Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CARRIES ON WITH DEBATE ON RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
26 March 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/CN/99/10
26 March 1999
Four High-Level Government Officials Deliver Addresses
Review of the right to self-determination by the Commission on Human Rights took a topical turn this morning as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) variously debated its application to Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, questioned the pros and cons of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in Kosovo, and termed economic embargoes against Iraq and Cuba violations of the principle.
Also mentioned were situations in East Timor, Tibet, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, occupied Palestine, and Guatemala.
As at previous sessions, a number of remarks dealt with the question of when the right to self-determination was appropriate, and whether self-determination required independent statehood or could be satisfied by other conditions, such as the ability to enjoy one's own culture, speak one's own language and practice one’s own religion within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.
Representatives of the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies and the Indian Council of Education asserted that definitions should be found for self-determination that fell short of statehood. A spokesman for International Educational Development contended that a people with a distinct language, distinct culture and a strong relationship to their land had a right to self-determination. Such was the situation in Kosovo, he claimed, and so the current NATO campaign on behalf of Kosovans was a just one.
Four high-level Government officials addressed the morning meeting.
Patrizia Toia, Under-Secretary of State of Italy, said, among other things, that poverty remained a huge human-rights problem around the world; years of effort had done little to reduce the widening gap between rich and poor countries of the world, and severe poverty which affected the minimum conditions for human life and development was not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the international community.
Charles Josselin, Minister Delegate for Cooperation of France, also spoke of problems of poverty, citing a need to reduce financial and economic inequalities between countries and expressing concern about situations in Asia, the Russian Federation and Brazil. He said international efforts often had the effect of aggravating extreme poverty in less-developed nations.
Tarja Halonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that during preparations for a World Conference against Racial Discrimination, countries must try to grasp the "whole picture" of racism: many women, for example, had their own distinctive experience of double-discrimination based on ethnic origin combined with gender; children of minority ethnic origins often began their lives with great disadvantages because of barriers to education; and minorities and indigenous peoples were vulnerable to various forms of prejudice and maltreatment.
And Hilde Frafjord Johnson, Minister of International Development and Human Rights of Norway, remarked that her country was engaged in multi-faceted human rights dialogues with, among other countries, China, Cuba and Turkey. The bilateral dialogues addressed real and serious issues and opened cooperation between NGOs, academic institutions, media and other civil society partners, she said, and the overriding objective was to continually strive for accountability and seek action-oriented solutions.
On a separate matter, Commission Chairperson Anne Anderson proposed to continue discussion of reform of the Commission's working methods in open-ended informal consultations beginning Wednesday, 31 March, from 6:15 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The following NGOs delivered statements: France Libertes -- Fondation Danielle Mitterand; American Association of Jurists; International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies; Interfaith International; Indian Council of Education; International Educational Development; Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru"; Liberation; Women's International Democratic Federation; World Federation of Trade Unions; World Muslim Congress; Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization; International Indian Treaty Council; European Union of Public Relations; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; Society for Threatened Peoples; and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.
Representatives of Indonesia, Armenia, the Russian Federation, Cuba, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Portugal spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission will convene at 3 p.m. in the form of its sessional Working Group on preparations for a World Conference against Racism. It will hold its next plenary at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 30 March.
Statements
PATRIZIA TOIA, Under-Secretary of State of Italy, said human rights increasingly served as a touchstone enabling all to gauge a country's treatment of its citizens; of course all countries and cultures were different, but such differences could not be used as excuses for violating human rights.
Biotechnology and genetic engineering were an example of evolving issues in human rights, Ms. Toia said; such matters as genetic manipulation and organ transplants illustrated the complexity of the ethical considerations involved. The use of selective abortions based on prejudices about the sex of the foetus also had to be reviewed in terms of human-rights implications. Exploitation of poverty, meanwhile, had led to practices of removing organs from living human beings for sale, in some cases the organs of children; the trade in such organs was carried out by criminal syndicates for purposes of sale in the world's wealthier countries. There also were possible abuses in the international adoption market. Norms for proper adoption practices were being set up, but a lot remained to be done on the international level.
Elimination of the death penalty throughout the world -- a campaign waged for years by Italy and recently taken up the European Union -- continued to be a major goal of her country, Ms. Toia said; at a minimum it was to be hoped that those States that were not willing to abolish the death penalty would put into effect moratoriums on its use.
Italy strongly supported the new International Criminal Court to be established in Rome, she said.
Poverty remained a huge human-rights problem around the world; years of efforts had done little to reduce the widening gap between the rich and poor countries of the world; severe poverty which affected the minimum conditions for human life and development was not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the international community -- such situations had to be addressed; ways and means had to be found to meet all peoples' most elementary needs. She appealed to the Commission to tackle this problem, and suggested that a corps of young human-rights monitors be established who could keep on eye on such serious situations worldwide and lead the way in offering technical advice in solving such difficulties.
CHARLES JOSSELIN, Minister Delegate for Cooperation of France, stated that fifty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was a rich history of events and celebrations which provided a measuring rod for achievements since 1948. In this regard, more than 100 instruments had been developed and completed, enriching the 30 articles of Chaillot.
France called on marking these achievements in a more durable way through the baptised Internet site "Voltaire" which reaffirmed the communal, inalienable and indivisible values of the Universal Declaration. The international community was called on to continue without respite the protection of its universality, its indivisibility and above all its efficacy. There were numerous crimes against humanity including, among others, those of genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Regional situations were outlined with their mixed human rights records citing advances in democracy on the one hand and atrocities on the other. The Nigerian elections were an example of progress in Africa. The dialogue between the European Union and China in 1997 had born fruit. France supported fully the statement of Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister of Germany, on behalf of the European Union, and called on the efforts of the international community to be transformed into tangible improvements.
Mr. Josselin underscored the need to reduce inequalities in economic and financial situations and cited Asia, the Russian Federation and Brazil as examples where economic and financial conflagrations had been addressed but at the same time had aggravated the existence of extreme poverty in the less developed nations. The Commission should address, among other issues, the rights of the child. France had called for the universal ratification of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and supported the adoption of two additional protocols to the Convention currently under discussion including the right of the child in armed conflicts and the sale of children, child prostitution and pornography. There was also a need to address the issue of the ethics of biological developments. Finally France supported the four resolution projects on arbitrary detention, forced disappearances, biological ethics and extreme poverty and pledged its support on the reformation of mechanisms.
TARJA HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of (Finland) said although the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights remained with Governments, the United Nations as a global organization had an indispensable role in promoting human rights. There were three areas where further steps needed to be implemented: human rights standards, developing human rights mechanisms and supporting the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Ms. Halonen repeated the need for the universal ratification of all core human rights treaties. However, there were still serious deficiencies regarding the ratification of the treaties. Even the universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child had still not been achieved at the eve of its tenth anniversary, as two countries had not acceded it. The fact that in many instances these reservations invoked religious or other doctrines did not in any way legitimise them. In this regard, Governments were called upon to cooperate with human rights mechanisms and to allow them access to the country concerned without imposing limitation on their work. In cases where Governments did not cooperate, it was justifiable to draw attention to such matters in this Commission. Finland found it totally unacceptable that Special Rapporteurs still failed to receive the full cooperation of all States in discharging their mandates.
Issues of gender were crucial in this respect, Ms. Halonen said. It was essential that all human rights mechanisms, either thematic or those concentrating on country situations, apply a gender perspective. The work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women was welcomed but should be inclusive of all mandates of relevant human rights mechanisms. Finland would continue to donate funds directly to various operations of the High Commissioner, including field operations.
Ms. Halonen said during the preparations for the World Conference against Racism, countries must try to grasp the whole picture of racism as it was still a serious problem world-wide. Women, for example, had their own distinctive experience of double-discrimination based on ethnic origin, combined with gender. Children of minority ethnic origins might not obtain their just start of their lives because of barriers to education. Minorities and indigenous peoples were by definition more vulnerable than the majority population to violations of their human rights, and in some cases violence. The International Labour Office had provided valuable contributions to the rights of indigenous people for further development.
Finland encouraged all countries to ratify the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibited the use of the death penalty. Finland's position was based on its own experience. It had not carried out any executions since 1826 and the last provisions were abolished in 1972. There were now 105 countries in the world that had abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
HILDE FRAFJORD JOHYNSON, Minister of International Development and Human Rights of Norway, called for a spirit of global accountability in addressing mutually reinforcing civil and political rights along with economic, social and cultural rights. While the ethics of politics came from within, there was a need to recognize the responsibility to assist each other in implementing human rights and Norway pledged its commitment to this effort.
Since human rights began at home, Norway had released its first annual report in line with the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action. In addition, Norway had pledged $ 1 million to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to support other countries in drawing up their own national plans. Norway was engaged in a multi-faceted human rights dialogue with other countries including China, Cuba and Turkey. These bilateral dialogues addressed real and serious issues and opened cooperation between non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, media and other civil society partners. The overriding objective was to continually strive for accountability and seek action-oriented solutions.
Areas of need outlined by Norway included, among others, the rights of the child, racism and ethnic bias and bigotry, religious prejudice, abuses against indigenous peoples, and capital punishment. Regarding the death penalty, Norway fully supported the announcement by Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister of Germany, in which the European Union stated it would submit a joint resolution on the death penalty. Norway supported the emphasis placed on human rights mechanisms, as initiated by the Bureau, and encouraged that these mechanisms became fully functioning and efficient as the next millennium commenced.
JAKA YMER, of France Libertes, Fondation Danielle Mitterand, delivered a statement relating to the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation. The issue of the Kurdish people and their denial of self-determination was raised in this context. The issue of the West Saharan people who had been denied their right to self-determination was also raised. The process toward self-determination signed by the Polisario and Morocco in 1991 had stalled in anticipation of an agreed upon referendum on self-determination. France Libertes called for the implementation of the referendum and urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to organize and implement it. Mentioned also were the Albanian people of Kosovo, the East Timorese and the Tibetans who should also be afforded the rights to self-determination.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists, said the rights of peoples to self-determination was a universal one set up in the 1945 United Nations Charter. The United States was systematically violating that right. It had put up embargos on Cuba and Iraq which was a violation of the United Nations Charter. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had not been given the right by the Security Council to use force against Kosovo. This was simply an aggression of international law by NATO. An incalculable number of people were suffering as a result of this. The United States had become the acclaimed leader of human rights and had based its leadership on power aggression and bombing which was not contributing to the well-being of the peoples in this region. Half a million children had died as a result of the aggression against Iraq and U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright when asked to respond to this had said: "well the decision had been a difficult one but one that had to be taken". The violation of the Kurdish peoples’ right to self- determination was also brought up as their leader, Abdullah Ocalan was denied the right to stay in Europe.
REENA MARWAH , of the International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies, said former colonial rule and alien domination were particularly pertinent to exercise of the right to self-determination; such peoples were justified in energetically pursuing their independence; however, ethnic or cultural minorities living in democratic societies did not have such a right. Nonetheless some such groups attempted to secede from their parent countries by improperly claiming they were exercising the right to self-determination. Even political or economically characterized matters were frequently miscast as "ethnic". Statehood was not necessary to guarantee the rights of peoples to their cultures, languages, and religions; what was necessary was the granting of full cultural rights to such peoples, and the granting of their full rights to participate in the democratic process. In general, definitions should be found for self-determination that fell short of independent statehood.
The ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN, of Interfaith International, stated that since 1945 the Kashmiri people had been denied their fundamental right to self-determination and to representation by the Pakistani Government. There were numerous human right abuses against the Kashmiri people’s economic, social, political and cultural rights. The Representative of Pakistan who recently mentioned the rights of the Kashmir peoples was “hypocritical” since the country had failed to offer even the most basic rights to these people.
H.A. GUPTA, of the Indian Council of Education, said more than 50 years after of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many ethnic, religious or linguistic groups in countries all over the world were raising the question of self-determination afresh. In his working papers on the protection of minorities, Asbjorn Eide pointed out that it was becoming increasingly clear that in most cases violence was initiated by conflict entrepreneurs, persons who had their own political agenda. He said the suppression of ethnic movements in the name of integration or nation building no doubt was a violation of human rights in many ways. The experience so far on the partitioning of a country on ethnic lines had not proved adequate but had created problems both for successor States as well as the international community.
The Representative of the Indian Council of Education said what was important therefore was to distinguish between external self-determination and internal self-determination. External self-determination was the right to freedom from a colonial power. Internal self-determination had two aspects, one was independence of the whole State's population from foreign intervention or influence, and second, within a State's population each group's right to preserve its own heritage and distinctiveness while participating in the State's affairs as equal citizens. It was important that States be educated to respect the equal rights of all their citizens irrespective of ethnic or religious differences. Also States had to respect plurality and realize the importance of multiculturalism for their own development and stability.
S.V.KIRUBAHARAN, of International Educational Development, said a recent Canadian Supreme Court decision had acknowledged that the right to an external form of self-determination existed in a non-colonial context; States practices also had confirmed that a people with a distinct language, distinct culture and a strong relationship to their land had a right to self-determination. Such was the situation in Kosovo, and the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) campaign on behalf of Kosovans was a just one; NATO's demand that Yugoslav troops should be withdrawn from Kosovo was also justifiable. East Timorese also had the right to self-determination, as did the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, whose rights had been violated with impunity for half a century by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government; all attempts of the Tamils at peaceful and democratic co-existence had been rejected; hence there was no alternative but for Tamils to be given independence; the Commission must adopt a resolution to tha
t effect.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaro”, said the right to self-determination constituted universal rights of all States to enjoy this right without any restriction since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted fifty years ago. The right to self-determination had never been a right for colonial powers. For example, Israel continued to occupy the Arab territories, denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. The United States had continued its economic and trade embargo on Cuba for 40 years and the bombing of Iraq was unjustified. The Kurdish people were being prosecuted by denying them the right to self-
determination. The international community should no longer allow this to continue as millions of human beings being killed.
HALEPOTA MUNAWAR, of Liberation, said the Tamils in Sri Lanka had an ancient heritage, vibrant culture and a language which was 5,000 years old, yet they had had their cultural identity suppressed for decades by the Sri Lankan Government; attempts at peaceful resolution of this situation had been rejected by the Government, which continued to pursue a "military" solution to the conflict; Sri Lankan troops must be withdrawn from the Tamil region and the Commission should encourage the Government to take this step. The Commission must also persuade the Turkish Government to respect the right to self-determination of the Kurdish people, both in northern Iraqi Kurdistan and in Turkey. Similarly the Pakistani Government must grant its Sinhi people the right to self-determination.
AGDAS LEYLA, of the Women's International Democratic Federation, said many peoples were still deprived of the fundamental right to self-determination and were subject even to massacres and genocide; an example was that in 1915, over 1 million Armenians and Assyrians were subjected to genocide carried out by the Turks, who still did not even acknowledge that this genocide had occurred. Now Turkey was brutally suppressing its native Kurdish population; a "dirty war" had been carried out against Turkey's Kurds for years; Turkey termed it a campaign against "terrorism", which was utterly misleading. The most elementary rights of the Kurdish people such as teaching in their own language and having their own publications were vigorously denied by Turkey. The Commission must discuss this problem and must no longer allow Turkey a privileged status in which it was not subjected to international criticism.
SADHANA HARISH, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, called for a debate on the concept of self-determination in view of the history of colonial rule in which entire peoples and nationalities were exploited and in which the right to self-determination was the only course open to gain freedom and to ensure against exploitation.
A tighter understanding of self-determination was called for in view of the present prevailing use of the concept to destroy nation States, especially those with pluralist traditions, the Representative said. The case of Kashmir was cited as an example where the concept of self-determination was used mischievously to dismember a country, to foster a vicious brand of religious fundamentalism, and to unleash a gruesome form of terrorism. Another example of the vicious double-standards application of the concept of self-determination was Pakistan regarding its own people, especially the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. It was the Kashmiris in Pakistan, not those in India, who needed help in their fight for self-determination.
MAQBOOL AHMAD, of the World Muslim Congress, said Kosovo had been subjected to Serbian aggression for years; the Serbs were trying to ethnically cleanse the place; but Kosovo's Albanians were a distinct people with their own culture and language and made up 90 per cent of the population; they deserved the right to choose their own future. Kashmir, meanwhile, had never been apart of India; its annexation by force did not make it a part of India now. A plebiscite as requested long ago by the United Nations should be held in Jammu and Kashmir to allow the native population to exercise its right to self-determination. India resisted such a vote because it knew it would lose. As the cases of Kashmir and Kosovo both showed, alien domination today could be even more severe than traditional colonialism had been.
RUBY MALON, of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said self-determination was giving people the right to fashion their own destinies without disturbing the well-being of others. Yet the Commission had heard advocates of self-determination as a term primarily coined to combat foreign colonial domination, suggesting that this laudable objective was possible only through the redrawing of historical borders and the disintegration of nation States, even where colonialism does not exist. The advocates of this policy should bear in mind the horrific consequences that such an interpretation of the right to self-determination could unleash violence as witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. The right of Kashmiris to self-determination was threatened by terrorist groups whose extremist idealogy, couched in the language of "Jihad", had no place for democracy, humanity, tolerance and who were increasingly responsible for the continuation of a distressing situation that could easily be resolved through peaceful dialogue. Pakistan's National Assembly and the Council of Islamic Ideology had advised the Kashmiris to accept autonomy within the Indian Union. The ability to participate effectively in the overall political process so that the rights of specific communities were safeguarded was what constituted internal autonomy. The domination of Punjab was being increasingly questioned by Mohajirs and Sindhis in Sindh and by the Seraiki people in Multan. The disregard for provincial rights had given birth to a unified movement of provincial representatives who had been usurped by dominant Punjab.
ANTONIO GONZALES, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said much admirable progress had been made in Guatemala. The Council deeply valued the efforts, supported by the international community, civil society, the Mayan people, and the Guatemalan Congress, to find viable mechanisms for negotiation, national consensus, and agreement for addressing the problems and disenfranchisement of the majority of the country's population, including its Mayan, Garifuna, and Xinca peoples. Still, some elements within the Government and business sector that dominated the country were obstructing progress and opposing solutions in the form of Constitutional changes that were needed. Working through the ultra-conservative Centre for the Defence of the Constitution, they had convinced the Court of Constitutionality to sanction their manipulation of the Constitution and support their claim against the current process through which indigenous peoples would be able to have a greater voice in society. The Commission must
support the reform process in Guatemala and continue to support the reconciliation process there after 36 years of brutal internal armed conflict.
ZULFIQAR KHAN AZIZ, of the European Union of Public Relations stated that the organization sought freedom for the Kashmiris residing in Gilgit and Baltistan from Pakistan with the international community's intervention in August 1998. Pakistan has ignored these calls for self-determination for these Kashmiris while acceding to China the northern areas. Cited was the execution by India of Maqbool Butt and the denial of the publication of his letters entitled "Shahoor e Farda" or "Vision of Tomorrow" by Pakistan. The international community was charged with neglecting its responsibility in this matter. The Representative appealed to the Commission to send a team to the northern areas to observe the human rights abuses and the denial of the right to self-determination.
VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the struggle of the Kosovo Albanians for self-determination had at last galvanized the international community to take a more pro-active stand towards such conflicts. The international community now questioned whether the insistence on the inviolability of international borders constituted a potential threat to global security. Self-determination was not necessarily tantamount to political independence; in the cases of the Western Sahara and East Timor it could be implemented along different lines such as local or regional autonomy. What was lacking was a common set of criteria specifying how implementation of self-determination could be calibrated within a given context. The struggle of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, for example, provided a strong argument for devising standards for determining when a people should have the right to declare independence -- Sri Lanka had brutally suppressed the Tamils' legitimate human right
s and cultural aspirations for years; the Commission should send a fact-finding mission to the country.
PRIMO BURSIK, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, drew attention to the situation of the Naga people. The organization welcomed various opportunities by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and the Government of India to take up negotiations in order to find a peaceful political solution to the 52-year old conflict which had claimed thousands of lives. The Organization was deeply concerned about the Indian Government’s violation of the cease-fire which had been in force for a year. The United Nations should advise both parties to sincerely address the Indo-Naga issue in the right perspective. Since the cease-fire violation, 27 people had been killed, 16 kidnapped and dozens of houses burned down by the Indian army or paramilitary forces. Six members of the Naga army had also been killed and 168 kidnapped.
MAJID TRAMBOO, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, stated that the right to self-determination had been denied in the case of the Kashmiris by the Government of India as resolved by the 1948 United Nations Security Council and as vowed by Pandit Jawhar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India in 1952 that the final question of Kashmir be left to the people of Kashmir.
Nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last May had made Kashmir the most dangerous nuclear hot spot on the planet. The Governments of India and Pakistan and an authentic leadership of Kashmiris must be allowed, with the pressure of the international community, to reach a negotiated dispensation toward an Indian acquiescence to a referendum. The Commission was urged to have India take a number of constructive and positive steps in allowing the Kashmiris the right to self-determination including among others: the withdrawal of its occupation forces from the occupied territory; the repeal of all ordinances and laws which contravene against the international covenants; and the engagement in meaningful dialogue with the All Parties Hurriyet Conference and Pakistan.
Rights of Reply
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking in right of reply, said Portugal had misrepresented the situation in East Timor; the Indonesian Government had come up with a wide-ranging plan for autonomy for East Timor, and negotiations were under way with East Timorese. Portugal, however, had continued with its past attitude, which was obstructive and of no use to resolving current difficulties; in fact, East Timor's problems were a direct result of Portugal's mistreatment of East Timorese years ago. Portugal's one-sided and biased statements on East Timor were not only misleading but served to block progress towards autonomy.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan once again had misrepresented the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan continued, ironically, to deny the right to self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh’s residents even as it unfairly claimed Armenia was guilty of such an offense. This attitude only kept meaningful progress from being made on this sensitive issue.
Y. BOITCHENKO (the Russian Federation), speaking in right of reply, said the missile strikes being carried out against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were not part of the arsenal of democracy; only the Security Council of the United Nations was entitled to decide what measures should be taken against sovereign nations. A despicable precedent had been established which jeopardized the international order; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should not be allowed to serve as a world policeman. Resolution of the situation in Kosovo could only occur through peaceful means.
JUAN FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in right of reply, said that even as the Commission met, bombs were falling on Belgrade; those responsible for the bombs were the same ones who had caused discord and conflict in that region, and throughout the world. This was a war of aggression and dismemberment carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against a sovereign country; NATO nations were blaming one man for this -- but how could one justify a war against a people this way? The United States and its allies should not be allowed to continue this unjust aggression; the divide-and-rule tactic of the powerful must not be allowed as it was carried out here and in other places; these bombs were falling on innocent children.
AKRAM ZAKI (Pakistan), speaking in right of reply, said a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Interfaith International, Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, and others, all sponsored by India, had made statements attacking Pakistan's support of the right to self-determination of the people of Kashmir; but that right was just and had been supported by the United Nations repeatedly, including recently, when under the Organization’s urging the leaders of Pakistan and Kashmir had begun negotiations on Kashmir. A few sponsored NGOs could not stop the irresistible process leading to self-determination for Kashmiris.
TOFIK MOUSSAEV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said the representative of Armenia once again had distorted the situation of territorial integrity of existing sovereign States; Armenia did not respect Azerbaijan's territory and had occupied part of it against the wishes of the international community, the United Nations, and the Security Council. How could Armenia settle this conflict if it opposed international law and the international community? Armenia had no right to lecture others about the right to self-determination.
SUSANA DIAZ (Portugal), speaking in right of reply, said the Indonesian delegate had misunderstood Portugal's remarks; in fact Portugal applauded the recent autonomy plan unveiled by Indonesia; still, Portugal felt bound to point out that current conditions in East Timor were not very good.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking in right of reply, said Indonesia reaffirmed its earlier position on East Timor, and called on all parties concerned to create a conducive atmosphere in order to reach a just solution to the situation in East Timor.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said it was difficult to remain silent in the face of Azerbaijan's statements which so grossly misrepresented the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan's reason for doing this was to distract attention from the real situation in the region. Such statements by Azerbaijan were a desperate attempt to mislead the Commission.
TOFIK MOUSSAEV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said Armenia once again had issued groundless allegations that betrayed its true intention -- Armenia did not want to solve the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh peacefully. But Nagorno-Karabakh would never be independent or part of Armenia; it was an integral part of Azerbaijan; Azerbaijan would continue to seek a peaceful resolution to the problem.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/99/4 of 23 March 1999, the speech on page 10 by David Littman of the Association for World Education, also on behalf of the Association for World Citizens, should read as follows:
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, speaking also on behalf of the Association for World Citizens, said a grave danger came from systematic efforts made at United Nations bodies over the years by representatives of certain Member States to replace some of the dominant paradigms of international relations; for example, to undermine the universally recognized code of human rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example was a seminar sponsored by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in November in collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at which 20 Islamic specialists spoke on “Islamic perspectives” on the Universal Declaration. A major issue was created by this seminar: could an intellectual analysis of the basis of theologically-inspired legal traditions be used for political purposes? The issue was all the more pertinent if the political purpose was to weaken the provisions of the Universal Declaration or to exempt certain States from its provisions. There was also a danger that future attempts to undermine the international paradigms which were at the core of the world order since 1945 might now be guaranteed an institutionalised forum and legitimacies within the United Nations system.
Mr. Littman said debates on the nature of the sharia law in Islamic countries were not relevant to the Universal Declaration, nor to the inter-governmental decisions based on it. The same could be said about the nature of sacred texts from other religious or ethnic groups. The principal aim of the Universal Declaration was to create a framework for a world society that needed some universal codes based on mutual consent in order to function.
In press release HR/CN/99/7 of 25 March 1999, the right of reply of Choe Myong Nam of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, on page 9, should read as follows:
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), exercising its right to reply, said the food problem facing the country was caused by severe natural disasters for several consecutive years and by the external blockade. Many humanitarian organizations and Governments had provided considerable amount of aid, but the Republic of Korea was only interested in politicizing this humanitarian issue and misusing the situation for political purposes. The “reciprocity” of exchange between the unconverted long-term prisoners of north origin and the so-called “abductees” of south origin was preposterous. The unconverted long-term prisoners of north origin were imprisoned for more than 30 or 40 years in the Republic of Korea and when released, did not have any family members or relatives in the south and asked to be repatriated to the north. There were no “abductees” in the north. As for the reunion of separated families, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to carry out a great number of proposals in this regard. Unfortunately, its efforts had received serious challenge for which the Republic of Korea should be held responsible.
HR/CN/99/10
26 March 1999
Four High-Level Government Officials Deliver Addresses
Review of the right to self-determination by the Commission on Human Rights took a topical turn this morning as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) variously debated its application to Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, questioned the pros and cons of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in Kosovo, and termed economic embargoes against Iraq and Cuba violations of the principle.
Also mentioned were situations in East Timor, Tibet, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, occupied Palestine, and Guatemala.
As at previous sessions, a number of remarks dealt with the question of when the right to self-determination was appropriate, and whether self-determination required independent statehood or could be satisfied by other conditions, such as the ability to enjoy one's own culture, speak one's own language and practice one’s own religion within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.
Representatives of the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies and the Indian Council of Education asserted that definitions should be found for self-determination that fell short of statehood. A spokesman for International Educational Development contended that a people with a distinct language, distinct culture and a strong relationship to their land had a right to self-determination. Such was the situation in Kosovo, he claimed, and so the current NATO campaign on behalf of Kosovans was a just one.
Four high-level Government officials addressed the morning meeting.
Patrizia Toia, Under-Secretary of State of Italy, said, among other things, that poverty remained a huge human-rights problem around the world; years of effort had done little to reduce the widening gap between rich and poor countries of the world, and severe poverty which affected the minimum conditions for human life and development was not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the international community.
Charles Josselin, Minister Delegate for Cooperation of France, also spoke of problems of poverty, citing a need to reduce financial and economic inequalities between countries and expressing concern about situations in Asia, the Russian Federation and Brazil. He said international efforts often had the effect of aggravating extreme poverty in less-developed nations.
Tarja Halonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that during preparations for a World Conference against Racial Discrimination, countries must try to grasp the "whole picture" of racism: many women, for example, had their own distinctive experience of double-discrimination based on ethnic origin combined with gender; children of minority ethnic origins often began their lives with great disadvantages because of barriers to education; and minorities and indigenous peoples were vulnerable to various forms of prejudice and maltreatment.
And Hilde Frafjord Johnson, Minister of International Development and Human Rights of Norway, remarked that her country was engaged in multi-faceted human rights dialogues with, among other countries, China, Cuba and Turkey. The bilateral dialogues addressed real and serious issues and opened cooperation between NGOs, academic institutions, media and other civil society partners, she said, and the overriding objective was to continually strive for accountability and seek action-oriented solutions.
On a separate matter, Commission Chairperson Anne Anderson proposed to continue discussion of reform of the Commission's working methods in open-ended informal consultations beginning Wednesday, 31 March, from 6:15 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The following NGOs delivered statements: France Libertes -- Fondation Danielle Mitterand; American Association of Jurists; International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies; Interfaith International; Indian Council of Education; International Educational Development; Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru"; Liberation; Women's International Democratic Federation; World Federation of Trade Unions; World Muslim Congress; Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization; International Indian Treaty Council; European Union of Public Relations; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; Society for Threatened Peoples; and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.
Representatives of Indonesia, Armenia, the Russian Federation, Cuba, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Portugal spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission will convene at 3 p.m. in the form of its sessional Working Group on preparations for a World Conference against Racism. It will hold its next plenary at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 30 March.
Statements
PATRIZIA TOIA, Under-Secretary of State of Italy, said human rights increasingly served as a touchstone enabling all to gauge a country's treatment of its citizens; of course all countries and cultures were different, but such differences could not be used as excuses for violating human rights.
Biotechnology and genetic engineering were an example of evolving issues in human rights, Ms. Toia said; such matters as genetic manipulation and organ transplants illustrated the complexity of the ethical considerations involved. The use of selective abortions based on prejudices about the sex of the foetus also had to be reviewed in terms of human-rights implications. Exploitation of poverty, meanwhile, had led to practices of removing organs from living human beings for sale, in some cases the organs of children; the trade in such organs was carried out by criminal syndicates for purposes of sale in the world's wealthier countries. There also were possible abuses in the international adoption market. Norms for proper adoption practices were being set up, but a lot remained to be done on the international level.
Elimination of the death penalty throughout the world -- a campaign waged for years by Italy and recently taken up the European Union -- continued to be a major goal of her country, Ms. Toia said; at a minimum it was to be hoped that those States that were not willing to abolish the death penalty would put into effect moratoriums on its use.
Italy strongly supported the new International Criminal Court to be established in Rome, she said.
Poverty remained a huge human-rights problem around the world; years of efforts had done little to reduce the widening gap between the rich and poor countries of the world; severe poverty which affected the minimum conditions for human life and development was not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the international community -- such situations had to be addressed; ways and means had to be found to meet all peoples' most elementary needs. She appealed to the Commission to tackle this problem, and suggested that a corps of young human-rights monitors be established who could keep on eye on such serious situations worldwide and lead the way in offering technical advice in solving such difficulties.
CHARLES JOSSELIN, Minister Delegate for Cooperation of France, stated that fifty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was a rich history of events and celebrations which provided a measuring rod for achievements since 1948. In this regard, more than 100 instruments had been developed and completed, enriching the 30 articles of Chaillot.
France called on marking these achievements in a more durable way through the baptised Internet site "Voltaire" which reaffirmed the communal, inalienable and indivisible values of the Universal Declaration. The international community was called on to continue without respite the protection of its universality, its indivisibility and above all its efficacy. There were numerous crimes against humanity including, among others, those of genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Regional situations were outlined with their mixed human rights records citing advances in democracy on the one hand and atrocities on the other. The Nigerian elections were an example of progress in Africa. The dialogue between the European Union and China in 1997 had born fruit. France supported fully the statement of Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister of Germany, on behalf of the European Union, and called on the efforts of the international community to be transformed into tangible improvements.
Mr. Josselin underscored the need to reduce inequalities in economic and financial situations and cited Asia, the Russian Federation and Brazil as examples where economic and financial conflagrations had been addressed but at the same time had aggravated the existence of extreme poverty in the less developed nations. The Commission should address, among other issues, the rights of the child. France had called for the universal ratification of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and supported the adoption of two additional protocols to the Convention currently under discussion including the right of the child in armed conflicts and the sale of children, child prostitution and pornography. There was also a need to address the issue of the ethics of biological developments. Finally France supported the four resolution projects on arbitrary detention, forced disappearances, biological ethics and extreme poverty and pledged its support on the reformation of mechanisms.
TARJA HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of (Finland) said although the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights remained with Governments, the United Nations as a global organization had an indispensable role in promoting human rights. There were three areas where further steps needed to be implemented: human rights standards, developing human rights mechanisms and supporting the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Ms. Halonen repeated the need for the universal ratification of all core human rights treaties. However, there were still serious deficiencies regarding the ratification of the treaties. Even the universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child had still not been achieved at the eve of its tenth anniversary, as two countries had not acceded it. The fact that in many instances these reservations invoked religious or other doctrines did not in any way legitimise them. In this regard, Governments were called upon to cooperate with human rights mechanisms and to allow them access to the country concerned without imposing limitation on their work. In cases where Governments did not cooperate, it was justifiable to draw attention to such matters in this Commission. Finland found it totally unacceptable that Special Rapporteurs still failed to receive the full cooperation of all States in discharging their mandates.
Issues of gender were crucial in this respect, Ms. Halonen said. It was essential that all human rights mechanisms, either thematic or those concentrating on country situations, apply a gender perspective. The work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women was welcomed but should be inclusive of all mandates of relevant human rights mechanisms. Finland would continue to donate funds directly to various operations of the High Commissioner, including field operations.
Ms. Halonen said during the preparations for the World Conference against Racism, countries must try to grasp the whole picture of racism as it was still a serious problem world-wide. Women, for example, had their own distinctive experience of double-discrimination based on ethnic origin, combined with gender. Children of minority ethnic origins might not obtain their just start of their lives because of barriers to education. Minorities and indigenous peoples were by definition more vulnerable than the majority population to violations of their human rights, and in some cases violence. The International Labour Office had provided valuable contributions to the rights of indigenous people for further development.
Finland encouraged all countries to ratify the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibited the use of the death penalty. Finland's position was based on its own experience. It had not carried out any executions since 1826 and the last provisions were abolished in 1972. There were now 105 countries in the world that had abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
HILDE FRAFJORD JOHYNSON, Minister of International Development and Human Rights of Norway, called for a spirit of global accountability in addressing mutually reinforcing civil and political rights along with economic, social and cultural rights. While the ethics of politics came from within, there was a need to recognize the responsibility to assist each other in implementing human rights and Norway pledged its commitment to this effort.
Since human rights began at home, Norway had released its first annual report in line with the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action. In addition, Norway had pledged $ 1 million to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to support other countries in drawing up their own national plans. Norway was engaged in a multi-faceted human rights dialogue with other countries including China, Cuba and Turkey. These bilateral dialogues addressed real and serious issues and opened cooperation between non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, media and other civil society partners. The overriding objective was to continually strive for accountability and seek action-oriented solutions.
Areas of need outlined by Norway included, among others, the rights of the child, racism and ethnic bias and bigotry, religious prejudice, abuses against indigenous peoples, and capital punishment. Regarding the death penalty, Norway fully supported the announcement by Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister of Germany, in which the European Union stated it would submit a joint resolution on the death penalty. Norway supported the emphasis placed on human rights mechanisms, as initiated by the Bureau, and encouraged that these mechanisms became fully functioning and efficient as the next millennium commenced.
JAKA YMER, of France Libertes, Fondation Danielle Mitterand, delivered a statement relating to the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation. The issue of the Kurdish people and their denial of self-determination was raised in this context. The issue of the West Saharan people who had been denied their right to self-determination was also raised. The process toward self-determination signed by the Polisario and Morocco in 1991 had stalled in anticipation of an agreed upon referendum on self-determination. France Libertes called for the implementation of the referendum and urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to organize and implement it. Mentioned also were the Albanian people of Kosovo, the East Timorese and the Tibetans who should also be afforded the rights to self-determination.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists, said the rights of peoples to self-determination was a universal one set up in the 1945 United Nations Charter. The United States was systematically violating that right. It had put up embargos on Cuba and Iraq which was a violation of the United Nations Charter. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had not been given the right by the Security Council to use force against Kosovo. This was simply an aggression of international law by NATO. An incalculable number of people were suffering as a result of this. The United States had become the acclaimed leader of human rights and had based its leadership on power aggression and bombing which was not contributing to the well-being of the peoples in this region. Half a million children had died as a result of the aggression against Iraq and U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright when asked to respond to this had said: "well the decision had been a difficult one but one that had to be taken". The violation of the Kurdish peoples’ right to self- determination was also brought up as their leader, Abdullah Ocalan was denied the right to stay in Europe.
REENA MARWAH , of the International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies, said former colonial rule and alien domination were particularly pertinent to exercise of the right to self-determination; such peoples were justified in energetically pursuing their independence; however, ethnic or cultural minorities living in democratic societies did not have such a right. Nonetheless some such groups attempted to secede from their parent countries by improperly claiming they were exercising the right to self-determination. Even political or economically characterized matters were frequently miscast as "ethnic". Statehood was not necessary to guarantee the rights of peoples to their cultures, languages, and religions; what was necessary was the granting of full cultural rights to such peoples, and the granting of their full rights to participate in the democratic process. In general, definitions should be found for self-determination that fell short of independent statehood.
The ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN, of Interfaith International, stated that since 1945 the Kashmiri people had been denied their fundamental right to self-determination and to representation by the Pakistani Government. There were numerous human right abuses against the Kashmiri people’s economic, social, political and cultural rights. The Representative of Pakistan who recently mentioned the rights of the Kashmir peoples was “hypocritical” since the country had failed to offer even the most basic rights to these people.
H.A. GUPTA, of the Indian Council of Education, said more than 50 years after of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many ethnic, religious or linguistic groups in countries all over the world were raising the question of self-determination afresh. In his working papers on the protection of minorities, Asbjorn Eide pointed out that it was becoming increasingly clear that in most cases violence was initiated by conflict entrepreneurs, persons who had their own political agenda. He said the suppression of ethnic movements in the name of integration or nation building no doubt was a violation of human rights in many ways. The experience so far on the partitioning of a country on ethnic lines had not proved adequate but had created problems both for successor States as well as the international community.
The Representative of the Indian Council of Education said what was important therefore was to distinguish between external self-determination and internal self-determination. External self-determination was the right to freedom from a colonial power. Internal self-determination had two aspects, one was independence of the whole State's population from foreign intervention or influence, and second, within a State's population each group's right to preserve its own heritage and distinctiveness while participating in the State's affairs as equal citizens. It was important that States be educated to respect the equal rights of all their citizens irrespective of ethnic or religious differences. Also States had to respect plurality and realize the importance of multiculturalism for their own development and stability.
S.V.KIRUBAHARAN, of International Educational Development, said a recent Canadian Supreme Court decision had acknowledged that the right to an external form of self-determination existed in a non-colonial context; States practices also had confirmed that a people with a distinct language, distinct culture and a strong relationship to their land had a right to self-determination. Such was the situation in Kosovo, and the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) campaign on behalf of Kosovans was a just one; NATO's demand that Yugoslav troops should be withdrawn from Kosovo was also justifiable. East Timorese also had the right to self-determination, as did the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, whose rights had been violated with impunity for half a century by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government; all attempts of the Tamils at peaceful and democratic co-existence had been rejected; hence there was no alternative but for Tamils to be given independence; the Commission must adopt a resolution to tha
t effect.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaro”, said the right to self-determination constituted universal rights of all States to enjoy this right without any restriction since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted fifty years ago. The right to self-determination had never been a right for colonial powers. For example, Israel continued to occupy the Arab territories, denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. The United States had continued its economic and trade embargo on Cuba for 40 years and the bombing of Iraq was unjustified. The Kurdish people were being prosecuted by denying them the right to self-
determination. The international community should no longer allow this to continue as millions of human beings being killed.
HALEPOTA MUNAWAR, of Liberation, said the Tamils in Sri Lanka had an ancient heritage, vibrant culture and a language which was 5,000 years old, yet they had had their cultural identity suppressed for decades by the Sri Lankan Government; attempts at peaceful resolution of this situation had been rejected by the Government, which continued to pursue a "military" solution to the conflict; Sri Lankan troops must be withdrawn from the Tamil region and the Commission should encourage the Government to take this step. The Commission must also persuade the Turkish Government to respect the right to self-determination of the Kurdish people, both in northern Iraqi Kurdistan and in Turkey. Similarly the Pakistani Government must grant its Sinhi people the right to self-determination.
AGDAS LEYLA, of the Women's International Democratic Federation, said many peoples were still deprived of the fundamental right to self-determination and were subject even to massacres and genocide; an example was that in 1915, over 1 million Armenians and Assyrians were subjected to genocide carried out by the Turks, who still did not even acknowledge that this genocide had occurred. Now Turkey was brutally suppressing its native Kurdish population; a "dirty war" had been carried out against Turkey's Kurds for years; Turkey termed it a campaign against "terrorism", which was utterly misleading. The most elementary rights of the Kurdish people such as teaching in their own language and having their own publications were vigorously denied by Turkey. The Commission must discuss this problem and must no longer allow Turkey a privileged status in which it was not subjected to international criticism.
SADHANA HARISH, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, called for a debate on the concept of self-determination in view of the history of colonial rule in which entire peoples and nationalities were exploited and in which the right to self-determination was the only course open to gain freedom and to ensure against exploitation.
A tighter understanding of self-determination was called for in view of the present prevailing use of the concept to destroy nation States, especially those with pluralist traditions, the Representative said. The case of Kashmir was cited as an example where the concept of self-determination was used mischievously to dismember a country, to foster a vicious brand of religious fundamentalism, and to unleash a gruesome form of terrorism. Another example of the vicious double-standards application of the concept of self-determination was Pakistan regarding its own people, especially the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. It was the Kashmiris in Pakistan, not those in India, who needed help in their fight for self-determination.
MAQBOOL AHMAD, of the World Muslim Congress, said Kosovo had been subjected to Serbian aggression for years; the Serbs were trying to ethnically cleanse the place; but Kosovo's Albanians were a distinct people with their own culture and language and made up 90 per cent of the population; they deserved the right to choose their own future. Kashmir, meanwhile, had never been apart of India; its annexation by force did not make it a part of India now. A plebiscite as requested long ago by the United Nations should be held in Jammu and Kashmir to allow the native population to exercise its right to self-determination. India resisted such a vote because it knew it would lose. As the cases of Kashmir and Kosovo both showed, alien domination today could be even more severe than traditional colonialism had been.
RUBY MALON, of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said self-determination was giving people the right to fashion their own destinies without disturbing the well-being of others. Yet the Commission had heard advocates of self-determination as a term primarily coined to combat foreign colonial domination, suggesting that this laudable objective was possible only through the redrawing of historical borders and the disintegration of nation States, even where colonialism does not exist. The advocates of this policy should bear in mind the horrific consequences that such an interpretation of the right to self-determination could unleash violence as witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. The right of Kashmiris to self-determination was threatened by terrorist groups whose extremist idealogy, couched in the language of "Jihad", had no place for democracy, humanity, tolerance and who were increasingly responsible for the continuation of a distressing situation that could easily be resolved through peaceful dialogue. Pakistan's National Assembly and the Council of Islamic Ideology had advised the Kashmiris to accept autonomy within the Indian Union. The ability to participate effectively in the overall political process so that the rights of specific communities were safeguarded was what constituted internal autonomy. The domination of Punjab was being increasingly questioned by Mohajirs and Sindhis in Sindh and by the Seraiki people in Multan. The disregard for provincial rights had given birth to a unified movement of provincial representatives who had been usurped by dominant Punjab.
ANTONIO GONZALES, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said much admirable progress had been made in Guatemala. The Council deeply valued the efforts, supported by the international community, civil society, the Mayan people, and the Guatemalan Congress, to find viable mechanisms for negotiation, national consensus, and agreement for addressing the problems and disenfranchisement of the majority of the country's population, including its Mayan, Garifuna, and Xinca peoples. Still, some elements within the Government and business sector that dominated the country were obstructing progress and opposing solutions in the form of Constitutional changes that were needed. Working through the ultra-conservative Centre for the Defence of the Constitution, they had convinced the Court of Constitutionality to sanction their manipulation of the Constitution and support their claim against the current process through which indigenous peoples would be able to have a greater voice in society. The Commission must
support the reform process in Guatemala and continue to support the reconciliation process there after 36 years of brutal internal armed conflict.
ZULFIQAR KHAN AZIZ, of the European Union of Public Relations stated that the organization sought freedom for the Kashmiris residing in Gilgit and Baltistan from Pakistan with the international community's intervention in August 1998. Pakistan has ignored these calls for self-determination for these Kashmiris while acceding to China the northern areas. Cited was the execution by India of Maqbool Butt and the denial of the publication of his letters entitled "Shahoor e Farda" or "Vision of Tomorrow" by Pakistan. The international community was charged with neglecting its responsibility in this matter. The Representative appealed to the Commission to send a team to the northern areas to observe the human rights abuses and the denial of the right to self-determination.
VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the struggle of the Kosovo Albanians for self-determination had at last galvanized the international community to take a more pro-active stand towards such conflicts. The international community now questioned whether the insistence on the inviolability of international borders constituted a potential threat to global security. Self-determination was not necessarily tantamount to political independence; in the cases of the Western Sahara and East Timor it could be implemented along different lines such as local or regional autonomy. What was lacking was a common set of criteria specifying how implementation of self-determination could be calibrated within a given context. The struggle of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, for example, provided a strong argument for devising standards for determining when a people should have the right to declare independence -- Sri Lanka had brutally suppressed the Tamils' legitimate human right
s and cultural aspirations for years; the Commission should send a fact-finding mission to the country.
PRIMO BURSIK, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, drew attention to the situation of the Naga people. The organization welcomed various opportunities by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and the Government of India to take up negotiations in order to find a peaceful political solution to the 52-year old conflict which had claimed thousands of lives. The Organization was deeply concerned about the Indian Government’s violation of the cease-fire which had been in force for a year. The United Nations should advise both parties to sincerely address the Indo-Naga issue in the right perspective. Since the cease-fire violation, 27 people had been killed, 16 kidnapped and dozens of houses burned down by the Indian army or paramilitary forces. Six members of the Naga army had also been killed and 168 kidnapped.
MAJID TRAMBOO, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, stated that the right to self-determination had been denied in the case of the Kashmiris by the Government of India as resolved by the 1948 United Nations Security Council and as vowed by Pandit Jawhar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India in 1952 that the final question of Kashmir be left to the people of Kashmir.
Nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last May had made Kashmir the most dangerous nuclear hot spot on the planet. The Governments of India and Pakistan and an authentic leadership of Kashmiris must be allowed, with the pressure of the international community, to reach a negotiated dispensation toward an Indian acquiescence to a referendum. The Commission was urged to have India take a number of constructive and positive steps in allowing the Kashmiris the right to self-determination including among others: the withdrawal of its occupation forces from the occupied territory; the repeal of all ordinances and laws which contravene against the international covenants; and the engagement in meaningful dialogue with the All Parties Hurriyet Conference and Pakistan.
Rights of Reply
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking in right of reply, said Portugal had misrepresented the situation in East Timor; the Indonesian Government had come up with a wide-ranging plan for autonomy for East Timor, and negotiations were under way with East Timorese. Portugal, however, had continued with its past attitude, which was obstructive and of no use to resolving current difficulties; in fact, East Timor's problems were a direct result of Portugal's mistreatment of East Timorese years ago. Portugal's one-sided and biased statements on East Timor were not only misleading but served to block progress towards autonomy.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan once again had misrepresented the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan continued, ironically, to deny the right to self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh’s residents even as it unfairly claimed Armenia was guilty of such an offense. This attitude only kept meaningful progress from being made on this sensitive issue.
Y. BOITCHENKO (the Russian Federation), speaking in right of reply, said the missile strikes being carried out against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were not part of the arsenal of democracy; only the Security Council of the United Nations was entitled to decide what measures should be taken against sovereign nations. A despicable precedent had been established which jeopardized the international order; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should not be allowed to serve as a world policeman. Resolution of the situation in Kosovo could only occur through peaceful means.
JUAN FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in right of reply, said that even as the Commission met, bombs were falling on Belgrade; those responsible for the bombs were the same ones who had caused discord and conflict in that region, and throughout the world. This was a war of aggression and dismemberment carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against a sovereign country; NATO nations were blaming one man for this -- but how could one justify a war against a people this way? The United States and its allies should not be allowed to continue this unjust aggression; the divide-and-rule tactic of the powerful must not be allowed as it was carried out here and in other places; these bombs were falling on innocent children.
AKRAM ZAKI (Pakistan), speaking in right of reply, said a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Interfaith International, Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, and others, all sponsored by India, had made statements attacking Pakistan's support of the right to self-determination of the people of Kashmir; but that right was just and had been supported by the United Nations repeatedly, including recently, when under the Organization’s urging the leaders of Pakistan and Kashmir had begun negotiations on Kashmir. A few sponsored NGOs could not stop the irresistible process leading to self-determination for Kashmiris.
TOFIK MOUSSAEV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said the representative of Armenia once again had distorted the situation of territorial integrity of existing sovereign States; Armenia did not respect Azerbaijan's territory and had occupied part of it against the wishes of the international community, the United Nations, and the Security Council. How could Armenia settle this conflict if it opposed international law and the international community? Armenia had no right to lecture others about the right to self-determination.
SUSANA DIAZ (Portugal), speaking in right of reply, said the Indonesian delegate had misunderstood Portugal's remarks; in fact Portugal applauded the recent autonomy plan unveiled by Indonesia; still, Portugal felt bound to point out that current conditions in East Timor were not very good.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking in right of reply, said Indonesia reaffirmed its earlier position on East Timor, and called on all parties concerned to create a conducive atmosphere in order to reach a just solution to the situation in East Timor.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said it was difficult to remain silent in the face of Azerbaijan's statements which so grossly misrepresented the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan's reason for doing this was to distract attention from the real situation in the region. Such statements by Azerbaijan were a desperate attempt to mislead the Commission.
TOFIK MOUSSAEV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said Armenia once again had issued groundless allegations that betrayed its true intention -- Armenia did not want to solve the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh peacefully. But Nagorno-Karabakh would never be independent or part of Armenia; it was an integral part of Azerbaijan; Azerbaijan would continue to seek a peaceful resolution to the problem.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/99/4 of 23 March 1999, the speech on page 10 by David Littman of the Association for World Education, also on behalf of the Association for World Citizens, should read as follows:
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, speaking also on behalf of the Association for World Citizens, said a grave danger came from systematic efforts made at United Nations bodies over the years by representatives of certain Member States to replace some of the dominant paradigms of international relations; for example, to undermine the universally recognized code of human rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example was a seminar sponsored by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in November in collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at which 20 Islamic specialists spoke on “Islamic perspectives” on the Universal Declaration. A major issue was created by this seminar: could an intellectual analysis of the basis of theologically-inspired legal traditions be used for political purposes? The issue was all the more pertinent if the political purpose was to weaken the provisions of the Universal Declaration or to exempt certain States from its provisions. There was also a danger that future attempts to undermine the international paradigms which were at the core of the world order since 1945 might now be guaranteed an institutionalised forum and legitimacies within the United Nations system.
Mr. Littman said debates on the nature of the sharia law in Islamic countries were not relevant to the Universal Declaration, nor to the inter-governmental decisions based on it. The same could be said about the nature of sacred texts from other religious or ethnic groups. The principal aim of the Universal Declaration was to create a framework for a world society that needed some universal codes based on mutual consent in order to function.
In press release HR/CN/99/7 of 25 March 1999, the right of reply of Choe Myong Nam of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, on page 9, should read as follows:
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), exercising its right to reply, said the food problem facing the country was caused by severe natural disasters for several consecutive years and by the external blockade. Many humanitarian organizations and Governments had provided considerable amount of aid, but the Republic of Korea was only interested in politicizing this humanitarian issue and misusing the situation for political purposes. The “reciprocity” of exchange between the unconverted long-term prisoners of north origin and the so-called “abductees” of south origin was preposterous. The unconverted long-term prisoners of north origin were imprisoned for more than 30 or 40 years in the Republic of Korea and when released, did not have any family members or relatives in the south and asked to be repatriated to the north. There were no “abductees” in the north. As for the reunion of separated families, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to carry out a great number of proposals in this regard. Unfortunately, its efforts had received serious challenge for which the Republic of Korea should be held responsible.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: