COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT AND LEBANESE DETAINEES HELD BY ISRAEL

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
18 April 2001
Afternoon







Passes No-Action Motion against Draft Resolution
on Human Rights in China



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted two resolutions on the right to development and on Lebanese detainees held by Israel.

In the resolution on the right to development, adopted by a roll-call vote of 48 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 3 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that States had the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favourable to the realization of the right to development. It also reiterated that the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide, that developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process and that many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits. The Commission requested the Independent Expert on the right to development to prepare a preliminary study on the impact of these issues on the enjoyment of human rights. It decided to extend the mandate of the open-ended Working Group for a further year, and the mandate of the Independent Expert for a further three years.

The Commission also adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour, 1 against and 19 abstentions, a resolution on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel in which it called upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately. It also called upon the Government of Israel to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all the maps of the landmine fields deployed throughout civilian villages, fields, and farms.

The Commission, in a roll-call vote of 23 for, 17 against and 12 abstentions, passed the no-action motion requested by China concerning a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in China (E/CN.4/2001/L.13). In the draft resolution, the Commission would have welcomed the readiness of the Government of China to exchange information on human-rights issues and engage in various cooperative activities in the area of human rights, as well as continued efforts to increase the transparency of the judicial system and respect for the rule of law. It would have also expressed its concern at continuing reports of failure to protect internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms in China and, in particular, at severe restrictions on the rights of citizens to the freedoms of assembly, association, expression, conscience and religion, and due legal process and fair trial, as well as at reports of harsh sentences for some seeking to exercise their rights.

The Commission immediately resumed its work in an extended meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on Resolutions

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.15) on the right to development, which was adopted by a roll-call vote of 48 for, 2 against and 3 abstentions, the Commission emphasized that on the basis of the text of the Declaration of the Right to Development of 1986, several resolutions and declarations adopted by consensus at international conferences and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993, it should now be possible to reach consensus on the full implementation of the right; expressed its appreciation of the reports of the Independent Expert and his additional work on and clarifications of the "development compact" proposal, while recognizing that further clarification was still needed; recognized that any "development compact" would be of a voluntary nature for all parties involved and that its contents would be defined on a case-by-case basis and be adapted to the priorities and realities of any country willing to conclude such a compact; and requested the Independent Expert to clarify further the proposed "development compact", taking into consideration views expressed during the two sessions of the relevant Working Group and in broad consultation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations Funds and Programmes, as well as specialized agencies and other relevant groups and bodies, and with actors and States interested in developing pilot projects in this regard.

The resolution also reaffirmed that States had the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favourable to the realization of the right to development; recognized that for many developing countries, the realization of the rights to, among other things, food, health and education could be important development entry points to the realization of the right to development; further recognized the need for a suitable permanent follow-up mechanism for implementation of the right to development in the future; stressed the necessity of establishing, at the national level, an enabling legal, political, economic and social environment for realization of the right; stressed the need to prevent, address, and take effective action against corruption; affirmed the role of women in realization of the right to development; affirmed the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women as an effective means to combat poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulate sustainable development; underlined that in the process of realization of the right to development, special attention should be given to persons belonging to minorities; and affirmed that attention should also be given to the right to development of children, with special attention to the rights of the girl child.

And the resolution reiterated that the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide, that developing countries continued to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process and that many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits; recognized, while bearing in mind the existing efforts in this respect, that it was necessary to enhance efforts to consider and evaluate the impact of international economic and financial issues on the enjoyment of human rights such as: international trade issues; access to technology; good governance and equity at the international level; and debt burden; noted that issues posing obstacles to the full realization of the right to development included the functioning of the international financial system, including macro-economic decision-making; the international trading system, including barriers to market access; the existing intellectual property rights regime, impediments to transfer of technology and the need for bridging the knowledge gap; the excessive debt burden; gaps in the fulfilment of international development commitments and issues relating to migrants; requested the Independent Expert to prepare, in consultation with all relevant agencies and institutions, a preliminary study on the impact of these issues on the enjoyment of human rights, for consideration by the Working Group at its future sessions; and decided to extend the mandate of the open-ended Working Group for a further year, and the mandate of the Independent Expert for a further three years.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (48): Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (2): Japan and United States.

Abstentions (3): Canada, Republic of Korea and United Kingdom.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the EU attached great importance to making progress on the right to development. The Working Group had been unable to conclude its deliberations. Consequently, the EU had expressed its willingness to renew the mandate of the Working Group and the Independent Expert on the right to development. The EU noted that members of the Commission had not reached a consensus and that the debate had taken place under time constraints. Further work was needed to reach consensus on all aspects of the right to development and the EU welcomed further studies on this subject.

A Representative of Japan said his country attached great importance to the realization of the right to development. It called on all States to realize this human right through a practical and constructive dialogue. It was aware that the resolution was based mainly on the conclusions of the Working Group on the right to development. But the Working Group did not achieve consensus. This draft resolution did not adequately reflect its views. This resolution could not serve as a sustainable basis for this right. Japan would not support the resolution, but it did strongly support the right to development.


A Representative of Canada said that his country supported the Declaration on the Right to Development and the link between the right and the rights set out in the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, no consensus was reached on some central aspects of the resolution. Canada expressed reservations with regard to paragraph 10, 21, 22 and requested that a separate vote be taken on these paragraphs. Canada would abstain on this resolution.

A Representative of the United States said that at the opening of the September 2000 session of the Working Group on the right to development, there were hopes for cooperation on this issue after a decade of contentious disagreements. The decision of the sponsors of the right to development resolution had for the first time reinforced the seriousness of the dialogue. The inclusion of the international financial institutions in the discussions was a positive development. However, by the end of the second session of the Working Group, it was clear that there was no consensus. Among the concerns expressed by the United States were the need for more a concrete definition of the right to development, the need to focus more on the national aspects of the right to development, and the questionable utility of asking the Independent Expert to compile a study of international economic issues. Rather than concluding that further discussion on these outstanding issues was necessary, the Working Group chairman chose to assign blame for the lack of consensus on five countries, including the United States. The resolution included many of the same conclusions that had resulted in the Working Group's failure to achieve consensus. There were serious reservations about these conclusions. For these reasons, the United States would vote no on the resolution.

A Representative of the Republic of Korea said his country was committed to the right to development; during two recent sessions of the Working Group, the principle of consensus had guided everyone's efforts, even though agreement had not in the end been reached. The Republic of Korea similarly believed a resolution on the right to development should be adopted by consensus, and not by vote, as the right depended so much on voluntary cooperation and good will among all States. The Republic of Korea therefore would abstain from the vote on L. 15.

A Representative of the United Kingdom said that his country believed that the international community had made good progress on the acceptance and implementation of the right to development. This right broke artificial barriers between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights and was a useful way of building links between these two categories of rights. Governments were elaborating new approaches to international cooperation guided by the right to development. The United Kingdom was working closely with many African Governments to eliminate poverty and had also increased its foreign direct assistance. Consensus had not been reached on the resolution and it was regrettable that some of the controversial issues were included in the early draft of L.15. The resolution set unhelpful parameters for future discussions on the right to development. The United Kingdom would vote against paragraphs 10,21,22 and would abstain on the resolution as a whole.

A Representative of Norway said his country would favour this resolution. It appreciated South Africa's efforts in this undertaking. It would abstain on some paragraphs of the draft resolution.



In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.2) on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour, 1 against and 19 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately; affirmed the obligation of Israel to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the detainees regularly, as well as allowing other international humanitarian organizations to do so; called upon the Government to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all the maps of the landmine fields deployed throughout civilian villages, fields, and farms; and requested the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of the Government of Israel.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (1): United States.

Abstentions (19): Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain and United Kingdom.

A Representative of Lebanon said the draft resolution was about human rights. It was about civilian detainees kept by Israel. The resolution called upon Israel to set them free. There was another issue about the landmines left in Southern Lebanon by Israel. There were over 150,000 of them, and they created havoc for the civilians there. If landmines were not a human rights issue, the question should be asked about what the treaty on landmines was about. The fact that there were daily victims meant that Israel did not give all of the landmine maps to the United Nations. The Mission of Israel had said they were planted by the Lebanese resistance. How was it possible for the Lebanese resistant to plant tens of thousands of landmines?

A Representative of Israel said that countries, in considering their vote on Lebanese detainees, should consider events on the ground. Israel had unilaterally withdrawn its forces from Lebanon. It had done so unilaterally because it was unable to reach agreement with Lebanon on the matter. Israel also had submitted maps of land mines laid, as noted. The Lebanese had not dealt properly with this information and so had no right now to come before the Commission and complain about it. Lebanon also had not met its commitments to provide security in south Lebanon and to prevent cross-boarder operations; rather, Lebanon still allowed terrorist groups to attack Israel, which meant Israel was compelled to respond. As for detainees, there were glaring omissions as with so many Commission actions related to the Middle East -- for example, there were Israeli detainees held improperly in Lebanon. Many similar important facts were missing from this resolution. The resolution distorted reality and did not contribute to peace in the region.

A Representative of the United States said this resolution was another unbalanced response to the tragic events in the region. The Commission could have simply noted positively Israel's compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, thus making a successful conclusion to the Commission's earlier consideration of the human rights question in southern Lebanon. The effort to isolate Israel for criticism at every possible opportunity -- even to the point of neglecting to mention that the UN Secretary-General had certified Israel's withdrawal behind the Blue Line -- reflected badly on the Commission. This effort, and similar ones, served only to undermine efforts to resume negotiations between the parties. Events over the last weekend reminded that realistic negotiations were the way forward.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said the EU was not able to support draft resolution L.2/Rev.1; most of the elements of the measure concerned questions either without a clear relation to the issue of its title or fell within the competence of other UN organs. The EU reiterated its concern at the imprisonment of several Lebanese citizens, who were arrested in the then-occupied area and transferred to Israel; this was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and their continued administrative detention contravened basic human rights principles. The EU urged the Israeli Government to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the two Lebanese citizens still being kept without charge.

A Representative of the Republic of Korea said his country supported all the resolutions that aimed to protect and promote human rights in the Middle East. However, this year, the delegation had reservations because it contained landmine issues, which were not within the realm of human rights. Therefore, the delegation would abstain. Without such issues, the delegation would have supported the resolution.


Debate on draft resolution on China

The Commission, in a roll-call vote of 23 for, 17 against and 12 abstentions, passed the no-action motion requested by China concerning a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in China (E/CN.4/2001/L.13). In the draft resolution, the Commission would have welcomed the readiness of the Government of China to exchange information on human-rights issues and engage in various cooperative activities in the area of human rights, as well as continued efforts to increase the transparency of the judicial system and respect for the rule of law. It would have expressed its concern at continuing reports of failure to protect internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms in China and, in particular, at severe restrictions on the rights of citizens to the freedoms of assembly, association, expression, conscience and religion, and due legal process and fair trial, as well as at reports of harsh sentences for some seeking to exercise their rights. In the draft resolution, the Commission would have called upon the Government of China to ensure observance of all human rights, including workers’ rights, and to accelerate efforts to reform, with a view to rapid elimination, the re-education through labour system and forced labour, and to release political prisoners. The Commission would also have called on China to permit the peaceful activities of Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and others who sought to exercise their internationally recognized rights of freedom of religion or belief or conscience and of peaceful assembly.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (23): Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.


Against (17): Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (12): Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland and Uruguay.

A Representative of China said that in the past 12 years, the United States had instigated resolutions against China 10 times. The arguments of the United States were not true. In that time, China had made great progress in economic, social and cultural rights. China had political stability and social progress. Even the United States itself had to admit that China had made achievements in transparency and the rule of law in the field of human rights. This contradicted the allegations in the draft resolution, which spoke about a deterioration of the human rights situation in China. The draft resolution interfered with the internal affairs of the developing countries. After a century of humiliation by western powers, China had finally found a development path, and its success was recognized by the whole world. These people were trying to throw hurdles in the way of China's progress. The United States refused to look at its own situation with racial rights abuses, which had led to racial protests in Cincinnati. Could the United States's practice be considered anything but a double standard? The Chinese delegation, on its own initiative, had painted the true picture of the human rights situation in China. The United States had never done that. The United States had breached its own solemn commitment to environmental commitment to the international community. It had sent spy planes to other countries to look over sovereign territory. It passed its opinions on the situation of human rights in other countries without caring for the situation in its own country.

A Representative of Libya said that it appeared that the Cold War was not finished. The Commission was being used as a theatre to attack and exert pressure on other countries. The question was why the United States voted against the draft resolution against Israeli practices in the occupied Arab territories and at the same time was selective with regard to other countries. China was a vast country with a rich civilization. It enjoyed a high level of growth and deserved to be supported and encouraged instead of being the object of attacks. China did not follow the Western model of democracy but had every right to chose its own model.

A Representative of the United States said unfortunately once again, China was seeking to bypass the normal procedures of this Commission by submitting a "no-action motion". No other nation here resorted to such manoeuvres. The question the Chinese motion raised was: “is the case of China so special that it deserves exceptional treatment?” The United States could see no reason for such special treatment. This was the Commission on Human Rights, and its unique and fundamental purpose was to discuss the promotion and protection of universal human rights. To support this no-action motion was to ignore the purpose for which the Commission stood. The essential principle of universal human rights was that they applied to every country at every moment. By custom, law, and common understanding, no nation was at liberty to disregard these norms. China should follow the same international standards that every other country did. Discussion of China's human rights record was not interference in its internal affairs. The issue before the Commission was whether the members of this Commission would choose to honour the principles of open debate or turn a blind eye to contravention of those principles.


A Representative of Cuba said the introduction to the draft resolution on China was yet another indication of how the United States sought that the Commission be used to serve its political interests, which were of a hegemonic and ideological nature. It was an indication of the bias and selectivity by which the United States and other powerful countries sought unfairly to influence situations in countries trying to achieve development. Year after year the United States claimed the situation in China was deteriorating, but year after year China had made progress in development which had improved the lives of its population, which numbered more than 1 billion. Cuba would vote for the no-action motion tabled by China on this draft resolution.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that the EU regretted that a no-action motion was once again introduced by China in order to prevent the Commission from dealing with a specific country situation. This ran counter to the universality of human rights as outlined in the Vienna Declaration and the principle of non-selectivity. The very notion of no-action was contrary to the principle of dialogue. The EU continued to follow with great attention the human rights situation in China. While welcoming positive reforms in the country, the EU felt that they fell short of addressing ongoing human rights violations.

A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the draft resolution did not reflect the human rights situation on the ground in China, and did not recognize the progress made in respecting economic, social and cultural rights. This was why the delegation supported the procedural proposal of China.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said that over many years, his country had supported China in a dialogue on human rights problems. The Russian Federation knew that many other States also had regular bilateral contacts with China on this topic. Such contacts which allowed open discussion on all aspects of human rights were the optimum way to proceed with great powers such as China. Discussing such matters at the Commission, where they inevitably took on political overtones, struck the Russian Federation as counterproductive. The Russian Federation thus would support the no-action motion.

A Representative of Canada said that his country opposed the no-action motion on a country-specific resolution. The draft resolution on China identified some positive developments in the country but at the same time it raised some important issues and concerns about the human rights situation there. Canada believed that the Commission should be allowed to express its view on the situation and would therefore vote against the no-action motion.

A Representative of Indonesia said his delegation noted with regret that again a draft resolution had been introduced against China. The delegation believed that there was more to gain by promoting dialogue than there was from a resolution. This was counterproductive. Past experience had shown that consensus had never been achieved on a resolution on China.

A Representative of Pakistan said his country could not support the draft resolution on China. Pakistan would support the no-action motion. The draft resolution's criticism of China was entirely unjustified. In the developing world, the worst violator of human rights was hunger and poverty, and China's efforts to eradicate poverty had provided a model for other developing countries. At no time in China's long history had Chinese citizens had as much freedom and hope as they had today. The Chinese people had worked hard and honestly, and they were not complaining. But now the developed countries were saying, don't work so hard; you export too much; and please complain -- if you don't, we will complain for you. China had a good record of cooperation with the United Nations. If such a discriminatory resolution on China was adopted, China's cooperation would surely cease.

A Representative of Algeria said that for the past nine years the Commission had been presented with a resolution against China. This draft resolution made the Commission an instrument. At present, the draft resolution was tabled by the United States in the context of current bilateral relations between that country and China. This was why Algeria would vote in favour of the no-action motion.



CORRIGENDUM

In press release HR/CN/01/54 of 17 April, 2001, the Representative of Albania was misidentified on page 11. The name of the Representative and the statement of Albania should read as follows:

GENTI BENDO (Albania) said his Government supported the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani. In Albania, an office of a human rights Ombudsman had been created with an independent mandate to promote and protect human rights. The Ombudsman was empowered to investigate complaints of human rights violations lodged by citizens. The Governmental structure of the country had been established in such a manner that each State power did not interfere in the affairs of the other. The judiciary was also independent.



* *** *