity in reference to the Iraqi people. The representative of the United Kingdom had mentioned his countrys willingness to improve channels of communication between the United Kingdom and Iraq, but what the Government of the UK had been doing wasn't at all what this official had said; instead of opening channels of communication the United Kingdom, disrespecting international law, had already begun moving its troops towards Iraq. He would take this official's statement into consideration, and hoped the UK Government would take it into consideration, too.
A Representative of Japan, speaking in right of reply, said that last September the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea had admitted, after more than twenty years of denials, that it had abducted Japanese nationals. Although the Japanese Government had been doing everything in its power to solve these cases, the whereabouts of many of the victims were still unknown. The DPRK had failed to cooperate with the Commission's Working Group on Enforced of Involuntary Disappearances and facilitate its investigation into the abduction of Japanese nationals.
A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in a second right of reply, said the country rejected the allegations made by Japan, and had already notified Japan of all information it had, and had submitted the same information to the Commission of Human Rights' working group arbitrary on disappearances. The DPRK could not take responsibility for breaching the Pyongyang agreement. Japan should take greater responsibility for its past actions, including its crimes, and should make public all of these, take practical measures to redress them, and report the destinies of all those Koreans forcibly drafted and killed by Japan over 40 years.



* *** *