COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS MEASURES ON SITUATIONS IN NORTH KOREA, TURKMENISTAN, MYANMAR

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
16 April 2003
Afternoon




Member States Reject Draft Resolutions on Situations
in the Sudan, Zimbabwe



The Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions this afternoon expressing concern over human rights situations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Turkmenistan, and Myanmar.
A draft resolution on the situation in the Sudan was rejected on a roll-call vote, and a draft resolution on the situation in Zimbabwe went unconsidered after a no-action motion was approved on a roll-call vote
All measures were tabled under the Commission's agenda item on the "question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world".
In a resolution on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 10 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission welcomed reports of the preparation of a law on physically disabled persons but expressed deep concern about reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the country, including torture, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps, the extensive used of forced labour, lack of respect for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, and all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association.
A Representative of the DPRK said the resolution was full of fabrications and that the European Union, which had tabled it, was always behaving arrogantly, as if it was entitled to the privilege of attacking developing countries in the Commission.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its appreciation at the country's recent abolition of the death penalty, but expressed grave concern, among other things, at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities and on the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, and through harassment of their families.
A Representative of Turkmenistan said the text was harshly worded, was based on a one-sided assessment and arbitrary interpretations of decisions taken by the Government and judicial bodies, and had been drawn up without any consultation with the Government of Turkmenistan, which was struggling to promote human rights.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the freedom of movement within the country enjoyed by the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, and cited several other instances of progress, but called upon the Government to fulfil its obligations to restore the independence of the judiciary and due process of law, and to take further steps to reform the system of administration of justice; to take immediate action to implement fully measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of government, including the armed forces; and strongly urged the Government to end the systematic violation of human rights in Myanmar, to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, to end impunity, and to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers.
A Representative of Myanmar said the resolution was fundamentally flawed, imbalanced and biased, and that efforts by the delegation of Myanmar to make the draft more constructive and less accusatory had not been accepted.
By a roll-call vote of 24 in favour and 26 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission rejected a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan. Through the resolution, if passed, the Commission would have expressed concern at continuing restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief; expressed deep concern at the continuing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the Sudan; and would have extended for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Sudan.
A series of the Commission's member States said the draft resolution did not sufficiently credit the Sudanese Government for well-intentioned efforts and progress achieved in the field of human rights. A Representative of the Sudan said seven agreements recently had been concluded between the Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) which had settled almost 90 per cent of the issues between them, following more than five months of a comprehensive ceasefire, and the Government did not understand why the sponsors of the draft resolution were insisting on completely neglecting that tremendous effort and the significant progress achieved towards peace and development in the Sudan.
By a roll-call vote on a no-action motion proposed by South Africa on behalf of the African Group, the Commission decided by a ballot of 28 in favour to 24 against, with 1 abstention, not to take action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe. Under the draft resolution, the Commission would have expressed deep concern at continuing violations of human rights by the Government of Zimbabwe and would have decided to request the Special Rapporteurs on torture, the independence of judges and lawyers, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, on violence against women, and on the right to food, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, to consider carrying out missions to examine alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
A Representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group and supported by Zimbabwe, proposed the no-action motion, saying the draft resolution was biased and politically motivated, did not sufficiently balance civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights, ignored the historical context of the situation in Zimbabwe, and was not "result-oriented".
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, 17 April, to conclude general debate on remaining agenda items.

Action on Resolutions and Decisions
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), (E/CN.4/2003/ L.31/Rev.1), adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 10 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern about reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights, including torture, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps, the extensive used of forced labour, and lack of respect for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty; all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association and on access of everyone to information, and limits imposed on movement; mistreatment of and discrimination against disabled children, while at the same time welcoming reports of the preparation of a law on physically disabled persons; continued violations of the human rights of women; noted with regret that the authorities of the Government had not created conditions to permit the international community to verify these reports in an independent manner and called upon the Government to respond to these reports urgently, including by ratifying human rights instruments and by implementing its obligations under instruments to which it was a party; by providing pertinent information concerning the above-mentioned issues; by implementing the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Committee; by refraining from sanctioning citizens of the DPRK who had moved to other countries; by cooperating with the United Nations system; by resolving, clearly and transparently, all the unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners; and by adhering to internationally recognized labour standards; expressed deep concern about reports of a precarious humanitarian situation; called upon the authorities of the DPRK to ensure that humanitarian organizations had free and unimpeded access to all parts of the country in order for them to ensure that humanitarian assistance was delivered impartially on the basis of need; requested the international community to continue to urge the Government of the DPRK to ensure that humanitarian assistance, especially food aid, was distributed in accordance with humanitarian principles; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in a comprehensive dialogue with the authorities of the DPRK with a view to establishing technical cooperation programmes in the field of human rights.
The results were as follows:
In favour (28): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (10): Algeria, China, Cuba, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, and Uganda.
A Representative of Cuba said Cuba was concerned at the proliferation of condemnatory resolutions of a geopolitical nature which had nothing to do with human rights. It was unjust to the cause of human rights to submit a draft resolution like the one before the Commission. Cuba would vote against it and called for a roll-call vote.
A Representative of China said China was against selectivity and the drafting of resolutions targeting specific developing countries. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had undertaken dialogues with many countries, including those of the European Union. And such dialogues should be continued. The draft resolution would not contribute to the relaxation of the tension nor resolve the problem faced by the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese delegation wondered why the European Union had to table the draft resolution at this time. The delegation believed that such a measure would not produce positive results concerning the situation actually prevailing in the region. China would vote against draft resolution L.31/Rev.1.
A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) said the DPRK categorically rejected the resolution submitted by the European Union, since it was full of fabrications. The European Union was always behaving arrogantly, as if it was entitled to the privilege of attacking a crowd of developing countries in the Commission. This year the European Union had submitted draft resolutions on eight countries. The European Union had betrayed its commitment to dialogue and cooperation with the DPRK, and the draft resolution was pursuing political purposes and not human rights. It was well known that following the DPRK – EU Summit Meeting in May 2001, both sides had until now been pursuing dialogue and cooperation in the area of human rights in an uninterrupted, regular and gradually expanding way.
It had been only two years since the establishment of relations between the DPRK and the European Union, yet the European Union had abruptly submitted a draft resolution unilaterally giving up on active human rights dialogue and cooperation. This was a source of disillusionment. Furthermore, in the draft resolution, the European Union had exaggerated the human rights situation in his country and had misled the Commission.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said Syria supported the efforts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the necessary measures to implement reforms in spite of the sanctions and restrictions imposed on it. Syria hoped these sanctions would be lifted. Syria would vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of India said India had carefully examined the text of the draft resolution on the DPRK and would abstain in the vote. India believed the Commission could not advance some of the points indicated in the operative paragraphs of the resolution.
Under a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (E/CN.4/2003/34/Rev.1), adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its appreciation at the recent announcement by the Government of Turkmenistan to uphold the decision by the Turkmen Peoples’ Congress to abolish the death penalty; expressed grave concern at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities and on the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, and harassment of their families; called upon the Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to put an end to forced displacements and guarantee freedom of movement inside the country; to fulfil its responsibility to ensure that those responsible for human rights violations were brought to justice; to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights; urged the Government of Turkmenistan to immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience; called on the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, on the question of torture, on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, and on freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, to seek invitations from the Government of Turkmenistan to visit the country; and decided to continue its consideration of this question at its sixtieth session.
The results were as follows:
In favour (23): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
Against (16): Armenia, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Gabon, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Algeria, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, and Venezuela.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the draft resolution on Turkmenistan had been submitted without any prior consultation with the country itself. So far, the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan had not been considered by any human rights mechanism, or under the Commission's 1503 procedure. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was therefore bewildered as to the reason for this draft resolution, especially given the willingness of the Government of Turkmenistan to cooperate with European Union. This had not even been reflected in the draft resolution. The submission of resolutions without the prior knowledge of the country in question set a dangerous precedent and would no doubt lead to further politicization of the Commission. For these reasons, the Organization of the Islamic Conference would call for a roll-call vote and would urge that for these reasons other countries should vote against the resolution.
A Representative of China said Turkmenistan had been added to the list of countries which had fallen victim to interference in their internal affairs under the pretext of human rights. Turkmenistan had acceded to several international human rights instruments and had undertaken efforts to promote and protect human rights. All this attested to the positive attitude of Turkmenistan. China found no reason to support this resolution and would therefore vote against it.
A Representative of Cuba said Cuba shared the views expressed by the representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Such resolutions were being used more and more by the European Union, including in the Latin American region. There was no clear human rights consideration in the draft resolution concerning Turkmenistan. The Cuban delegation would vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the draft resolution on Turkmenistan was another example of how developing countries were targeted by an obvious political agenda, preventing the Commission from concentrating on human rights. There must be an end to the targeting of developing countries under agenda item 9. This targeting did not meet the objective of greater cooperation in achieving human rights for all. Syria would therefore vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of Turkmenistan said that in the short course of its independence, Turkmenistan had become deeply integrated into the international community and had taken upon itself all corresponding obligations and had complied with them on the basis on international law. It valued its independence and sovereign rights. Turkmenistan was the first in Asia to abolish the death penalty, it gave special attention to the creation of a secular society and put equal emphasis on rights and duties. However, it needed time and cooperation from the international community. The emergence of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Turkmenistan was an unpleasant surprise. The harshly worded text was based on a one-sided assessment and arbitrary interpretations of decisions taken by the Government and judicial bodies. Furthermore, the draft had been drawn up without any consultation with the Government of Turkmenistan. Moreover, Turkmenistan had never been the subject of any special procedures of the Commission, including the1503 procedure.
By a roll-call vote of 24 in favour 26 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission rejected a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.35) on the situation of human rights in the Sudan. Through the resolution, if passed, the Commission would have expressed concern at continuing restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, whilst noting the improvements following the signing of the Machakos Protocol; expressed deep concern at the continuing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the Sudan; and would have extended for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Sudan.
The results were as follows:
In favour (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
Against (26): Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Ukraine, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (3): Thailand, Uganda, and Venezuela.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that in spite of the extensive and sincere efforts of the Government of the Sudan to reach a peaceful settlement to the tragic situation caused by others in the south of the country, the co-sponsors of the draft resolution had overlooked these efforts and were determined to condemn Sudan. This draft resolution should really have been withdrawn, but instead the co-sponsors had chosen to continue with their double standards. Syria would vote against it since it was biased, unbalanced and unconstructive.
A Representative of Cuba said the draft resolution was not objective in assessing the situation in Sudan. For years, the Commission had seen resolutions that had not taken any account of positive developments in the Sudan. The texts continued to be very similar one year after another. For this reason, Cuba would vote against the draft resolution
A Representative of China said the Sudanese Government had adopted a series of measures to improve the situation in the country. A new Constitution had been put in place, and other measures had also been implemented to resolve the problems the country had been facing. The country should be encouraged to continue its efforts to build a peaceful society. The draft resolution disregarded those efforts. China would not support the draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the contents of the resolution did not reflect the important and positive developments now taking place in the Sudan. It was regrettable that the co-sponsors had not taken on board the recommendations of the African Group, which had underlined the fact that the resolution was unbalanced. Of particular concern to the OIC were the contents of operative paragraph 3 (a) referring to the Sharia law. The language in this paragraph was an offense to all Muslim countries. Furthermore, controversial issues, such as the death penalty, should not be part of country specific resolutions. The Commission must send encouragement to the Government of Sudan rather than condemnation at this crucial stage. The resolution was also perhaps the longest resolution before the Commission, giving the impression that there were unlimited violations of human rights in the Sudan. Was this a correct depiction of the situation that existed in the world today? Were there not other conflicts taking place today with far greater implications for human rights?
A Representative of Algeria said the draft resolution on the Sudan was the fourth country-specific resolution introduced by the European Union (EU). The EU was a continent that had elevated human rights to the level of an ideal to be attained. However, the interventions by the EU constituted a repetitive litany which contained the same terms and phrases. Instead of recommending that the EU use one copy for all its speeches, Algeria urged it to engage in a dialogue.
A Representative of Kenya said that the resolutions tabled in the Commission should attempt to be more balanced and reflect the positive aspects while addressing the issue of human rights in an individual country. The Government of the Sudan had made tremendous progress -- quite a number of achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights. The resolution should inspire hope, not despair. A new way of adopting resolutions should be used to change the current trend, which targeted developing countries. Country specific resolutions should be reasonable.
A Representative of the Sudan said the country’s President had met on 2 April 2003 with the leader of the Sudanese People Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) of southern Sudan in the presence of Kenya’s President. The day was historic. The event came after seven agreements were concluded between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA/M, which settled almost 90 per cent of the issues between them. It came after more than five months of a comprehensive ceasefire, the first of its kind since 1983, when the war started. The Sudan did not understand why the sponsors of the draft resolution were insisting on completely neglecting that tremendous effort and the significant progress it had achieved towards peace and development in the Sudan. Why should 32 million African people of the Sudan be deterred and shackled from attaining peace without condemnation? Why should the genuine, constructive and realistic request of the African Union to move the Sudan situation from item 9 to item 19 of the agenda be rejected by the sponsors of the draft resolution?
What draft resolution L.35 needed was a rejection so as not to be an obstacle to the earnest and serious peace process in the Sudan. Nothing would protect and promote the human rights situation in the Sudan better than a comprehensive peace agreement, which had already incorporated human rights as an essential and integral part of it. The people of the Sudan had started to enjoy the fruits of such an agreement since the cease-fire agreement of 15 October 2002 was implemented. The full cooperation that the Sudan had established with all human rights treaty bodies would continue. The Government would fully cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the technical assistance programme which had been successfully implemented so far. The Sudan called for members of the Commission to reject the resolution.
A Representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the Group regretted that its recommendation for amendments on the draft resolution on the Sudan had not been accepted. The European Union’s inflexibility reconfirmed the view that the European Union was using this resolution for political purposes, as opposed to the promotion of human rights. After ten years of this resolution being put before the Commission with fruitless results, the African Group believed it was time to discontinue this resolution and end the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on this issue.
A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said Libya allied itself with the statements made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference and South Africa on behalf of the African Union. There was a practice on the part of some countries to target African countries instead of providing them with assistance. What the Sudan needed was assistance, not more criticism. This draft resolution was inconsistent with this need. The Sudan had hoped that the resolution could have been transferred to agenda item 19 on technical assistance. For these reasons, Libya would vote against the draft resolution.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, (E/CN.4/2003/L.36), adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the freedom of movement within the country enjoyed by the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi; the release from prison of a number of persons detained for political activities; the visits to Myanmar by the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Myanmar and the cooperation extended to him by the Government of Myanmar; the visits by the Special Rapporteur during the past year. It expressed concern over the curtailment of his fact-finding visit in March 2003 owing to the discovery of listening devices during his interviews with prisoners in Insein prison, and expected that the outcome of a thorough investigation into the incident would be communicated to the High Commissioner for Human Rights; continued cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross; the visit by an Amnesty International delegation to Myanmar; the appointment of the Liaison Officer of the International Labour Organization and her efforts to fulfil her mandate; the growing awareness of the Government of the need to combat the production of opium in Myanmar; the growing awareness of the Government of the need to respond effectively to the HIV/AIDS epidemic; the dissemination of human rights standards for public officials and some non-governmental organizations and ethnic groups through a series of workshops, but stressed that such activities needed to lead also to efforts to improve the human rights situation on the ground; took note of the establishment by the Government of a committee on human rights as a precursor to the establishment of a national human rights commission.
The Commission called upon the Government to fulfil its obligations to restore the independence of the judiciary and due process of law, and to take further steps to reform the system of administration of justice; to take immediate action to implement fully measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of government, including the armed forces; to take action to implement agree modalities and a framework for the position of the Liaison Officer of the International Labour Organization; to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations and to cooperate fully with all sectors of society, especially with the National League for Democracy and other relevant groups, through consultation, to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance and to guarantee that it actually reached the most vulnerable groups of the population; to improve cooperation with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur in order to bring Myanmar towards a transition to civilian rule; to consider as a matter of high priority becoming party to the United Nations human rights instruments relating to civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, prevention of torture, prevention of discrimination, protection of migrants, the rights of refugees, and the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; to pursue through dialogue and peaceful means the immediate suspension and permanent end of conflict with all ethnic groups in Myanmar; to establish a national human rights commission; strongly urged the Government of Myanmar to restore democracy and to respect the results of the 1990 elections; to end the systematic violation of human rights in Myanmar, to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, to end impunity and to investigate and bring to justice any perpetrators of human rights violations, including members of the military and other government agents in all circumstances; without further delay to facilitate an independent international investigation of continuing reports of sexual violence and other abuse of civilians carried out by members of the armed forces in Shan and other States; to release unconditionally and immediately all political prisoners with particular emphasis on the elderly and the sick; to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers; to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity of all persons; to end the systematic enforced displacement of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries; to carry out fully necessary action against the HIV/AIDS epidemic; and the Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Myanmar for a further year.
A Representative of India said Myanmar had been cooperating with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and several other monitoring mechanisms. There was a general positive trend in the protection and promotion of human rights in the country. India believed that the democratic process should be decided by the parties themselves without any outside interference. It should be noted that the Government had released 4,000 political prisoners and had lifted any restrictions on the right to freedom of movement. The Government should be encouraged to continue with the positive trend it had been pursuing.
A Representative of China said that in recent years the Government of Myanmar had cooperated with the Red Cross, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international organizations and had made efforts to promote human rights. In the past year, the Special Representative of the Government of Myanmar had held talks with National League for Democracy on twelve occasions. The Government’s efforts to promote and protect human rights deserved the acknowledgement of the international community. As a neighbour of Myanmar, China understood the difficulties faced by its Government. It opposed political pressure and the introduction of country-specific resolutions.
A Representative of Cuba said that despite the co-sponsors’ best wishes the drafters had only timidly included some of the positive developments in Myanmar. Cuba did not support the consensus on this resolution and hoped this would be reflected in the record.
A Representative of Sri Lanka said the delegation had taken note of the achievements of Myanmar. The resolution should specifically mention the progress achieved by the Government as a sign of encouragement. The State should also continue such efforts.
A Representative of Myanmar said the draft resolution on the situation in Myanmar was once again fundamentally flawed, imbalanced and biased. There was an emerging consensus view among the member States and observers of the Commission that country specific resolutions should be constructive, non-accusatory and balanced. This year’s draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar had fallen far short of meeting these criteria. Despite all the efforts by the delegation of Myanmar to make the draft resolution more constructive, less accusatory and more balanced, the end product did not meet these criteria. For these reasons, Myanmar dissociated itself form the draft resolution but would continue to cooperate with the Commission
A Representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), said improvements in human rights only occurred with the cooperation of the country concerned. ASEAN was pleased to note that the Government of Myanmar had been cooperating with international mechanisms over the last year. There had been progress both in peace talks as well as in the improvement of infrastructure. The Government of Myanmar was called upon to continue this important cooperation. However, ASEAN countries believed this issue would have been better dealt with as “assistance to the Government of Myanmar on the situation of human rights” under agenda item 19, as opposed to the condemnation and discouragement meted out under agenda item 9.
A Representative of the Sudan said the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Mynamar was yet another reflecting the political trend exercised by the sponsors. Such a resolution would undermine the work of the Commission. It reflected the politicization and selectivity in the debate in the Commission. Myanmar had been cooperating fully with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and had made progress in implementing international human rights standards.
By a roll-call vote on a no-action motion proposed by South Africa on behalf of the African Group, the Commission decided by a vote of 28 in favour to 24 against, with 1 abstention, not to take action on draft resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.37) on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe. Under the draft resolution, the Commission would have expressed deep concern at continuing violations of human rights by the Government of Zimbabwe and urged the Government to fulfil its obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights and other applicable human rights instruments; and would have decided to request the Special Rapporteurs on torture, the independence of judges and lawyers, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, on violence against women, and on the right to food, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, to consider carrying out missions to examine alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
The results were as follows:
In favour (28): Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
Abstention (1): Brazil.
A Representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the Group had presented its statement at the beginning of the consideration of item 9. The Group did not appreciate the biased and politically motivated resolutions submitted by the European Union. Much more balance was required when dealing with civil and political rights, such as the recognition of economic, social and cultural rights. It was also disturbing that the resolution totally ignored the historical context of the situation in Zimbabwe. Nor was the resolution submitted by the European Union result-oriented. The African Group was unable to support the resolution since the draft only served to politicize the Commission. It was regrettable that the European Union was naming and shaming at the same time as it claimed to be speaking for the promotion of human rights. In this connection, the African Group called for a no-action motion on the draft.
A Representative of Cuba said Cuba supported the no-action motion proposed by the African Group on the draft resolution on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was a country that had fought the most brutal form of colonialism and had achieved its independence. There had been efforts by some foreign elements to forcefully bring about a change of the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic noted that Zimbabwe was a large country with many races and religions. Zimbabwe had striven to improve the living conditions of its population. The draft resolution had been tabled against Zimbabwe because of its attempt to exert control over its own resources. There should be reconsideration of such texts. There was a need to extend assistance to Governments in order to help them overcome the difficulties they faced. Syria supported the no-action motion proposed by the African Group.
A Representative of Algeria said once again he had expected the European Union to follow a reasonable path and withdraw this resolution, for which there was no justification. It was a resolution of confrontation. What had just been said by the European Union clearly indicated that the Union was on a path of confrontation. Bringing back this text a second year after it had been rejected last year implied that there were political motivations behind it. This text was a settlement of the unfinished past of colonialism. This situation also concerned errors of the past. In that way it was much like the situation in Palestine, which now had turned into a time bomb. The same was true for many African countries. Zimbabwe had played a crucial role in overcoming apartheid at a time when some co-sponsors of today’s resolution had said or done nothing.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of member countries of the European Union that were members of the Commission, said the EU opposed the no-action motion, which was aimed at hampering the work of the Commission. The no-action motion would prompt a lack of transparency and would undermine a dialogue that should be carried out openly. Such a strategy could not be used because it would not allow the Commission properly to pursue its work.
A Representative of China said China opposed resolution L.37. The many difficulties currently faced by Zimbabwe resulted from the disastrous effects of colonialism for which the co-sponsors were responsible. China hoped the international community would help Zimbabwe to achieve stability and development. The exertion of political pressure had nothing to do with the promotion of human rights. China would vote in favour of the no-action motion proposed by South Africa on behalf of the African Group.
A Representative of Sweden said on the issue of a no-action motion, Sweden did not think the Commission's rule 65 applied to a situation like this. This proposal for a no-action motion amounted to little more than a procedural trick. All members were urged to reject the proposal and to face the issue directly. Delegations’ votes on the resolution should reflect their opinions on the substantive part of the resolution.
A Representative of Canada said Canada insistently opposed any no-action motion. Although the rules of procedure allowed its use, it should not be used in such circumstances.
A Representative of the United States said the US opposed no-action motions as a matter of principle. All resolutions needed to be judged on their merits. The Commission had the responsibility to consider the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe and in order to allow it do so, members should vote against the no-action motion.
A Representative of Poland said the country aligned itself with what had already been said by the European Union.
A Representative of Peru said Peru would vote against the no-action motion, which was not in keeping with the dignity of the Commission. The Commission should be able to deal with all situations without such procedural tactics.
A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said that Libya supported the statement made by the African Group. The draft resolution was a flagrant example of an attempt to make the Commission a forum to settle differences between countries. The draft was confrontational. Libya preferred the language of cooperation and dialogue, which was absent from this resolution.
A Representative of Zimbabwe, speaking as a concerned country, said the representative of the African Group had already said all that needed to be said.
A Representative of Senegal reiterated his country’s attachment to the respect for human rights. Senegal supported the human rights of all African people. Human rights were indivisible and interdependent. Economic, social and cultural rights were indivisible from the civil and political rights, and matters in Zimbabwe were not being put in an accurate context.



* *** *