COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONTINUES DEBATE ON RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
22 March 2001
Afternoon




Hears Statement by Nigerian Minister for Foreign Affairs



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued its debate on the right of peoples to self-determination with many speakers invoking the situation in the Middle East and calling for Israeli and Palestinian authorities to resume talks.

Several speakers expressed their support for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and called for Israel to withdrew from the territories it had occupied. The resumption of negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities was encouraged by some speakers as the only means to resolve the present crisis in the Middle East. A Representative of Israel said his country could not tolerate a situation in which some of the Palestinian workers imported violence into Israel=s heartland and placed bombs in marketplaces.

The right of the inhabitants of the Vieques Island of Puerto Rico to self-determination as well as the rights of the Kashmiri people were also raised by speakers.

Over the course of the discussion, Nigerian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sule Lamido, addressing the Commission, said that extreme poverty constituted a violation of the most basic of human rights as it foreclosed opportunities for a life of dignity and development. He said that developing countries bore the excessive burden of the challenges of poverty and new diseases, adding that globalization had been identified as a new cause of poverty.

Taking part in the debate were the Representatives of Cuba, Qatar, Algeria, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Yemen, Liechtenstein, Armenia, Israel and Azerbaijan.


The Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also contributed statements: World Jewish Congress; World Union for Progressive Judaism; American Association of Jurists; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; European Union of Public Relations; and the International Institute for Peace.

China, Zimbabwe, Panama and Morocco exercised their right to reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 6 p.m. to begin an evening session until 9 p.m. to conclude its debate on the right of peoples to self-determination.


Statements

SULE LAMIDO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, said the time had come for the Commission to properly focus its work on the indivisibility and inter-relatedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The essence of human rights was the empowerment and improvement in the physical, material and spiritual conditions of peoples. Extreme poverty constituted a violation of the most basic of human rights as it foreclosed opportunities for a life of dignity and development. Developing countries bore the excessive burden of the challenges of poverty and new diseases. Globalization had been identified as a new cause of poverty. The interests of the economically rich and strong and the economically poor and weak had not been reconciled. One fifth of humanity had been pauperized. Developing countries needed to participate in globalization on their own terms and the symbol of a global village needed to be embraced, rather than remain an exclusive body for a select few.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria said that democracy and human rights were organically linked; true and stable democracy flourished where citizens enjoyed access to education, health care, shelter, food and drinking water and jobs. The external debt posed an obstacle which militated against the provision of these services. Nigeria's debt, incurred by past profligate regimes, needed to be written-off. Corruption had profound implications for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Concrete action was needed on the legitimate return of looted funds to countries of origin, currently mired in controversy and legal technicalities. The present administration had enacted the "Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000".

The Human Rights Investigation Committee had made steady progress. President Obasanjo had personally appeared before it and forgiven his former tormentors. Never before had so much been done to give prominence to women's and gender issues in public policy. Gender mainstreaming had become national policy and women had responded with equal vigour and commitment. Today, women were at the vanguard of a national campaign against harmful traditional practices prevalent in some parts of the country. The issue of human trafficking needed to be addressed by the Commission. Nigeria was among the first signatories of the UN Convention Against Trans-National Organized Crime and its Protocol on Trafficking. The first Pan-African Conference on Human Trafficking was convened in Abuja, Nigeria last month. It was hoped that new issues such as the abuse of the Internet by racial bigots would be addressed at the World Conference Against Racism this August.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the right of each State to full exercise of national sovereignty and of its people to self-determination, without interference or foreign intervention, were the essential pillars of the juridical order enacted in the Charter of the United Nations. The historical evolution of that right had been clearly sustained in the struggle of the peoples under colonial occupation and foreign domination. The exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was prerequisite to the realization of all human rights. Cuba reaffirmed its full and steadfast solidarity with the Palestinian people, with its fair right for the establishment of its independent and sovereign State, with Jerusalem as the capital, and the proper restitution of all the occupied Arab territories.

Cuba also reiterated its absolute support for the unquestionable right of the people of Puerto Rico to exert their right of self-determination upon their territory including Vieques Island, and to their fair demands for immediate stopping of the military exercises and bombing carried out by the US Army on that small island. The lives of the inhabitants were in serious danger because of the great contamination caused by the use of conventional and non-conventional weapons, including uranium.

For almost forty years, Cuba had been a victim of mercenary and terrorist activities promoted and sponsored from the United States territory; and the commitment of terrorist activities against Cuba continued. Last November, during the Ibero-American Summit in Panama, a plan for murdering President Fidel Castro was disarticulated and aborted as a result of a Cuban denunciation. The attempt to kill Cuba's President was organized by the Cuban-American National Foundation, through the known international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

FAHAD ALTHANI (Qatar) said the right to self-determination was profound and important and had been treated as such by the international community; all of humanity wished to exercise self-determination as it was essential for justice and freedom to prevail. Qatar was very concerned over the dangerous violations occurring in the occupied territories of Palestine and supported the decision taken by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to request the United Nations to continue to act to realize the Palestinians' human rights and specifically their right to their own independent State.

The continued Israeli occupation was a clear violation of the right to self-determination, and the continued construction of Israeli settlements in the territories was a serious offense against the principle of self-determination. The settlements were illegal and must be dismantled and the Israeli occupation must end. There would be no just peace in the region unless this occurred.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said that although the phenomenon of mercenary activities had affected many part of the world, the African continent was the most devastated by the activities of mercenaries because of its rich underground resources. Many African countries, particularly those who owned natural resources such as uranium, petrol, magnesium, diamonds and other rare minerals, were faced with instability and civil war involving mercenaries. Algeria supported the Special Rapporteur on the activities of mercenaries and urged him to continue his work. It was amazing that the activities of mercenaries were continuing in the continent from North to South without any control. It was also evident that training camps for mercenary activities were held in some countries. The Special Rapporteur had concluded that there was a narrow line between terrorism and the activities of mercenaries. Algeria renewed it support for the Special Rapporteur and his efforts to expose the activities of mercenaries in Africa.

NABIL RAMBLAWI (Palestine) said there was no need to prove the issue of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. It had been affirmed by the United Nations and the Commission for over thirty years. The issue had nothing to do with the 8 million Palestinian people as such, or with the principles governing the right of peoples to self-determination, but with the Israeli military occupation force which saw the Palestinian right to self-determination as a menace to its security. Every effort was exerted, economic, military, or other, to hinder the exercise of this right by the Palestinian people. The Palestinians had been the target of Israel's wars, aggressions and crimes for dozens of years in an attempt to ensure that the people never evolved or exercised their natural life as other people in the world did.

Colonial mastery and foreign occupation was seen to prevail over the force of truth and law. The implementation of international law had become subject to double standards and selectivity in the interest of the dominant power. Palestinian people had suffered all forms of hardship and had been blamed for having defended themselves. They lived under a racist regime which had brought forth a new apartheid. The right to self-determination for the Palestinians was the core of the whole problem in the Middle East. All manifestations were nothing but the consequences of that basic problem. The liberation of the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, from military occupation was necessary for peace and stability.

FAYZA ABOULNAGA (Egypt) said the state of affairs in occupied Palestine was a gross, flagrant violation of the right to self-determination; it had given rise to a vicious circle that made it very difficult to build peace. Israel, by refusing to respect Commission resolutions on Palestine and by refusing to cooperate with the Commission, was only worsening its record for non-respect of international law. The situation had only gotten worse, as Israel's excessive use of force had caused thousands of deaths. The use of force would never defeat the Palestinian people in their courageous struggle to establish an independent State.

The High Commissioner's report on the situation was valuable and an addition to reliable information from a wide array of other sources indicating that Israel was violating human rights in the region. Palestinians had to be granted their right to self-determination and Israel had to understand that peace depended on Israeli compliance with United Nations resolutions on Palestine.

WALID OBEIDAT (Jordan) said that for more than half a century, the Palestinian people had been deprived of their basic right to self-determination under Israeli occupation. Jordan fully supported Palestinians and would spare no efforts for the fulfilment of the Palestinian people=s right to self-determination on their national soil, and for their right to proclaim and establish their independent state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif Jerusalem as its capital. Jordan was deeply concerned at the recent escalations and their destructive developments on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza due to the policies of the Israeli Government. It was regrettable that as the Commission deliberated today, the Palestinian people, including women and children, continued to face flagrant violations of their human rights before the eyes of the international community. Israel was carrying out a systematic violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the excessive use of force against civilians was causing devastative and permanent disabilities. The resumption of negotiations from the point where they stopped was a must.

ABDULLAH AL-ASKAR (Kuwait) said that the right of the Palestinians to self-determination was inalienable. The right to self-determination needed to be put into practice in such a way that all dominated peoples enjoyed their rights. The Palestinian situation had proved to the world that Israel had prevented Palestinians from enjoying their fundamental rights. Kuwait confirmed its support for all resolutions on the rights of the Palestinian people including the Commission's resolution 2000/4. The Palestinians' needed to enjoy their right to an independent State with Jerusalem as the capital.

OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said self-determination was a cardinal right and admitted no derogation under international law. The matter had been extensively codified and had received great attention from the United Nations. International society as it was today was based on it. Yet there remained the situation of the Palestinian people, which ran counter to the trend toward justice and freedom; Palestinians still were seeking the independent country they deserved.

There could be no means of ending the Israeli-Arab conflict and resolving the Palestinian question except by granting Palestinians the right to self-determination. Israel, if it wanted peace, had no option but to withdraw from Palestinian territory.

MOHAMED SAEED AL-ATTAR (Yemen) said that the Israeli authorities had been preventing the Palestinian people from exercising their right to self-determination for the last 50 years. Israel had become intransigent in all aspects. It continued to steal the land of Palestinians and had been demolishing the houses of the civilian population. In addition, in recent months, Israel had prevented international humanitarian assistance from reaching the Palestinian people whom it had quarantined for several months now. Israel had to abide by the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations and should relinquish the territories it had been occupying for years.

NORBERT FRICK (Liechtenstein) said the right of self-determination held a prominent place in the UN Charter and International Bill of Human Rights and its exercise was a prerequisite for the full enjoyment of the human rights contained in the two Covenants of 1966. The Liechtenstein initiative on self-determination, introduced several years ago at the United Nations, advocated a more flexible and open-minded approach to the issue and allowed the right of self-determination to be expressed in different ways as it gave people a voice and empowered them to freely determine their political and other status. Periodic and free elections, and participation of the people in decision-making processes were good examples.

The Liechtenstein initiative placed particular emphasis on self-determination exercised by communities that lived within States. The cases in which it had been used had one element in common: they stopped short of independence but allowed for satisfactory degrees of self-expression and defused claims for independence. There was no single solution, every situation had its own specific set of circumstances and historical background to be taken into account for a successful resolution. The ideas of the Liechtenstein initiative were viewed as a preventive tool, and were useful in the past decade which had brought about a proliferation of internal armed conflicts, many with root-causes in tensions between communities and central governments or other communities.

TIGRAN SAMVELIAN (Armenia) said there had been attempts to restrict the application of the right to self-determination to one time only, and to restrict its application only to one's own national territory. Another unacceptable interpretation was that this right had lower priority than the right to territorial integrity, although according to the Helsinki Final Act, both principles were equal and interrelated. Recent blatant attempts had been made to question the applicability of the right to self-determination, and this had led small nations into forced assimilation and/or large-scale exoduses from their homelands.

Armenia was committed to the full implementation of the Nagorno-Karabach people's right to self-determination through peaceful means. Nagorno-Karabach had suffered both colonial domination by the Soviets and foreign occupation by Azerbaijan which, in 1923, was granted jurisdiction over this Armenian region illegally and unjustly. Armenia commended the courage of some Governments which conducted referenda and took public action to secure and consolidate the right to self-determination on their territories.

YAKOOV LEVI (Israel) said that economic loss and unemployment were prevalent today among Palestinians who used to work in Israel on a daily basis until October 2000. Israel favoured full employment for Palestinian workers. However, it could not tolerate a situation in which some of those workers imported violence into its heartland and placed bombs in marketplaces, nor could it tolerate the murderous act of a Palestinian worker who, on 14 February 2001, drove a bus into a crowd of young Israelis, killing eight of them. The return to full employment lay in the hands of the Palestinian Authority which had the duty to call to an end to the violence. Some speakers had referred to the immigration of Jews to the land of Israel, particularly in 1948, as "gangs" who came over to Palestine. However, those "gangs", among other things, had created in the land of Israel marvellous institutions and institutions of high education for Israelis, Jews and Arabs alike. They had returned to their homeland after the two millennia of dispersion and persecution by foreign conquerors.

TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that although the right to self-determination was a fundamental human right and played an important part in the realization of other human rights and freedoms, it had nevertheless been misused as the basis for an alleged right to secession or for the justification of territorial expansionism under the pretext of care for relative ethnic groups in other States, especially multi-ethnic ones. External encouragement and support in this regard was disturbing to the international legal order as the respect for territorial integrity was a basic feature of the contemporary international legal order with the accompanying principles of non-aggression and non-interference.

The right to self-determination was not incorporated into international instruments with a view to encouraging secessionist movements or foreign interference and aggression as the Vienna Declaration makes clear and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes a clear distinction between the right of peoples to self-determination and the rights of persons belonging to minorities, but they had sometimes been confused in the reports submitted to the Human Rights Committee by State parties to that instrument. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its general recommendation XXI (48) noted that international law had not recognized a right unilaterally to declare secession from a State. Minorities only exercised the right to self-determination together with the rest of the population of a State, as a part of its population.

DANIEL LACK, of the World Jewish Congress, also speaking on behalf of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, said the Special Session last fall on the situation in Palestine had been marred by a vituperative and excessive resolution which had caused most democratic members of the Commission to reject or abstain from it. There was no way the commission of enquiry established by the Special Session could be objective, and no self-respecting jurist would stoop to accept a mandate based on a predetermined outcome that was contained in the very title of the measure. Secondly, two of the commission members were obviously far from objective.

Not surprisingly the report was one-sided, prejudiced, and distorted. A typical example was its quotation out of context of press reports ascribing to the Israeli Government and military leaders the intent to conduct an alleged policy of extra-judicial executions and assassinations. Meanwhile not a word in the report was devoted to the calls for genocidal killing of all Jews and Israelis which could be heard, read, and seen daily in all forms of the Palestinian media. The report also attempted to mask the appalling policy of recruiting children behind whom Palestinian armed militia took cover.

DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that ten days ago, a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations had warned that the Arab-Israel conflict was at its most dangerous point since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The warning was directly relevant to item 5, which was the right to self-determination, the Palestinian situation, and the Special Rapporteur's report on terrorism and mercenaries. No one denied that the greatest of all deceptions for Middle East peacemakers and peace partners had been the clearly announced alliance between the Palestinian Authority and the fanatic Hamas Movement, and Chairman Arafat's subsequent freeing of all condemned Hamas terrorists. Such dangerous alliances were certainly not the best way to erect confidence-building measures with any government of a former enemy, nor to live peacefully, constructing together a viable future for all.

ARRAIZA NAVAS, speaking on behalf of the American Association of Jurists, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, Puerto Rican Institute for International Relations and Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques, said that the people of Vieques had been subjected to gross violations of human rights for the last six decades as a consequence of the violation of the right to self-determination of Puerto Rico. The foreign policy of the United States and the economic recession currently converged to intensify regional tensions that could develop into international wars and conflicts. War had been the habitual recourse of the United States in overcoming its economic crises as evidenced, among others, by the air strikes against Iraq, the support of Israel's violent policies and the Colombia Plan.

The United States had tested (so-called depleted) uranium ammunition at Vieques. Other governments were seriously concerned about the lethal health effects of this radioactive and toxic substance. A casual relationship between uranium exposure and leukemia and other types of cancer had been denied by the US and NATO forces, which led to the belief that they were experimenting with human lives in order to develop new weapons. The Island Municipality of Vieques had made several studies which confirmed that uranium, among other heavy metals, had polluted the air, land, water and food chain of the people of Vieques. The US Government had admitted to using Vieques to test these weapons and information was obtained proving that profit had been made in renting the target range out to other foreign countries. A Special Rapporteur needed to be established to investigate this gross violation of the human rights and genocide in Vieques as well as a team of epidemiologists to study the effects of uranium on the local population.

XAVIER GUERRERO, of the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, said the Western Sahara peace process was now blocked with no hope of a fair referendum being held any time soon; the main reason was the number of challenges by Morocco to the list of persons who would be allowed to vote in the referendum. Morocco clearly sought to influence the outcome by gaining approval of a list that was favourable to the Moroccan viewpoint.

The provisional list of voters was being subjected to a systematic attempt at fraud. The United Nations, which had prepared for the peace process along with the Organization of African Unity, must act to resolve the conflict fairly; there was a substantial and serious danger that the Western Sahara would be absorbed into Morocco without a fair consultation with true Western Saharans. Morocco could only be regarded as an occupying power. Would it be necessary for the Polisario Front to take up arms again and renew its war against Morocco for the western countries with economic interests in the area to act, once and for all, in favour of holding a definitive referendum?

H. SHARFELDDIN, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), questioned the attitude of the western community concerning the coming to power of the right-wing, racist, and fanatic leader in Israel as opposed to the attitude of the same community concerning another right-wing leader in Austria last year. The western countries had congratulated Ariel Sharon for winning the Israeli elections, whereas those same countries had stood jointly to demand the suspension of international relations with Austria if Haider and his Freedom Party remained in power. Although Haider's party had had some dreadful racist attitudes, he did not act on his racism to the degree of subjugating those perceived as opponents to extreme cruel and inhuman treatment. Haider and his party did not kill thousands as Sharon and the Likud Party had done in Deer Yaseen and in Sabra and Shateela, as well as in many more racist incidents of blood shedding and degradation of others only because they were not Jews.

RAMESH KUMAR JOSHI, of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said that democracy, whose basic premise was equality for all, presented the best political ideology since the right to determine and achieve one's destiny, articulated by one's race, history and culture, among other differences, was the essence of humanity. For this reason, nations that had thrown off the yoke of colonialism had largely adopted the democratic model. Colonialism pitted people against people to create divides exploited by the colonisers. Though its ideology had been denounced, its practices continued in some parts of the world.

Unfortunately, the democratic experience of Pakistan, created with high hopes, had been repeatedly interrupted by men in uniform dominated by one linguistic group. The people of the Seraiki nation, along with other ethnic and linguistic minorities, continued to be denied their basic rights by their pseudo-colonial masters, the Punjabis of Pakistan. The Seraiki traditions and heritage had nothing in common with the Punjabis; those who wished to articulate their aspirations were called traitors and silenced. The Seraiki were not terrorists and perhaps that was why their voices were not heard. They had adopted the path of peacefully demanding their rights and believed that it was incumbent upon the world community to ensure the right of self-determination to all the communities the world over.

MAJEED TRUMBOO, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the organization had sponsored the "First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination and the United Nations" last August; many human-rights figures, such as Special Rapporteurs, had attended and spoken. It was evident that the Conference recognized the importance of the topic, since there were so many wars, economic crises, floods of refugees, human-rights violations, and other negative effects of conflicts related to self-determination. The damage in places like Kashmir was enormous. The Conference had reached the conclusion that popular participation was especially relevant to exercise of the right to self-determination.

In an attempt to secure peace and security for humanity, the Conference had unanimously called for the establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner for Self-Determination and establishment of a Self-Determination Commission comprised of Representatives of UN Member States. Such steps would lay the foundation for establishment of an effective mechanism for realization of the right to selfdetermination.


SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIR, of the European Union of Public Relations, drew attention to the situation of Jammu and Kashmir where he said the right to self-determination had been thwarted for the last 53 years despite the existence of Security Council resolutions. The key factor to that situation was the constant fighting between India and Pakistan which had frustrated any effort to ascertain the will of Kashmiri people. The two countries had not only fought regular wars in 1965 and 1971, but frequently shelled and fired at each other from across the border. Kashmiri people were victims of forced occupation and poverty. Poverty and backwardness were not due to lack of resources but were the result of colonialism.

MUMTAZ KHAN, of the International Institute for Peace, said there was no consensus on any single definition of the right to self-determination, in spite of its long history as a philosophical idea. Though all nations theoretically upheld the right to self-determination, their practices were contrary to their claims.

Kashmir was a disputed territory and Kashmiris still struggled to take control of their destiny despite the pledge made by both the Indian and Pakistani Governments to the people of Kashmir that the future of the State was to be decided by the popular will of the people. United Nation resolutions did not offer real self-determination to the Kashmiri people who were faced with the choice to join either India or Pakistan and were denied the will of the people who wanted independence. Pakistan had invaded, instead of liberated, Kashmir and forced the rulers of Kashmir to seek assistance from India. The future of Kashmir was being decided, not by the right to self-determination, but instead in the name of religion by Pakistan. Those who had destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan were actively engaged in Indian-held Kashmir to Talebanize and destroy the secular identity of Kashmir. The struggle for self-determination in Kashmir today had become a war of hatred whose religious zealots fought Hindus, not for the liberation of Kashmir.


Rights of Reply

A Representative of China, speaking in right of reply, said many delegations had said they were dedicated to a new sense of goodwill at the Commission, but the Minister of the United Kingdom this morning had nonetheless made presumptions comments about China. China categorically rejected his accusations. Over the past two decades, China had made tremendous progress in development, democracy, and human rights. The human rights situation in China now was the best in China's history, a fact acknowledged by all honest, unbiased observers. The UK delegate, while turning a blind eye to the serious violations of human rights in his own country, such as racial discrimination and maltreatment of women and widespread disparities in income, had had the arrogance to attack China. He should be advised to put his own house in order.

A Representative of Zimbabwe, speaking in right of reply, said his delegation dismissed the statement of the United Kingdom this morning concerning the harassment of the judiciary in Zimbabwe. It was the opposition parties who pretended that they were persecuted by the judiciary in order to attract foreign financial assistance for their political activities. The two journalists who were expelled from Zimbabwe had been involved in illegal activities outside their professional duties. If there had been problems in the judiciary, it might be attributed to the colonialists who had left such problems. In order to keep the independence of the judiciary, Zimbabwe had nothing to learn from the United Kingdom.


A Representative of Panama, speaking in right of reply, referred to the statement of the delegation of Cuba with respect to item 5. Any decision taken by Panama was taken as a sovereign State. However, such offenses would not go unpunished.

A Representative of Morocco, speaking in right of reply, said the Security Council was dealing with the question of the Western Sahara and was passing resolutions every few months on the situation there. The Commission should give people the chance to express new views and not simply express opinions already often expressed elsewhere. There also was a Special Envoy of the UN on the topic who was carrying out his duties on the matter. All would keep trying to resolve the complex problems related to the Western Sahara. Morocco trusted the Special Envoy and was working in cooperation with him; Morocco further considered the process a democratic one and felt that everyone needed to respect it.



* *** *