Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION
18 March 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
18 March 2005
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its general debate on the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation.
Over the course of the debate, a number of speakers stressed the need to bring peace and security to the Middle East, referring to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Also raised by delegations was the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as a number of other conflicts around the world.
Taking the floor were Representatives of Pakistan, China, Cuba, the United States, India, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group) and Eritrea. The following observer States also spoke: Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Palestine, Oman, Israel, Bahrain, Syria and Algeria.
Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also contributed to the debate: United Nations Watch; Interfaith International; Al-haq; law in the service of man; World Federation of Trade Unions; World Peace Council; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Indigenous World Association; American Association of Jurists; Women's International Zionist Organization; Jammu and Kashmir Council For Human Rights; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; B'nai B'rith International; speaking on behalf of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations; Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of UNESCO Centre of Catalonia; Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; European Union of Public Relations; and International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities.
Morocco, India, Algeria and Pakistan exercised their right of reply.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday 21 March, it will start the general debate on its agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, including a comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Statements on the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and its Application to Peoples under Colonial or Alien Domination or Foreign Occupation
RAJA PERVEZ ASHRAF (Pakistan) affirmed that the right of peoples to self-determination was enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenants on Human Rights. It belonged exclusively to the people, and could not be exercised by any other authority. That right shielded the vulnerable from aggression, occupation and domination; its denial had caused untold misery, suffering and instability. Fifty-seven years ago, the United Nations had conferred the right to self-determination on the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Security Council resolutions provided that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir should be made according to the will of the people, following a free and democratic plebiscite conducted under the aegis of the United Nations. Yet, that goal had yet to be achieved.
The issue of Jammu and Kashmir was not about territory or ideology, it was a human problem; for this reason Pakistan continued to emphasize the need to include Kashmir in the Pakistan-India peace process. Like many people in the world, Kashmiris valued their freedom and basic rights. When denied, they had struggled, and when that peaceful struggle had met with violence and repression, they had fought back. To dismiss their struggle as cross-border terrorism was an oversimplification, to encapsulate it within the larger issue of global terrorism was disingenuous. India’s legal conscience knew that it had a case to answer in Kashmir. The improvement in relations between India and Pakistan should also lead to improvement in the dismal human rights conditions in Kashmir, which had experienced marked deterioration. Pakistan sincerely hoped that the dialogue with India would lead to a just and lasting solution of the Kashmir issue. In the meantime, concrete efforts must be made to end human rights violations in the region.
CHE YING (China) said the right to self-determination was a human right that was irreplaceable in today’s world where tremendous changes were taking place, and which deserved the attention of the Commission. It was a basic right provided in both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and that on Civil and Political Rights. Both stipulated that all peoples had the right to self-determination, and by virtue of that right could freely pursue their economic and social development. Economic sanctions and interfering in the affairs of others were all violations of this right, and such practices deserved the strongest condemnation by the international community. It was not and should not become a cause for ethnic hatred. It was the right of people to oppose foreign aggression, occupation and interference to safeguard national sovereignty and the integrity and security of the people.
It was a cause for concern that there were a number of people with ulterior motives who used the right to self-determination to advocate the splitting up of States. These acts violated international law and must be resisted and countered by the international community. Restoring the political rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, and establishing a Palestinian State was the key to a lasting peace in the Middle East. It was hoped that both sides would build mutual confidence and arrive at an early resumption of peace talks on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and on the basis of land for peace.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said fundamental freedoms and basic rights of many individuals had been denied in the context of foreign occupation, and had been severely damaged when an act was committed which aimed to curtail the full enjoyment of peoples' right to self-determination. The exercise of the right to self-determination by people had been filled with challenges only comparable to those endured in Asia, Africa and Latin America during the period in which people there were living under colonial domination. A hegemonic power today gave itself the unilateral right to attack militarily, without notice and as an alleged pre-emptive action.
Much progress had been achieved in the fight against mercenaries since the world had recognized its negative impact on the enjoyment of the right of peoples to self-determination. However, the new challenges faced in the prevention and sanctioning of mercenaries posed high requirements for the development of international norms on this matter. In the next few days, Cuba would distribute its traditional draft resolution, which would incorporate innovative formulas and ideas with regard to the format of the Commission on this issue. The Cuban people knew the high price of the enjoyment of the right to self-determination. The delegation of Cuba planned to take the necessary steps to ensure that peaceful international cooperation replaced the need to resort to illegitimate armed defense.
RUDY BOSCHWITZ (United States) said that the community of nations had agreed that all people had the right to self-determination, by virtue of which right they freely determined their political status and freely pursued their economic, social and cultural development. The fundamental process used by peoples to exercise this right was free and fair elections. In the past 18 months, the citizens of a number of countries had acted bravely to insist upon open elections, including the Iraqis, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Afghans, Indonesians, and Georgians. Those examples showed commitment to self-determination and an acceleration of the worldwide move towards democracy.
The Road Map for peace in the Middle East, he added, envisioned two States -- Israel and Palestine -- living in peace, side by side. It was premised upon the idea that reformed, democratized institutions of the Palestinian Authority were a necessary foundation for a future State of Palestine. The successful democratic election of Mahmoud Abbas constituted a tremendous sign of hope. Peace and stability appeared a greater possibility than at any time in memory. Yet, despite this movement, the Arab Group had tabled a harsh draft resolution that reflected neither those changes, nor the reality of what was occurring on the ground. The draft was intemperate, and unhelpful to the peace process. What would be helpful was a firm rejection of the draft.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the right of peoples under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development was recognized as a result of initiatives in which India, as a founding member of the Non-aligned Movement, was at the forefront. Today, the majority of the members of the United Nations comprised of former colonies; that was clearly a measure of the success of the historic struggle for self-determination. One glaring and unfortunate exception was Palestine. India remained steadfast in its support for and solidarity with the people of Palestine, as they struggled to realize the inalienable right of self-determination, and achieve their goal of a sovereign, independent State of Palestine with well-defined and secured borders, living at peace with the State of Israel.
It was necessary to place the concept of self-determination not just in historical perspective, but also against the totality of international human rights instruments and standards. Relevant international principles reaffirmed India’s consistent view that self-determination was a right applicable to the peoples of non-self governing and trust territories. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples inferred that every State should refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country. It was important to have clarity on the contemporary context of self-determination so that one should not succumb to misinterpretations and partial truths about the noble right to self-determination.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group’s position on the right to self-determination had always been both influenced by its painful experience of colonialism, and based on the well-founded and widely recognized provisions of international law and legitimacy. The African Group believed that nothing justified the subjugation, repression or the limitation of the right to independence and self-determination of any people anywhere in the world. The African Group welcomed the positive developments that took place during the last few months, including the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit and the London meeting, as well as the presidential elections in the occupied Palestinian territories. There was a belief that those initiatives were given impetus to by the public support for peace on both countries.
The African Group also welcomed the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which concluded that the construction of the so-called "security wall" on occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, were contrary to international law, and that Israel, the occupying power, was under the obligation to cease its work on the construction of the wall. The Court also concluded that the wall affected negotiations of a final situation, and the enjoyment of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination. It had, moreover, found that "the wall along the route chosen, and its associated regime infringed a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route could not be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order". The African Group reiterated that only a just, comprehensive and lasting peace through negotiations and dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and peaceful co-existence would lead to an end of the crisis in the Middle East. It also underscored the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent State existing side by side with Israel.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said a long history of struggle against colonialism, racism and ethnic discrimination had driven the people of Eritrea to be unequivocal and uncompromising in the struggle against these evils and in the support of the causes of all those who were still brutalized, dehumanized and humiliated. The right to self-determination had many dimensions. In the first instance, it referred to decolonization; in the second it denoted the rights of States in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wished, their internal and external political status, without external interference and to pursue as they wished their political, economic, social and cultural development. It was, under these circumstances, inconceivable for any number of States, representatives of international and regional organizations and independent actors, to contravene this. Any such action would be illegal and contribute to instability and insecurity, promote conflicts and hostilities, and would also violate several human rights provisions.
The road to peace was paved with the rule of law, the sanctity of international and bilateral agreements, the respect for the principles of the Charter and the honouring of undertakings made by guarantors and witnesses of an international agreement. Freedom was the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity. The liberation of all people from the scourge of war was possible only through respect of the rule of law, including international law, and in particular international human rights and humanitarian law.
ABDULLAH K.M.J. AL-ASKAR (Kuwait) said it was committed to the right of peoples to self-determination and nationhood, as this was an inalienable right. It was very important to apply this right and overcome all obstacles to its implementation. The Palestinian people in the occupied territories were deprived of this fundamental right and their fundamental freedoms. They had a right to self-determination, in line with United Nations resolutions, including some of those of the Commission. It was absolutely necessary to allow the Palestinian people to realize their rights, including the establishment of an independent State with Jerusalem as its capital, and the international community should increase its efforts to serve this noble cause and allow the Palestinian people to achieve their rights including the right to self-determination.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) recalled that her country had a longstanding commitment to the principle of self-determination, and maintained the view that self-determination, as elaborated in the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, offered the necessary legal framework to develop varying degrees of self-administration and self-governance, which could effectively help prevent claims to independence.
Turning to the issue of the use of mercenaries, she said that the existing definition of mercenaries was too narrow in scope that it almost excluded individuals or groups engaging in military activities for commercial reasons. Yet, a dramatic proliferation of military activities for commercial reasons had been seen. The report presently before the Commission neither gave an indication of the scope of activities of the privatized military industry worldwide, nor addressed the dramatic consequences their activities could have. The use of mercenaries was not a human rights issue, per se, but had a sufficiently strong impact on legal issues affecting human rights to warrant consideration. There was an urgent need to clarify the legal uncertainties concerning the issue of mercenaries, and given the global scope of the phenomenon, the United Nations -- preferably its General Assembly -- was the right place to do so.
MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said he was happy to see a number of countries that had been fighting for their right to self-determination represented in the Commission. However, Palestine was still struggling to exercise its own right to self-determination due to the harsh policies of Israel. In 1988, Palestine had accepted the principle of a two-State policy and continued to do so. Israel had continued to apply harsh polices against Palestinians by claiming to be the administrator of Palestinian territories. Israel had also continued with its resettlement programmes with the view to colonize Palestine. These policies of destruction and demolition of Palestine had seriously affected the people. Palestine was grateful to those who had supported its people, including Israelis who rejected the Israeli polices of expansion. The oppressor and the occupying power had defied the principles of international law and had continued to inflict daily hardships against the Palestinians. Despite the Israeli occupation, Palestinians were able to exercise their democratic rights by electing their President, and this would be followed by legislative elections. He called upon Israel and the United States to work for the establishment of peace in the region.
AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD AL-RIYAMI (Oman) noted that Israel had continued to refuse the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, despite numerous international resolutions adopted by various United Nations entities. Oman supported the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their right to self-determination as well as the position taken by Arab countries. Dialogue remained the best means of achieving peace in the region. Oman called on all parties to engage in dialogue and to work towards the solution of this conflict to enable the two States to live side-by-side in peace and security.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said the process that began with the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit had opened a new window of opportunity, presenting a clear perspective of realizing the concept of a two-State solution for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side, peacefully and democratically. That solution included the implementation of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people; this was the reality on the ground. It was unfortunate that, up to now, the Commission had disregarded that reality.
Throughout its history, the modern State of Israel had been defending the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and their right to live in peace and security in their ancient homeland. Having respected the right to self-determination of peoples worldwide, including those of its Arab neighbours, Israel expected full recognition for the right of Jewish people to their self-determination as well. The Commission should encourage the positive developments resulting from the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit by sending a message of support and hope. Insistence on using harsh words and continuously attacking Israel could only serve the cause of extremists, derailing negotiations between the two parties. Efforts to derail the peace process should not be allowed to prevail.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said Bahrain wholeheartedly supported all efforts and initiatives that would bring peace and stability to the occupied Arab territories, including the Palestinian territories, and enable the Palestinian and Arab people to regain their legitimate rights. Bahrain was convinced that achieving peace in the Middle East required gaining the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Without doing so, it would be difficult to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region. The violations committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupation authorities should be halted. All countries in the region needed peace, security, and stability. Without that, it would be impossible to develop economically and socially. On the contrary, any lack of peace, security and stability would strengthen extremism, hinder economic development, and make the region lose an opportunity to develop human rights and fundamental freedoms.
He expressed hope that the Commission would deal with the situation in the occupied Arab territories from a human rights perspective so that human rights and fundamental freedoms would be promoted in the region.
BASHAR JAAFARI (Syria) said the United Nations Charter stressed the right to self-determination and the respect of that right. International law had confirmed the right which should be comprehensive and all nations should respect it. Since 1947 when the General Assembly began consideration of the issue of Palestine, the right of return was an integral part of the right to self-determination. Israel should apply United Nations resolutions and decisions adopted in the past - there was no need for Road Maps. Israel wished to split up the peace process, thus minimizing its impact. This demonstrated a lack of respect for international law. Israel continued to construct its wall to the detriment of the Palestinian people, destroying the hopes of the region and the entire world. There should be vigilance with respect to the conduct of Israel in the occupied Arab territories where it sought to mislead the international community with regard to the construction and occupation of its settlements. Half of the territory should go to the Palestinian people.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) noted that sixteen territories still maintained non-autonomous status, including the last remaining, non-autonomous territory in Africa -- Western Sahara. That situation remained unresolved despite the more than 51 Security Council resolutions, the elaboration of the "[James] Baker Peace Plan", and the efforts of three successive Secretaries-General. The parties - Morocco and the Polisario Front - had signed a protocol calling for confidence-building measures, including family visits and telephone calls between the Saharawi populations in Morocco and Algeria. The United Nations should give new impetus to Security Council resolution 1570 (2004) on the implementation of the "Baker Plan".
Morocco continued to deny the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara, who had been peacefully pursuing that right for more than two decades. The indivisibility of the principle of the right to self-determination must be reaffirmed and, despite the wave of violence that had swept over the world, the non-violent path chosen by the Saharawi people must be recognized as an efficient and appropriate means of allowing peoples to realize their national aspirations to self-determination.
HILLEL C. NEUER, of United Nations Watch, asked whether the States which monopolized the agenda item on the right to self-determination to attack Israel were truly concerned about this international human right. For these regimes, what was gained was an entrenchment of their decades-long campaign to demonize and delegitimitize Israel and the Jewish people. The objective of this assault was to cast Israel as the world’s number one human rights violator. The campaign was pernicious and should outrage all who believed in equality, peace and human rights. It was also an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. At the dawn of a new era of reform, the Commission should address the urgent violations confronting the world, or it would see another year of cynical diversions at the expense of equality, peace and human rights.
GUL NAWAZ KHAN, of Interfaith International, said there should be an independent Kashmir, and that the issue of self-determination in this context was relevant for the people of Kashmir. Many of the political parties calling for an independent Kashmir could not today participate fully in the political process since Kashmir was divided into two parts each with its own political parties approved by the occupying powers. If the military forces of both India and Pakistan could retreat from Kashmir, the people of both occupied areas would be able to vote in a referendum for or against self-determination as they so wished. This was the only way to solve the Kashmir issue.
C. ANNE MASSAGEE, of Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man, said the international community had great hope for a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the long-awaited realization of the Palestinian right to self-determination. Unfortunately, ongoing Israeli actions could preclude the Palestinians’ ability to realize that right. The wall’s construction was complemented by Israel’s continuing aid and assistance in the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in contravention of international law. The wall and the settlements were completely discriminatory and prevented Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination - a right that underpinned the realization of other fundamental human rights.
JEAN PIER PAGE, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said humanity was faced with considerable challenges and millions of people legitimately aspired to live in security and to exercise their right to self-determination. These inalienable rights were today ignored. Today, one single State, the United States, had decided to impose, in full impunity from the rest of the world, its own vision and values. This attitude was a threat to peace and international security and demonstrated arrogance by invoking a fight against tyranny, or what they considered to be terrorism, to commit acts that violated international law and consisted of crimes against humanity. If there was to be integrity for humankind, integrity should also be demonstrated by the United States.
LAZARO PARY, of World Peace Council, stated that the situation in Iraq had worsened due to the policies of the United States administration, which had been using all means to change the situation by use of military intervention. The Iraqi people had suffered from this occupation which still continued. It was impossible to fully exercise any right to self-determination while under occupation. The second speaker from the same group raised the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, stating that the people there had been unable to exercise their right to self-determination.
PAULINE E. TANGIORA, of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said in 2002, the Gana and Gwi San, or Bushmen residents of Botswana Central Kalahari Game Reserve, were forcibly evicted and moved to resettlement camps outside the reserve. There were several documented cases of beatings and torture of the San inside the Reserve prior to the evictions. About 150 of the 3,000 inhabitants had refused to move. As a result, they had their water cut off, their requests for medical services had been denied and they were banned from their subsistence hunting. The resulting conditions were desperate.
RONALD BARNES, of Indigenous World Association, said many Alaskan and Hawaiian indigenous communities yearned for freedom and self-determination. Alaska and Hawaii had been illegally annexed by the United States, against the will of the first nations living in those formerly free and independent territories. Although Alaska and Hawaii had been on the list of Non-Self-Governing territories in 1946, they were removed from that list in 1959 after their annexation by the United States. Those annexations had not been democratically decided, but were expressions of colonialism. The colonized peoples of Alaska and Hawaii rejected their continued occupation. The indigenous people of these territories had never abandoned their right to self-determination. The Association called upon the Commission to address these unresolved disputes in an appropriate manner, and to call for an immediate freeze on the expropriation of lands and resources from Alaska and Hawaii.
ANA VERA, of American Association of Jurists, said that one year after the coup d’etat organized and carried out by France and the United States in Haiti, the situation remained catastrophic. The troops sent by Latin American Governments in an attempt to influence events in Haiti had been reduced to the role of passive spectators, while the decision-making authority remained in the hands of larger powers, which did not want Haiti to experience true independence. The abuse of power and human rights violations continued to be a daily fact of life.
Turning to the situation in Iraq, she said that the United States continued to violate human rights in that country on a scale unprecedented since the Second World War. By aggression and military occupation, the United States had done what it had done in other parts of the world through negotiation and agreement.
RAMA ENAV, of Women’s International Zionist Organization, said due to anti-Semitism, Zionism had come into being and that in turn had led to the founding of the Jewish State. Just this week, world leaders had gathered in Jerusalem for the opening of a new Holocaust Museum. A museum that vividly presented the tragedy that beset the Jewish people, which not only resulted from the Nazis, but also from countries who closed their gates, thus not allowing the Jews of Europe to find refuge. These past events were also more relevant as today there was a frightening increase in anti-Semitism, which bore resemblance to the early Nazi era.
SYED NAZIR GILANI, of Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights, said the genuine voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir had not been articulated in accordance with the history and jurisprudence of the rights movement. The case for self-determination required an environment free from violence, as well as free from a supplanted, private, commercialized, undemocratic, non-transparent and unaccountable political culture. There was an immediate need for the people of Jammu and Kashmir of popular legislatures and popular governments based on the free transfer of will in an election in all three administrative regions of Jammu and Kashmir. India and Pakistan must ensure that the people living in those three regions were in no way treated less favourably than their own citizens. There was also an urgent need to differentiate between the three important variables embedded in the issue of the self-determination of Jammu and Kashmir, which were the right of the people to self-determination and the respective claims of India and Pakistan.
SHAMIM SHAWL, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the right to self-determination was recognized as a pre-emptory norm of international law, under which all people faced with occupation and repression were entitled to the right of self-defence. The core issue in Indian-held Kashmir was the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. It was hoped that the initiation of a comprehensive dialogue process between Pakistan and India would lead to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir. The international community, including the Commission, should ensure an immediate end to the gross and systematic violations of the Kashmiri people and help them to realize this inalienable right.
DAN MARIASHIN, of B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, said there was a resurgence of anti-Semitism and its new manifestation - anti-Zionism. The Jewish people’s basic human right to self-determination was being eroded. This was a dangerous path, for it sought the destruction of the Jewish State, and as such ran counter to fundamental human rights principles as well as United Nations Security Council resolutions. All resolutions passed by the Commission should reaffirm the right to self-determination for the Jewish people.
FRANCES FABREGUES, of Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of UNESCO Centre of Catalonia, said traditional forms of colonialism, foreign occupation and alien domination had acquired a new dimension as a result of globalization. Self-determination based on inter-State conflicts challenged international peace and security, depriving millions of peoples of their basic human rights. To effectively address the ensuing political, economic and cultural challenges, self-determination acquired a renewed reliance as an indispensable tool to realize peoples’ security and guarantee their survival.
MONICA GRUNFELT, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, said in recent months a series of events had demonstrated a new stage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Israeli Government had decided to resume contact with the Palestinian Authority and both had reaffirmed their commitment to end violence. The possibility of resumed negotiations was welcomed, but there was concern for the prospect of negotiations, which could disregard the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The humiliation suffered by the Palestinian people at the hand of the occupying power was continuing. The international community should adopt appropriate measures to ensure that Israel end the occupation.
VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the hopes for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Sri Lanka in the wake of the ceasefire agreement of February 2002 between the then Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had largely proved illusory. Long before the tsunami disaster struck, the island negotiations had been suspended; cooperation largely ceased in the face of the continued occupation by the Sri Lankan army in the form of setting up high security zones; hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons were also waiting in vain to be able to return to their homes.
TAHIR NASEEM MANHAS, of Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said that self-determination was a process, not an outcome. It was not a one-time choice, but an ongoing determination of political status. In this day and age, there was little reason to restrict the ambit of self-determination. The increasing imbalance between States had helped to erode the traditional notion of State sovereignty, as had economic processes and the Internet and other new technologies. Nationalism, ethnicity and religion were increasingly used to express resentment against political and economic imbalances, urbanization and the decline of access to public services. Concerns revolved around environmental, health and food security. The people of Jammu and Kashmir strongly expressed their desire to exercise their right to self-determination.
SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIRI, of European Union of Public Relations, said self-determination was an integral part of human rights law which had a universal application. It was a very powerful concept, evoking emotions, expectations and fears, which often led to conflict and bloodshed. However, the winds of change, which were blowing through the Middle East, seemed to be sweeping also across the Indian sub-continent and gave rise to optimism. The final settlement of the Kashmir conflict could bring peace and security not only to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the whole region of South Asia, which was home to one-fifth of humankind.
KURT OTZ, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and other Minorities, said it was well-known that Turkey had invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continued to occupy 37 per cent of the island’s territory. The illegal occupation of the northern part of Cyprus and the continuing presence of Turkish military forces on the island, as well as the presence of more than 100,000 settlers, constituted unacceptable limitations on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, and, therefore, a violation of the right to self-determination. This fact had been recognized in various Security Council resolutions. The Secretary-General’s plan for a comprehensive settlement of the issue amounted to a negation of the ideas of sovereignty, self-government and self-determination of the people of Cyprus. The people of Cyprus had rejected that plan on 24 April 2004; this decision must be accepted by both sides, as well as by the international community, as a valid exercise of the people’s right to self-determination.
Right of Reply
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said Algeria, in its statement, had revealed its obsession with the issue of the Sahara, and its concept of self-determination was clearly geographically variable. The Tinduf camps were the only refugee camps where people were condemned to live for 24 hours a day surrounded by watch towers and security strips. It had been hoped that these people would not always be condemned to exile. There was a selective reading of history and General Assembly resolutions, pretending that this was an issue disregarded by the United Nations, but there was a tripartite agreement calling for the return of the Sahara to another country. Recently Algeria purchased $ 4 billion worth of weaponry, some of which was passed to separatists. Algeria was giving weapons to separatists preparing for war. The Algerian speech and behaviour did not reflect any desire for peace, and they were duplicitous.
PANKAJ SARAN (India), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statements of Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that there was nothing new in what the Representative of Pakistan had said. That statement represented a perversion of the concept of self-determination for the purpose of territorial aggrandizement. For Pakistan to talk of self-determination, it must first ensure that right was extended to its own people. Jammu and Kashmir was an irrevocable part of India, and the historical facts to that end were well established. The people of that state had repeatedly been given, like the other people of India, the right to express their political opinion democratically.
As to the statement by the representative of the OIC, he had made an unacceptable reference to an integral part of India. The OIC had no locus standi to address that issue. To equate the historic struggle of the Palestinian people with the situation in a state of India was to make a mockery of the Palestinians' struggle. India called upon the other members of the OIC to restrain one of its members from manipulating the organization’s statements. India had long been a proponent of the Palestinians’ struggle for self-determination.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply in response to Morocco’s right of reply, said that Morocco was duplicating Algerian diplomacy. Algeria was strengthening bilateral relations in the Maghreb region. There was no Algerian-Moroccan dispute in the region. The issue of Western Sahara was in the hands of the United Nations. It was recognized that Western Sahara was a non-self governing territory. It was Morocco that was hindering people from visiting their families in the territory.
MANSOOR KHAN (Pakistan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regard to the points made by India, the facts on the Jammu and Kashmir issue were clear. India had been illegally occupying the area for more than 70 years. The United Nations Security Council resolutions were not partial, and it was up to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide this and to decide their own leadership. Unless India could recognise this, the region would remain a disputed territory. With regard to terrorism or cross-border terrorism, the Kashmiris only faced one form of terrorism, and that was State terrorism, perpetrated by India through the military. The effect of this upon the people of Kashmir was shocking; there was an extraordinarily high suicide rate. It was unfortunate that despite an ongoing dialogue, Indian forces had intensified the violence and oppression. Addressing human rights violations was a prerequisite for the success of the dialogue and a peace process resolving the Kashmiris' right to self-determination.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Algerian duplicity was not a Moroccan obsession. The Algerian delegate had appealed to the United Nations to remain involved, but only a few months ago at the General Assembly, Algeria had refused even a mention of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in a resolution. Algeria could not call for continued United Nations involvement and still reject any mention of the Special Representative. Moreover, there had been consensus on the resolution, yet Algeria claimed it was not bilateral. As for the camps, they were a gulag in the middle of the desert from which none could leave. In the Moroccan Sahara, anyone could leave, without authorization. There was freedom of movement and involvement of locals in the management of the community. In Algeria, some non-governmental organizations had been put on a blacklist and had no right to enter the camps, but in Morocco even those in favour of Algeria could enter. Moreover, former camp inhabitants would rather stay in Morocco than go back to the camps.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said there was a confidence-building effort in the region. The principle of self-determination was still a matter of discussion.
CORRIGENDA
In press release HR/CN/05/12 of 17 March 2005, the right of reply of Turkey should read as follows:
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Cyprus, said the United States Department Annual Human Rights Report had indicated that Greek Cypriot supporters of the "Annan Plan" were verbally and physically harassed for their political views by the opponents of the plan.
In press release HR/CN/05/12 of 17 March, the statements by Cyprus, which was exercising its right of reply, should read as follows:
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Turkey, said that the people of Cyprus had been asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General's Plan in two separate and simultaneous referenda. A clear majority of Greek Cypriots had not approved of the "Annan Plan", but this did not signal rejection of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The status quo was not acceptable. The rights of the people of Cyprus continued to be violated by Turkey, and United Nations resolutions and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights had not been rendered obsolete. Turkey had an obligation to respect them. The Turkish delegate had also referred to the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. That isolation was self-imposed and aimed at the separation of the two communities. The Government of Cyprus had worked in good faith to promote sound proposals to facilitate the reunification of the island by encouraging Turkish Cypriot development, particularly in the sphere of economic activities and relations between the two communities. He also wished to draw attention to relevant Security Council resolutions, which condemned the set-up of the illegal separatist entity, and recognized only one Cypriot State, that of the Republic of Cyprus.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), responding to Turkey, said he wished to remind the delegate of the relevant Security Council resolutions already cited. He also reiterated that 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots had voted against the "Annan Plan". That vote had been carried out in a free and democratic manner, and nothing the Turkish delegate said could deny that fact. Regarding the economic isolation, it was self-imposed by the occupation regime itself. The objective was motivated by its divisionist policies in attempts to political upgrade the secessionist entity. Finally, he wished to state that the reunification of the island would remain the absolute goal of the Government.
In press release HR/CN/05/10 of 17 March, the statement by Victorine Wodie, the Minister for Human Rights of Côte d'Ivoire, should read as follows:
VICTORINE WODIE, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, said that as the Commission opened its session, regrettably human rights violations were still taking place in all places: human dignity was being violated, and the world had become the victim of conflict in addition to natural disasters. It was imperatively necessary to take concrete and effective action to prevent these problems. At this unfavourable juncture, the promotion and protection of human rights, far from being discouraging, should reinforce in consciences the sentinel role of the Commission. Côte d'Ivoire welcomed the decision by the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Advisor on the prevention of genocide. It was the view of Côte d'Ivoire that the promotion and protection of human rights should be done through active cooperation instead of futile confrontation in the Commission, as it was witnessed in the past while agenda item 9 was being discussed. It was essential, in view of strengthening the protection of human rights, to reinforce information, training and to avoid using human rights as a tool against other countries. Leaning from the best practices of others would allow States to raise their levels of human rights protection.
Côte d’Ivoire was undergoing a particular situation for the past 30 months following an attempted coup d’état, which had resulted in the massacre of thousands of persons by the rebellion. On 19 September 2002 alone, 300 persons, including a former Head of State, a State Minister, had been executed. The attempt to change the regime had been condemned by the Security Council and the African Union. Since 19 September, the country had been divided into two parts. The armed groups were pillaging the raw materials of the country and had established parallel State functions in the areas they controlled. The human rights situation in the country had deteriorated by recurrent actions of the rebellion in November 2004. Nine French soldiers had been accidentally killed during the Government’s operation against the rebellion. In reprisal, the French forces had destroyed the country’s military and civilian air forces, killed more than 60 Ivorians and injured more than 2,000 others.
Despite the difficult situation, the Government had never ceased to place human rights respect at the centre of its concerns. The Government had received special Rapporteurs of the African Commission on Human and Persons’ Rights to discuss freedom of opinion and new forms of discrimination.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
18 March 2005
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its general debate on the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation.
Over the course of the debate, a number of speakers stressed the need to bring peace and security to the Middle East, referring to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Also raised by delegations was the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as a number of other conflicts around the world.
Taking the floor were Representatives of Pakistan, China, Cuba, the United States, India, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group) and Eritrea. The following observer States also spoke: Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Palestine, Oman, Israel, Bahrain, Syria and Algeria.
Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also contributed to the debate: United Nations Watch; Interfaith International; Al-haq; law in the service of man; World Federation of Trade Unions; World Peace Council; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Indigenous World Association; American Association of Jurists; Women's International Zionist Organization; Jammu and Kashmir Council For Human Rights; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; B'nai B'rith International; speaking on behalf of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations; Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of UNESCO Centre of Catalonia; Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; European Union of Public Relations; and International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities.
Morocco, India, Algeria and Pakistan exercised their right of reply.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday 21 March, it will start the general debate on its agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, including a comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Statements on the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and its Application to Peoples under Colonial or Alien Domination or Foreign Occupation
RAJA PERVEZ ASHRAF (Pakistan) affirmed that the right of peoples to self-determination was enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenants on Human Rights. It belonged exclusively to the people, and could not be exercised by any other authority. That right shielded the vulnerable from aggression, occupation and domination; its denial had caused untold misery, suffering and instability. Fifty-seven years ago, the United Nations had conferred the right to self-determination on the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Security Council resolutions provided that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir should be made according to the will of the people, following a free and democratic plebiscite conducted under the aegis of the United Nations. Yet, that goal had yet to be achieved.
The issue of Jammu and Kashmir was not about territory or ideology, it was a human problem; for this reason Pakistan continued to emphasize the need to include Kashmir in the Pakistan-India peace process. Like many people in the world, Kashmiris valued their freedom and basic rights. When denied, they had struggled, and when that peaceful struggle had met with violence and repression, they had fought back. To dismiss their struggle as cross-border terrorism was an oversimplification, to encapsulate it within the larger issue of global terrorism was disingenuous. India’s legal conscience knew that it had a case to answer in Kashmir. The improvement in relations between India and Pakistan should also lead to improvement in the dismal human rights conditions in Kashmir, which had experienced marked deterioration. Pakistan sincerely hoped that the dialogue with India would lead to a just and lasting solution of the Kashmir issue. In the meantime, concrete efforts must be made to end human rights violations in the region.
CHE YING (China) said the right to self-determination was a human right that was irreplaceable in today’s world where tremendous changes were taking place, and which deserved the attention of the Commission. It was a basic right provided in both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and that on Civil and Political Rights. Both stipulated that all peoples had the right to self-determination, and by virtue of that right could freely pursue their economic and social development. Economic sanctions and interfering in the affairs of others were all violations of this right, and such practices deserved the strongest condemnation by the international community. It was not and should not become a cause for ethnic hatred. It was the right of people to oppose foreign aggression, occupation and interference to safeguard national sovereignty and the integrity and security of the people.
It was a cause for concern that there were a number of people with ulterior motives who used the right to self-determination to advocate the splitting up of States. These acts violated international law and must be resisted and countered by the international community. Restoring the political rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, and establishing a Palestinian State was the key to a lasting peace in the Middle East. It was hoped that both sides would build mutual confidence and arrive at an early resumption of peace talks on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and on the basis of land for peace.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said fundamental freedoms and basic rights of many individuals had been denied in the context of foreign occupation, and had been severely damaged when an act was committed which aimed to curtail the full enjoyment of peoples' right to self-determination. The exercise of the right to self-determination by people had been filled with challenges only comparable to those endured in Asia, Africa and Latin America during the period in which people there were living under colonial domination. A hegemonic power today gave itself the unilateral right to attack militarily, without notice and as an alleged pre-emptive action.
Much progress had been achieved in the fight against mercenaries since the world had recognized its negative impact on the enjoyment of the right of peoples to self-determination. However, the new challenges faced in the prevention and sanctioning of mercenaries posed high requirements for the development of international norms on this matter. In the next few days, Cuba would distribute its traditional draft resolution, which would incorporate innovative formulas and ideas with regard to the format of the Commission on this issue. The Cuban people knew the high price of the enjoyment of the right to self-determination. The delegation of Cuba planned to take the necessary steps to ensure that peaceful international cooperation replaced the need to resort to illegitimate armed defense.
RUDY BOSCHWITZ (United States) said that the community of nations had agreed that all people had the right to self-determination, by virtue of which right they freely determined their political status and freely pursued their economic, social and cultural development. The fundamental process used by peoples to exercise this right was free and fair elections. In the past 18 months, the citizens of a number of countries had acted bravely to insist upon open elections, including the Iraqis, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Afghans, Indonesians, and Georgians. Those examples showed commitment to self-determination and an acceleration of the worldwide move towards democracy.
The Road Map for peace in the Middle East, he added, envisioned two States -- Israel and Palestine -- living in peace, side by side. It was premised upon the idea that reformed, democratized institutions of the Palestinian Authority were a necessary foundation for a future State of Palestine. The successful democratic election of Mahmoud Abbas constituted a tremendous sign of hope. Peace and stability appeared a greater possibility than at any time in memory. Yet, despite this movement, the Arab Group had tabled a harsh draft resolution that reflected neither those changes, nor the reality of what was occurring on the ground. The draft was intemperate, and unhelpful to the peace process. What would be helpful was a firm rejection of the draft.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the right of peoples under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development was recognized as a result of initiatives in which India, as a founding member of the Non-aligned Movement, was at the forefront. Today, the majority of the members of the United Nations comprised of former colonies; that was clearly a measure of the success of the historic struggle for self-determination. One glaring and unfortunate exception was Palestine. India remained steadfast in its support for and solidarity with the people of Palestine, as they struggled to realize the inalienable right of self-determination, and achieve their goal of a sovereign, independent State of Palestine with well-defined and secured borders, living at peace with the State of Israel.
It was necessary to place the concept of self-determination not just in historical perspective, but also against the totality of international human rights instruments and standards. Relevant international principles reaffirmed India’s consistent view that self-determination was a right applicable to the peoples of non-self governing and trust territories. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples inferred that every State should refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country. It was important to have clarity on the contemporary context of self-determination so that one should not succumb to misinterpretations and partial truths about the noble right to self-determination.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group’s position on the right to self-determination had always been both influenced by its painful experience of colonialism, and based on the well-founded and widely recognized provisions of international law and legitimacy. The African Group believed that nothing justified the subjugation, repression or the limitation of the right to independence and self-determination of any people anywhere in the world. The African Group welcomed the positive developments that took place during the last few months, including the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit and the London meeting, as well as the presidential elections in the occupied Palestinian territories. There was a belief that those initiatives were given impetus to by the public support for peace on both countries.
The African Group also welcomed the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which concluded that the construction of the so-called "security wall" on occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, were contrary to international law, and that Israel, the occupying power, was under the obligation to cease its work on the construction of the wall. The Court also concluded that the wall affected negotiations of a final situation, and the enjoyment of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination. It had, moreover, found that "the wall along the route chosen, and its associated regime infringed a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route could not be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order". The African Group reiterated that only a just, comprehensive and lasting peace through negotiations and dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and peaceful co-existence would lead to an end of the crisis in the Middle East. It also underscored the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent State existing side by side with Israel.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said a long history of struggle against colonialism, racism and ethnic discrimination had driven the people of Eritrea to be unequivocal and uncompromising in the struggle against these evils and in the support of the causes of all those who were still brutalized, dehumanized and humiliated. The right to self-determination had many dimensions. In the first instance, it referred to decolonization; in the second it denoted the rights of States in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wished, their internal and external political status, without external interference and to pursue as they wished their political, economic, social and cultural development. It was, under these circumstances, inconceivable for any number of States, representatives of international and regional organizations and independent actors, to contravene this. Any such action would be illegal and contribute to instability and insecurity, promote conflicts and hostilities, and would also violate several human rights provisions.
The road to peace was paved with the rule of law, the sanctity of international and bilateral agreements, the respect for the principles of the Charter and the honouring of undertakings made by guarantors and witnesses of an international agreement. Freedom was the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity. The liberation of all people from the scourge of war was possible only through respect of the rule of law, including international law, and in particular international human rights and humanitarian law.
ABDULLAH K.M.J. AL-ASKAR (Kuwait) said it was committed to the right of peoples to self-determination and nationhood, as this was an inalienable right. It was very important to apply this right and overcome all obstacles to its implementation. The Palestinian people in the occupied territories were deprived of this fundamental right and their fundamental freedoms. They had a right to self-determination, in line with United Nations resolutions, including some of those of the Commission. It was absolutely necessary to allow the Palestinian people to realize their rights, including the establishment of an independent State with Jerusalem as its capital, and the international community should increase its efforts to serve this noble cause and allow the Palestinian people to achieve their rights including the right to self-determination.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) recalled that her country had a longstanding commitment to the principle of self-determination, and maintained the view that self-determination, as elaborated in the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, offered the necessary legal framework to develop varying degrees of self-administration and self-governance, which could effectively help prevent claims to independence.
Turning to the issue of the use of mercenaries, she said that the existing definition of mercenaries was too narrow in scope that it almost excluded individuals or groups engaging in military activities for commercial reasons. Yet, a dramatic proliferation of military activities for commercial reasons had been seen. The report presently before the Commission neither gave an indication of the scope of activities of the privatized military industry worldwide, nor addressed the dramatic consequences their activities could have. The use of mercenaries was not a human rights issue, per se, but had a sufficiently strong impact on legal issues affecting human rights to warrant consideration. There was an urgent need to clarify the legal uncertainties concerning the issue of mercenaries, and given the global scope of the phenomenon, the United Nations -- preferably its General Assembly -- was the right place to do so.
MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said he was happy to see a number of countries that had been fighting for their right to self-determination represented in the Commission. However, Palestine was still struggling to exercise its own right to self-determination due to the harsh policies of Israel. In 1988, Palestine had accepted the principle of a two-State policy and continued to do so. Israel had continued to apply harsh polices against Palestinians by claiming to be the administrator of Palestinian territories. Israel had also continued with its resettlement programmes with the view to colonize Palestine. These policies of destruction and demolition of Palestine had seriously affected the people. Palestine was grateful to those who had supported its people, including Israelis who rejected the Israeli polices of expansion. The oppressor and the occupying power had defied the principles of international law and had continued to inflict daily hardships against the Palestinians. Despite the Israeli occupation, Palestinians were able to exercise their democratic rights by electing their President, and this would be followed by legislative elections. He called upon Israel and the United States to work for the establishment of peace in the region.
AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD AL-RIYAMI (Oman) noted that Israel had continued to refuse the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, despite numerous international resolutions adopted by various United Nations entities. Oman supported the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their right to self-determination as well as the position taken by Arab countries. Dialogue remained the best means of achieving peace in the region. Oman called on all parties to engage in dialogue and to work towards the solution of this conflict to enable the two States to live side-by-side in peace and security.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said the process that began with the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit had opened a new window of opportunity, presenting a clear perspective of realizing the concept of a two-State solution for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side, peacefully and democratically. That solution included the implementation of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people; this was the reality on the ground. It was unfortunate that, up to now, the Commission had disregarded that reality.
Throughout its history, the modern State of Israel had been defending the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and their right to live in peace and security in their ancient homeland. Having respected the right to self-determination of peoples worldwide, including those of its Arab neighbours, Israel expected full recognition for the right of Jewish people to their self-determination as well. The Commission should encourage the positive developments resulting from the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit by sending a message of support and hope. Insistence on using harsh words and continuously attacking Israel could only serve the cause of extremists, derailing negotiations between the two parties. Efforts to derail the peace process should not be allowed to prevail.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said Bahrain wholeheartedly supported all efforts and initiatives that would bring peace and stability to the occupied Arab territories, including the Palestinian territories, and enable the Palestinian and Arab people to regain their legitimate rights. Bahrain was convinced that achieving peace in the Middle East required gaining the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Without doing so, it would be difficult to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region. The violations committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupation authorities should be halted. All countries in the region needed peace, security, and stability. Without that, it would be impossible to develop economically and socially. On the contrary, any lack of peace, security and stability would strengthen extremism, hinder economic development, and make the region lose an opportunity to develop human rights and fundamental freedoms.
He expressed hope that the Commission would deal with the situation in the occupied Arab territories from a human rights perspective so that human rights and fundamental freedoms would be promoted in the region.
BASHAR JAAFARI (Syria) said the United Nations Charter stressed the right to self-determination and the respect of that right. International law had confirmed the right which should be comprehensive and all nations should respect it. Since 1947 when the General Assembly began consideration of the issue of Palestine, the right of return was an integral part of the right to self-determination. Israel should apply United Nations resolutions and decisions adopted in the past - there was no need for Road Maps. Israel wished to split up the peace process, thus minimizing its impact. This demonstrated a lack of respect for international law. Israel continued to construct its wall to the detriment of the Palestinian people, destroying the hopes of the region and the entire world. There should be vigilance with respect to the conduct of Israel in the occupied Arab territories where it sought to mislead the international community with regard to the construction and occupation of its settlements. Half of the territory should go to the Palestinian people.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) noted that sixteen territories still maintained non-autonomous status, including the last remaining, non-autonomous territory in Africa -- Western Sahara. That situation remained unresolved despite the more than 51 Security Council resolutions, the elaboration of the "[James] Baker Peace Plan", and the efforts of three successive Secretaries-General. The parties - Morocco and the Polisario Front - had signed a protocol calling for confidence-building measures, including family visits and telephone calls between the Saharawi populations in Morocco and Algeria. The United Nations should give new impetus to Security Council resolution 1570 (2004) on the implementation of the "Baker Plan".
Morocco continued to deny the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara, who had been peacefully pursuing that right for more than two decades. The indivisibility of the principle of the right to self-determination must be reaffirmed and, despite the wave of violence that had swept over the world, the non-violent path chosen by the Saharawi people must be recognized as an efficient and appropriate means of allowing peoples to realize their national aspirations to self-determination.
HILLEL C. NEUER, of United Nations Watch, asked whether the States which monopolized the agenda item on the right to self-determination to attack Israel were truly concerned about this international human right. For these regimes, what was gained was an entrenchment of their decades-long campaign to demonize and delegitimitize Israel and the Jewish people. The objective of this assault was to cast Israel as the world’s number one human rights violator. The campaign was pernicious and should outrage all who believed in equality, peace and human rights. It was also an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. At the dawn of a new era of reform, the Commission should address the urgent violations confronting the world, or it would see another year of cynical diversions at the expense of equality, peace and human rights.
GUL NAWAZ KHAN, of Interfaith International, said there should be an independent Kashmir, and that the issue of self-determination in this context was relevant for the people of Kashmir. Many of the political parties calling for an independent Kashmir could not today participate fully in the political process since Kashmir was divided into two parts each with its own political parties approved by the occupying powers. If the military forces of both India and Pakistan could retreat from Kashmir, the people of both occupied areas would be able to vote in a referendum for or against self-determination as they so wished. This was the only way to solve the Kashmir issue.
C. ANNE MASSAGEE, of Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man, said the international community had great hope for a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the long-awaited realization of the Palestinian right to self-determination. Unfortunately, ongoing Israeli actions could preclude the Palestinians’ ability to realize that right. The wall’s construction was complemented by Israel’s continuing aid and assistance in the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in contravention of international law. The wall and the settlements were completely discriminatory and prevented Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination - a right that underpinned the realization of other fundamental human rights.
JEAN PIER PAGE, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said humanity was faced with considerable challenges and millions of people legitimately aspired to live in security and to exercise their right to self-determination. These inalienable rights were today ignored. Today, one single State, the United States, had decided to impose, in full impunity from the rest of the world, its own vision and values. This attitude was a threat to peace and international security and demonstrated arrogance by invoking a fight against tyranny, or what they considered to be terrorism, to commit acts that violated international law and consisted of crimes against humanity. If there was to be integrity for humankind, integrity should also be demonstrated by the United States.
LAZARO PARY, of World Peace Council, stated that the situation in Iraq had worsened due to the policies of the United States administration, which had been using all means to change the situation by use of military intervention. The Iraqi people had suffered from this occupation which still continued. It was impossible to fully exercise any right to self-determination while under occupation. The second speaker from the same group raised the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, stating that the people there had been unable to exercise their right to self-determination.
PAULINE E. TANGIORA, of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, said in 2002, the Gana and Gwi San, or Bushmen residents of Botswana Central Kalahari Game Reserve, were forcibly evicted and moved to resettlement camps outside the reserve. There were several documented cases of beatings and torture of the San inside the Reserve prior to the evictions. About 150 of the 3,000 inhabitants had refused to move. As a result, they had their water cut off, their requests for medical services had been denied and they were banned from their subsistence hunting. The resulting conditions were desperate.
RONALD BARNES, of Indigenous World Association, said many Alaskan and Hawaiian indigenous communities yearned for freedom and self-determination. Alaska and Hawaii had been illegally annexed by the United States, against the will of the first nations living in those formerly free and independent territories. Although Alaska and Hawaii had been on the list of Non-Self-Governing territories in 1946, they were removed from that list in 1959 after their annexation by the United States. Those annexations had not been democratically decided, but were expressions of colonialism. The colonized peoples of Alaska and Hawaii rejected their continued occupation. The indigenous people of these territories had never abandoned their right to self-determination. The Association called upon the Commission to address these unresolved disputes in an appropriate manner, and to call for an immediate freeze on the expropriation of lands and resources from Alaska and Hawaii.
ANA VERA, of American Association of Jurists, said that one year after the coup d’etat organized and carried out by France and the United States in Haiti, the situation remained catastrophic. The troops sent by Latin American Governments in an attempt to influence events in Haiti had been reduced to the role of passive spectators, while the decision-making authority remained in the hands of larger powers, which did not want Haiti to experience true independence. The abuse of power and human rights violations continued to be a daily fact of life.
Turning to the situation in Iraq, she said that the United States continued to violate human rights in that country on a scale unprecedented since the Second World War. By aggression and military occupation, the United States had done what it had done in other parts of the world through negotiation and agreement.
RAMA ENAV, of Women’s International Zionist Organization, said due to anti-Semitism, Zionism had come into being and that in turn had led to the founding of the Jewish State. Just this week, world leaders had gathered in Jerusalem for the opening of a new Holocaust Museum. A museum that vividly presented the tragedy that beset the Jewish people, which not only resulted from the Nazis, but also from countries who closed their gates, thus not allowing the Jews of Europe to find refuge. These past events were also more relevant as today there was a frightening increase in anti-Semitism, which bore resemblance to the early Nazi era.
SYED NAZIR GILANI, of Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights, said the genuine voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir had not been articulated in accordance with the history and jurisprudence of the rights movement. The case for self-determination required an environment free from violence, as well as free from a supplanted, private, commercialized, undemocratic, non-transparent and unaccountable political culture. There was an immediate need for the people of Jammu and Kashmir of popular legislatures and popular governments based on the free transfer of will in an election in all three administrative regions of Jammu and Kashmir. India and Pakistan must ensure that the people living in those three regions were in no way treated less favourably than their own citizens. There was also an urgent need to differentiate between the three important variables embedded in the issue of the self-determination of Jammu and Kashmir, which were the right of the people to self-determination and the respective claims of India and Pakistan.
SHAMIM SHAWL, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the right to self-determination was recognized as a pre-emptory norm of international law, under which all people faced with occupation and repression were entitled to the right of self-defence. The core issue in Indian-held Kashmir was the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. It was hoped that the initiation of a comprehensive dialogue process between Pakistan and India would lead to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir. The international community, including the Commission, should ensure an immediate end to the gross and systematic violations of the Kashmiri people and help them to realize this inalienable right.
DAN MARIASHIN, of B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, said there was a resurgence of anti-Semitism and its new manifestation - anti-Zionism. The Jewish people’s basic human right to self-determination was being eroded. This was a dangerous path, for it sought the destruction of the Jewish State, and as such ran counter to fundamental human rights principles as well as United Nations Security Council resolutions. All resolutions passed by the Commission should reaffirm the right to self-determination for the Jewish people.
FRANCES FABREGUES, of Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of UNESCO Centre of Catalonia, said traditional forms of colonialism, foreign occupation and alien domination had acquired a new dimension as a result of globalization. Self-determination based on inter-State conflicts challenged international peace and security, depriving millions of peoples of their basic human rights. To effectively address the ensuing political, economic and cultural challenges, self-determination acquired a renewed reliance as an indispensable tool to realize peoples’ security and guarantee their survival.
MONICA GRUNFELT, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, said in recent months a series of events had demonstrated a new stage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Israeli Government had decided to resume contact with the Palestinian Authority and both had reaffirmed their commitment to end violence. The possibility of resumed negotiations was welcomed, but there was concern for the prospect of negotiations, which could disregard the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The humiliation suffered by the Palestinian people at the hand of the occupying power was continuing. The international community should adopt appropriate measures to ensure that Israel end the occupation.
VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the hopes for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Sri Lanka in the wake of the ceasefire agreement of February 2002 between the then Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had largely proved illusory. Long before the tsunami disaster struck, the island negotiations had been suspended; cooperation largely ceased in the face of the continued occupation by the Sri Lankan army in the form of setting up high security zones; hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons were also waiting in vain to be able to return to their homes.
TAHIR NASEEM MANHAS, of Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said that self-determination was a process, not an outcome. It was not a one-time choice, but an ongoing determination of political status. In this day and age, there was little reason to restrict the ambit of self-determination. The increasing imbalance between States had helped to erode the traditional notion of State sovereignty, as had economic processes and the Internet and other new technologies. Nationalism, ethnicity and religion were increasingly used to express resentment against political and economic imbalances, urbanization and the decline of access to public services. Concerns revolved around environmental, health and food security. The people of Jammu and Kashmir strongly expressed their desire to exercise their right to self-determination.
SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIRI, of European Union of Public Relations, said self-determination was an integral part of human rights law which had a universal application. It was a very powerful concept, evoking emotions, expectations and fears, which often led to conflict and bloodshed. However, the winds of change, which were blowing through the Middle East, seemed to be sweeping also across the Indian sub-continent and gave rise to optimism. The final settlement of the Kashmir conflict could bring peace and security not only to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the whole region of South Asia, which was home to one-fifth of humankind.
KURT OTZ, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and other Minorities, said it was well-known that Turkey had invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continued to occupy 37 per cent of the island’s territory. The illegal occupation of the northern part of Cyprus and the continuing presence of Turkish military forces on the island, as well as the presence of more than 100,000 settlers, constituted unacceptable limitations on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, and, therefore, a violation of the right to self-determination. This fact had been recognized in various Security Council resolutions. The Secretary-General’s plan for a comprehensive settlement of the issue amounted to a negation of the ideas of sovereignty, self-government and self-determination of the people of Cyprus. The people of Cyprus had rejected that plan on 24 April 2004; this decision must be accepted by both sides, as well as by the international community, as a valid exercise of the people’s right to self-determination.
Right of Reply
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said Algeria, in its statement, had revealed its obsession with the issue of the Sahara, and its concept of self-determination was clearly geographically variable. The Tinduf camps were the only refugee camps where people were condemned to live for 24 hours a day surrounded by watch towers and security strips. It had been hoped that these people would not always be condemned to exile. There was a selective reading of history and General Assembly resolutions, pretending that this was an issue disregarded by the United Nations, but there was a tripartite agreement calling for the return of the Sahara to another country. Recently Algeria purchased $ 4 billion worth of weaponry, some of which was passed to separatists. Algeria was giving weapons to separatists preparing for war. The Algerian speech and behaviour did not reflect any desire for peace, and they were duplicitous.
PANKAJ SARAN (India), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statements of Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that there was nothing new in what the Representative of Pakistan had said. That statement represented a perversion of the concept of self-determination for the purpose of territorial aggrandizement. For Pakistan to talk of self-determination, it must first ensure that right was extended to its own people. Jammu and Kashmir was an irrevocable part of India, and the historical facts to that end were well established. The people of that state had repeatedly been given, like the other people of India, the right to express their political opinion democratically.
As to the statement by the representative of the OIC, he had made an unacceptable reference to an integral part of India. The OIC had no locus standi to address that issue. To equate the historic struggle of the Palestinian people with the situation in a state of India was to make a mockery of the Palestinians' struggle. India called upon the other members of the OIC to restrain one of its members from manipulating the organization’s statements. India had long been a proponent of the Palestinians’ struggle for self-determination.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply in response to Morocco’s right of reply, said that Morocco was duplicating Algerian diplomacy. Algeria was strengthening bilateral relations in the Maghreb region. There was no Algerian-Moroccan dispute in the region. The issue of Western Sahara was in the hands of the United Nations. It was recognized that Western Sahara was a non-self governing territory. It was Morocco that was hindering people from visiting their families in the territory.
MANSOOR KHAN (Pakistan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regard to the points made by India, the facts on the Jammu and Kashmir issue were clear. India had been illegally occupying the area for more than 70 years. The United Nations Security Council resolutions were not partial, and it was up to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide this and to decide their own leadership. Unless India could recognise this, the region would remain a disputed territory. With regard to terrorism or cross-border terrorism, the Kashmiris only faced one form of terrorism, and that was State terrorism, perpetrated by India through the military. The effect of this upon the people of Kashmir was shocking; there was an extraordinarily high suicide rate. It was unfortunate that despite an ongoing dialogue, Indian forces had intensified the violence and oppression. Addressing human rights violations was a prerequisite for the success of the dialogue and a peace process resolving the Kashmiris' right to self-determination.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Algerian duplicity was not a Moroccan obsession. The Algerian delegate had appealed to the United Nations to remain involved, but only a few months ago at the General Assembly, Algeria had refused even a mention of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in a resolution. Algeria could not call for continued United Nations involvement and still reject any mention of the Special Representative. Moreover, there had been consensus on the resolution, yet Algeria claimed it was not bilateral. As for the camps, they were a gulag in the middle of the desert from which none could leave. In the Moroccan Sahara, anyone could leave, without authorization. There was freedom of movement and involvement of locals in the management of the community. In Algeria, some non-governmental organizations had been put on a blacklist and had no right to enter the camps, but in Morocco even those in favour of Algeria could enter. Moreover, former camp inhabitants would rather stay in Morocco than go back to the camps.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said there was a confidence-building effort in the region. The principle of self-determination was still a matter of discussion.
CORRIGENDA
In press release HR/CN/05/12 of 17 March 2005, the right of reply of Turkey should read as follows:
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Cyprus, said the United States Department Annual Human Rights Report had indicated that Greek Cypriot supporters of the "Annan Plan" were verbally and physically harassed for their political views by the opponents of the plan.
In press release HR/CN/05/12 of 17 March, the statements by Cyprus, which was exercising its right of reply, should read as follows:
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Turkey, said that the people of Cyprus had been asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General's Plan in two separate and simultaneous referenda. A clear majority of Greek Cypriots had not approved of the "Annan Plan", but this did not signal rejection of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The status quo was not acceptable. The rights of the people of Cyprus continued to be violated by Turkey, and United Nations resolutions and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights had not been rendered obsolete. Turkey had an obligation to respect them. The Turkish delegate had also referred to the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. That isolation was self-imposed and aimed at the separation of the two communities. The Government of Cyprus had worked in good faith to promote sound proposals to facilitate the reunification of the island by encouraging Turkish Cypriot development, particularly in the sphere of economic activities and relations between the two communities. He also wished to draw attention to relevant Security Council resolutions, which condemned the set-up of the illegal separatist entity, and recognized only one Cypriot State, that of the Republic of Cyprus.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), responding to Turkey, said he wished to remind the delegate of the relevant Security Council resolutions already cited. He also reiterated that 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots had voted against the "Annan Plan". That vote had been carried out in a free and democratic manner, and nothing the Turkish delegate said could deny that fact. Regarding the economic isolation, it was self-imposed by the occupation regime itself. The objective was motivated by its divisionist policies in attempts to political upgrade the secessionist entity. Finally, he wished to state that the reunification of the island would remain the absolute goal of the Government.
In press release HR/CN/05/10 of 17 March, the statement by Victorine Wodie, the Minister for Human Rights of Côte d'Ivoire, should read as follows:
VICTORINE WODIE, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, said that as the Commission opened its session, regrettably human rights violations were still taking place in all places: human dignity was being violated, and the world had become the victim of conflict in addition to natural disasters. It was imperatively necessary to take concrete and effective action to prevent these problems. At this unfavourable juncture, the promotion and protection of human rights, far from being discouraging, should reinforce in consciences the sentinel role of the Commission. Côte d'Ivoire welcomed the decision by the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Advisor on the prevention of genocide. It was the view of Côte d'Ivoire that the promotion and protection of human rights should be done through active cooperation instead of futile confrontation in the Commission, as it was witnessed in the past while agenda item 9 was being discussed. It was essential, in view of strengthening the protection of human rights, to reinforce information, training and to avoid using human rights as a tool against other countries. Leaning from the best practices of others would allow States to raise their levels of human rights protection.
Côte d’Ivoire was undergoing a particular situation for the past 30 months following an attempted coup d’état, which had resulted in the massacre of thousands of persons by the rebellion. On 19 September 2002 alone, 300 persons, including a former Head of State, a State Minister, had been executed. The attempt to change the regime had been condemned by the Security Council and the African Union. Since 19 September, the country had been divided into two parts. The armed groups were pillaging the raw materials of the country and had established parallel State functions in the areas they controlled. The human rights situation in the country had deteriorated by recurrent actions of the rebellion in November 2004. Nine French soldiers had been accidentally killed during the Government’s operation against the rebellion. In reprisal, the French forces had destroyed the country’s military and civilian air forces, killed more than 60 Ivorians and injured more than 2,000 others.
Despite the difficult situation, the Government had never ceased to place human rights respect at the centre of its concerns. The Government had received special Rapporteurs of the African Commission on Human and Persons’ Rights to discuss freedom of opinion and new forms of discrimination.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: