Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS HEARS FROM 11 DIGNITARIES
17 March 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
17 March 2005
Representatives of Moldova, Paraguay, Israel, Gabon,
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Russian Federation, Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Burundi,
Uzbekistan and United States Take the Floor
The Commission on Human Rights this morning continued with its high-level segment, hearing addresses from representatives of Moldova, Paraguay, Israel, Gabon, the Russian Federation, Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Uzbekistan and the United States, as well as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Several speakers outlined national efforts to promote and protect human rights and raised issues concerning the reform of the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights, and terrorism.
Eugenia Kistruga, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Moldova, said Moldova shared the view that all of the global challenges facing the United Nations had a human rights dimension, whether they were the international response to terrorism, the existence of armed conflict in various parts of the world, the crisis of trafficking in people, the scourge of HIV/AIDS, or the continued existence of extreme poverty. These were trans-national issues that required multilateral engagement.
Jose Martinez Lezcano, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Paraguay, said that commitment to strengthening the protection and promotion of universal human rights constituted part of Paraguay's external policy. This had been demonstrated by Paraguay's compliance with human rights treaty monitoring bodies and special procedures of the Commission.
Aaron Leshno Yaar, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Israel, said a window of opportunity had opened for Israelis, Palestinians and all people of good faith interested in seeing improvements in the Middle East. That could mean the first step towards the Roadmap, the internationally recognized plan for the end of violence, renewing dialogue and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians leading towards the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.
Paul Mba Abessole, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in charge of Human Rights of Gabon, said the annual meeting of the Commission as always gave the opportunity not only to reaffirm the universal and inviolable character of human rights, but also to make a reckoning of the action of each State in that field. Since 2002, when Gabon had last presented its progress in the institutional area and provided information on its signature and ratification of various international Conventions, significant progress had been made.
Markku Niskala, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said whereas a strong commitment to improving the field of disaster management was evident, the same could not be said of the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Governments must now make a targeted commitment to work against HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases both at home and abroad. They must acknowledge that HIV/AIDS threatened all communities, as well as the economic, social and cultural world.
Yuri V. Fedotov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said past years had demonstrated that the international community had no right to underestimate the threat of terrorism to human rights. Russia had declared on many occasions that it was ready and determined to develop and strengthen inter-state cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism, including in its human rights aspect. Russia stood for an uncompromising and firm fight against any form and manifestation of terrorism.
Victorine Wodie, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, said Côte d’Ivoire had been 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 rebels. The attempt to change the regime had been condemned by the Security Council and the African Union. The armed groups were pillaging the raw materials of the country and had established parallel State functions in the areas they controlled.
Patrick Anthony Chinamasa, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said it was most odd that foreign powers that had colonial vested interests in Zimbabwe should posture at the Commission and seek to lecture Zimbabwe on human rights. There was no surprise that the United Kingdom and some of its allies in the West should want to prejudge Zimbabwe’s elections as they knew that they had backed a losing horse over all these years.
Deogratias Rusengwamihigo, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Relations with the Parliament of Burundi, said that Burundi had experienced a period of internal crisis, but added that significant steps had been taken to improve the situation. The approval of the Constitution by popular referendum on 28 February 2005 had also constituted a major advance in the peace process.
Akmal Saidov, Minister and Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said human rights issues had the priority position in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan. Great importance was attached to the realisation of international cooperation in the sphere of human rights. These efforts were carried out on the basis of fundamental principles and measures developed by the United Nations.
Paula Dobriansky, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the United States, said all democratic governments on every continent, and all those who aspired to liberty, shared the belief in freedom. Democracy was on the march, as demonstrated by the recent Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine, and by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Palestinians in their recent elections. The people of Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries had raised their voices for democracy, free and fair elections, and the rights enjoyed by many throughout the world, as well.
India and Pakistan exercised their right to reply.
When the Commission finished its morning meeting at 1 p.m., it immediately started a midday meeting until 3 p.m. to continue the high-level segment.
Statements
EUGENIA KISTRUGA, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Moldova, said Moldova shared the view that all of the global challenges facing the United Nations had a human rights dimension, whether they were the international response to terrorism, the existence of armed conflict in various parts of the world, the crisis of trafficking in people, the scourge of HIV/AIDS, or the continued existence of extreme poverty. These were trans-national issues that required multilateral engagement. In addressing them, it was crucial that the United Nations system, in particular the United Nations human rights institutions, operated with maximum effectiveness. As a global standard-setting institution, the Commission was regarded as a universal body to promote the respect for human rights worldwide, react and respond promptly to human rights violations and assist countries in strengthening their human rights capacity. The Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change had in its proposals explicitly one major goal - to increase the Commission’s capacity for performing effectively and ensuring that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights fulfilled its mandate and functions better. The report should therefore be given further consideration.
The primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights rested with national Governments, with civil society, media and non-governmental organizations playing an important role. One of the greatest challenges to the international community nowadays was to further devise effective responses to human rights violations. In this context, no efforts should be spared to make the best use of the mechanisms and instruments that have been created to promote and protect human rights and react firmly and decisively to violations, wherever they occurred. The international community had the responsibility to protect human rights and the responsibility to protect implied, above all, the responsibility to react to situations of compelling need for human protection. When preventive and legal measures failed to resolve the situation and when a State was unable or restrained to redress the situation, intervention measures by other members of a broader community of States was required. These measures, coercive and proportionate, could include political, economic or judicial measures towards those responsible for human rights violations.
The Commission, in order to remain credible, should strive to end human rights violations wherever they occurred. The prevention of gross violations of human rights could serve also to prevent conflict. The Commission was the body mandated to bring to the attention of the international community issues of fundamental concern regarding the promotion and protection of human rights. All should work together to ensure that the Commission met the responsibility entrusted to it by the countries of the United Nations. Commission members should ensure that they acted collectively in the best interests of human rights. This was a serious and vital challenge.
JOSE MARTINEZ LEZCANO, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Paraguay, said that the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change could contribute a positive focus to the Commission, particularly regarding the drafting of a global human rights report, and the question of the universal membership of the Commission. However, the structural reforms required would only be feasible to the extent that States generated trust in the recommendations. Approaching the end of its first mandate as a member of the Commission, Paraguay had decided to put forward its candidacy for a second mandate, from 2007 to 2009. Additionally, he called upon the international community to cooperate in the criminal prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Cecilia Cubas, and the kidnapping of Maria Estela Vargas.
Commitment to strengthening the protection and promotion of universal human rights constituted part of Paraguay's external policy, the Vice-Minister stated, and had been demonstrated by its compliance with human rights treaty monitoring bodies and special procedures of the Commission. Among other steps, the national Government had received the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in children, child prostitution and child pornography as an important contribution to the process of strengthening the rights of children. A national policy against the sexual exploitation of children had been elaborated, and a report on the phenomenon had been drafted. Also attaching particular interest to the promotion of women’s rights, Paraguay had presented its fourth and fifth reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women this year, and had set up an intersectoral bureau to address the issue of trafficking in women.
Finally, the Vice-Minister of Paraguay noted that the right to truth continued to be sought urgently by those countries that had suffered human rights abuses in the past. To honour the thousands who had been disappeared, MERCOSUR would give vigorous support to the draft resolution on the right to truth to be submitted to the Commission by Argentina. This issue was of particular concern for the Government which had established a National Truth and Justice Commission in 2003 to investigate and clarify abuses under the military dictatorship, from 1954 to 1989, and right up to 2003. The Government of Paraguay had also asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to sit in Asuncion in May 2004, as a measure to bring such human rights bodies closer to their Member States.
AARON LESHNO YAAR, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Israel and Head of the United Nations and International Organizations Division, recalled that last year, the Commission had included a rejection of anti-Semitism within a few of its resolutions. That had been an important step to counter this severe threat. Events of the past year had emphasized the connection between the horrors of the Holocaust and the founding of the United Nations. Similarly, the Berlin Declaration against anti-Semitism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of 29 April 2004 had included a series of binding commitments for Members States to take action through the collection of data on anti-Semitic incidents and the promotion of educational initiatives to counteract anti-Jewish sentiment, prejudice and bigotry. The Commission should take upon itself the messages of those events and make their words and lessons part of its dialogue.
Recent events in the Middle East had offered some real hope for progress. A window of opportunity had opened for Israelis, Palestinians and all people of good faith interested in seeing improvements in the region. That could mean the first steps towards the Roadmap, the internationally recognized plan for the end of violence, renewing dialogue and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians leading towards the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security. In recent months, Israel had initiated a significant number of steps to improve the situation for Israelis and Palestinians alike. At this unique and sensitive time in relations between Israel and Palestinians, it was crucial that the international community act responsibly by encouraging and strengthening that positive process, to ensure that the reality in the region was reflected in the work of the Commission.
Israel, as a homeland to survivors of persecution, had an inherent deep respect for human rights. In Hebrew, the term for human rights was "z'chuyot Adam", literally “the rights of Adam”. The reference to Adam was significant – a reminder that all had a common ancestor. According to Jewish tradition, the fact that all mankind were descended from a single individual came to remind the human beings of a lesson that should lie at the heart of the Commission’s deliberations: "we are all brothers and sisters; we must all be treated equally, for all of us, irrespective of race, religion or gender, are created in the divine image".
PAUL MBA ABESSOLE, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in charge of Human Rights of Gabon, said this meeting of the Commission as always gave the opportunity not only to reaffirm the universal and inviolable character of human rights, but also to make a reckoning of the action of each State in that field. Since 2002, when Gabon had last presented its progress in the institutional area and provided information on its signature and ratification of various international Conventions, significant progress in five areas had been made.
This progress included the publication of a White Book of Human Rights in Gabon; a human rights campaign that was currently taking place in the capital of the country; a campaign on the rights of the child, which took place in 2004; the creation of a National Independent Commission on human rights; and, the creation of a Ministry in Charge of the Fight Against Poverty and against Illicit Enrichment. Gabon was also planning other human rights advances, namely: to translate into seven local languages the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; to introduce human rights education into school programmes; and, to improve the standard of living of the people of Gabon in many ways.
Regarding the promotion and protection of human rights, Gabon dreamt of efficient collaboration with international institutions. Its calls on these institutions, as well as upon the so-called developed countries, often remained without answer. It was thought that a dynamic cooperation with them could allow Gabon to reach more rapidly its goal to install a true culture of human rights in that country. On the international level, there was concern for the tensions and wars that some regions of the world still knew. Dialogue was the best weapon in these situations, as it was the only thing that could reconcile antagonists and give them confidence in the future. War impeded development and trampled upon human rights. To impose the respect for human rights, it was necessary for all countries to come together and to adopt common strategies.
MARKKU NISKALA, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said the recent World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, had served as an opportunity to build a better understanding among Governments, international organizations, and civil society on the importance of community resilience -- the ability of communities to preserve their economic, social and cultural values even in times of the worst adversity -- which underpinned all effective work to prepare for and rebuild after disasters, and depended upon the ability of whole communities to work together without discrimination of any kind. For example, the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society had been managing the country’s Cyclone Preparedness Programme since 1972, and its activities reached every community in areas prone to cyclones, without distinction of ethnic background, gender, social status or any other element. As a result, Bangladesh had one of the world’s most effective disaster preparedness and response systems. Moreover, the strength of a community could be felt economically, with the empowerment of women and other marginalized populations contributing to growth and development.
Yet, whereas a strong commitment to improving the field of disaster management was evident, the same could not be said of the struggle against HIV/AIDS, he stated. No investment in treatment or medical care could reach the bulk of the most vulnerable without an active campaign against stigma and discrimination. This task encompassed vulnerability reduction in the fullest sense of the term. HIV/AIDS remained surrounded by an uninformed, yet powerful, stigma; commitments were frequently delivered in terms of aid programmes, the language of which implied that HIV/AIDS was something foreign, which happened to other people. However, one of the key outcomes of the September 2004 Pan-African Conference of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had been the adoption of the Algiers Plan of Action, which reinforced commitments already made in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Governments must now make a targeted commitment to work against HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases both at home and abroad. They must acknowledge that HIV/AIDS threatened all communities, as well as the economic, social and cultural world.
Noting that it was not possible for Governments to build community resilience in disaster situations or communities empowered through the removal of stigma without alliances and partnerships with the communities themselves, Mr. Niskala stressed the interdependence of all human rights -- civil, political, economic, social and cultural -- and that everyone, and every institution, had a responsibility to help secure a peaceful world in which people could live with dignity and prosperity. There was particular value in developing partnership opportunities between national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and national human rights institutions, and the International Federation stood ready to proceed with signing an agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to encourage such collaboration.
YURI V. FEDOTOV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said the past 60 years had witnessed the adoption of many human rights instruments both at the universal and regional levels, including those which had a binding nature. A system of international bodies and monitoring mechanisms had been created. Unfortunately, that complex and extremely indispensable system at times failed. As a result, the ones who suffered were people who were presumed to be its main beneficiaries. Measures should be taken for the effective and well coordinated functioning of that system, and what was most important – to ensure that it reacted adequately to contemporary threats and challenges in the field of promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms. The report and recommendations of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was an extremely timely and useful document. Russia supported and adhered to the goals stipulated in the report – to raise the authority of the Commission by eliminating double standards while solving human rights problems.
Past years had demonstrated that the international community had no right to under-estimate the threat of terrorism to human rights. Russia had declared on many occasions that it was ready and determined to develop and strengthen inter-state cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism, including in its human rights aspect. One of the concrete and noticeable steps in that direction was the adoption at the last session of the General Assembly of the resolution "Human Rights and Terrorism" that was initiated by Russia. Russia stood for an uncompromising and firm fight against any form and manifestation of terrorism. Any attempts to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists while manipulating public opinion had a negative impact on the process of consolidating the international anti-terrorist coalition. Misuse of human rights rhetoric for justifying terrorists contradicted legal, moral and ethical norms.
Discrimination against minorities, infringement of their rights, violation of basic principles of fair trial and other abuses – all of these constituted a breeding environment and a source of new conflict situations. If such practices were not eliminated, the consequences might be extremely serious. In that regard, Russia was concerned about the absolutely inadequate humanitarian situation prevailing in Latvia and Estonia – States, which had become members of the European Union that had declared a relatively high-level of observance of international human rights standards. Those countries should observe basic human rights norms, in particular in the field of minority rights. Massive statelessness among other factors continued to create a deficit of democracy.
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.
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.
PATRICK ANTHONY CHINAMASA, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said it was time that economic, social and cultural rights were put on an equal footing with civil and political rights. The Government of Zimbabwe was doing its best to ensure that its people were able to exercise their sacred right to vote freely and peacefully. The people of Zimbabwe had embarked on a protracted 15-year war to ensure that they enjoyed this right along with other fundamental freedoms. As a revolutionary Government, or rather as a people’s Government, it derived its legitimacy to govern from the mandate given by the people expressed regularly in democratic elections. There was utter contempt therefore for the preaching of the erstwhile colonisers and oppressors on the subjects of freedoms, human rights, good governance and the rule of law. Democracy was not an event but a process, and as a young country Zimbabwe was very proud of the achievements scored in the evolution of the democratic process in a very short time since independence in 1980.
It was most odd that foreign powers that had colonial vested interests in Zimbabwe should posture at the Commission and seek to lecture Zimbabwe on human rights. There was no surprise that the United Kingdom and some of its allies in the West should want to prejudge Zimbabwe’s elections as they knew that they had backed a losing horse over all these years. British interference in internal affairs commenced with their financing of the founding of the opposition party and had continued with their partisan hostile broadcasts beamed to the population of the country to sow dissent and lawlessness with the goal of unconstitutionally changing the Government. The enemies of Zimbabwe, led by the United Kingdom, would not succeed. Everything was being done to safeguard everyone’s human rights beyond the elections.
Zimbabwe was not perfect in human rights matters, but rejected vehemently lectures from those who disregarded international law and violated the territorial integrity of sovereign States. Zimbabwe was at one with the values espoused by the Commission, and humbly submitted that the fullest collective and critical attention be given to the exercise of change. With regards to the mooted new remit to report on the situation of human rights worldwide, this was problematical on many fronts. With regards to the perennial double standards, the spotlight was only and always discriminately turned on those countries which were perceived to be not in good favour with powerful countries. Zimbabwe had faced many challenges recently, but had not failed its people. It was committed to work for the betterment of human rights in its country, and well-wishers in the international community were welcome to assist.
DEOGRATIAS RUSENGWAMIHIGO, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Relations with the Parliament of Burundi, noted that there was not always common understanding of the many problems confronting humanity. Differences had arisen in inter-state relations in the areas of terrorism and the question of human rights and development; human rights and conflict prevention; economic, social and cultural rights; the growing disparity between developed and developing States; and approaches to gender, disease, poverty and hunger, among others. The principles of non-selectivity, impartiality, and objectivity must be joined with those of interdependence and universality in the application of human rights in order to create a common base of universal, and universally respected, human values. Rich States must help to strengthen the capacities of developing States to honour their commitments in the field of human rights.
For its own part, Burundi had experienced a period of internal crisis. However, significant steps had been taken to improve the situation. A ceasefire had been signed between the Government and the CNDD-FDD, and the cantonment, disarmament and reintegration of belligerents had begun under the national demobilization programme. An independent national electoral commission had been established, and the National Assembly had adopted the communal law and electoral code. The law on the establishment, mission and functions of the new National Defence Forces had come into effect, although it was regretted that the National Liberation Front remained outside the process. Moreover, a law for the establishment of a national truth and reconciliation commission had been elaborated. The approval of the Constitution by popular referendum on 28 February 2005 also constituted a major advance in the peace process.
However, in spite of Government efforts, infringements of human rights continued to be observed in the judicial system in Burundi, with the issues of impunity, prisoners, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention remaining sources of concern. Other recent violations had been witnessed including violence against women, rape, famine and disease, armed robberies and vigilantism. The Government continued to combat these scourges. In addition to other initiatives, the Government had consecrated 30 per cent of seats in the National Assembly, Senate and Governmental ministries to women, and had made similar arrangements for the indigenous population. Burundi retained its noble objectives with regard to human rights, and requested the assistance of the international community in achieving them.
AKMAL SAIDOV, Minister and Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said today a dynamic process of reforms in all fields of society, development of political and ideological pluralism, spiritual revival and affirmation of democratic values was taking place in Uzbekistan. A consecutive process of construction of a democratic legal State and formation of a civil society was going on. It was not possible to provide the irreversibility of democratic reforms without fundamental transformation of thinking and attitude towards democratic values, taking into account that during seven decades of the totalitarian Soviet regime, several generations were brought up in the spirit of absolute non-recognition of democratic values. Democratic processes in Uzbekistan had gained a progressive and irreversible nature.
Human rights issues had the priority position in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan. Great importance was attached to the realisation of international cooperation in the sphere of human rights. These efforts were carried out on the basis of fundamental principles and measures developed by the United Nations. International norms on human rights had a priority above national legislation. Multilateral dialogues with Member States opened for Uzbekistan huge opportunities to familiarise itself with invaluable democratic experience and the universal values of democracy and human rights gained by countries in the past through the uneasy path of democratic development on a way of establishment of a legal state and civil society.
The Commission was at a critical state of its development, since the experience and achieved results of its work created a foundation to speak about the accumulated problems in the activity of the Commission in the course of the United Nations reforms. For almost 60 years of its existence, the Commission was, as one of a few bodies, able to implement continuously the Charter objectives of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights. Uzbekistan was committed to the universally recognised principles and norms of international law on human rights, to consistently implement its international obligations in this area, and to deepen cooperation with all bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations.
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the United States, recalled United States President Bush’s statement, in his inaugural address, about the importance of ensuring human freedom, and stressed that there was an unmistakable link between human rights and democracy and peace. That quest for liberty was shared by people everywhere, and formed the bedrock on which the United Nations and its Commission on Human Rights were originally founded. All democratic governments on every continent, and all those who aspired to liberty, shared the belief in freedom. Democracy was on the march, as demonstrated by the recent Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine, and by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Palestinians in their recent elections. The people of Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries had raised their voices for democracy, free and fair elections, and the rights enjoyed by many throughout the world, as well.
Expressing pleasure with the response to the President’s call for establishment of a United Nations Democracy Fund, she noted that the United States was one of the many supporters of the Community of Democracies, an association of nations committed to democratic principles. The United States would take part in a democracy caucus during the present session of the Commission, which would act not as a bloc, but as a network of countries sharing a common commitment to freedom and democracy. The country would seek to advance a resolution on the freedom of association and the right of labour to organize.
Democracies should offer leadership in refocusing the Commission on its core mission, she concluded. Governments elected to membership, and which recognized their citizens’ rights at home, were in the best position to protect fundamental rights globally. A stop must be put to the trend of the world’s worst human rights abusers securing membership on the Commission in order to deflect criticism of their abuses at home. The United States did not support the recommendation to make membership of the Commission universal.
Right of Reply
PANKAJ SARAN (India), speaking in a right of reply, referred to the statement of Pakistan the day before. The issue needed to be seen in a correct perspective. Jammu and Kashmir were an integral and inalienable part of India, which as a transparent and democratic society had given the people of that area the right to exercise their democratic choice. The assertions made by the Minister of Pakistan were surprising and unacceptable. Furthermore, the two countries had signed the Simla agreement in 1972, which expressed the will to resolve issues through dialogue. There was no understanding of what benefit Pakistan could see in vitiating that dialogue in the context of the Commission. There could be no selective treatment of the issues involved. The sustained dialogue hinged on building an atmosphere of trust, and it was hoped that Pakistan would uphold its commitment to arrest all cross-border terrorists, as it had assured India it would do so. Pakistan was encouraged to join the rest of the world in a democratic spirit.
MANSOOR AHMAD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the Indian delegate had described Kashmir as an integral part of India, which ignored various legal realities, including United Nations resolutions calling on India to make the final decision on Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of the region’s people through a plebiscite. The fact that Jammu and Kashmir remained on the agenda of the composite dialogue between the two countries testified to its contested status. The people of Jammu and Kashmir remained subject to gross violations of human rights in their struggle for self-determination, and despite the ongoing composite dialogue, Indian authorities had continued the gross violation of human rights, and had even stepped them up. Pakistan remained committed to the composite dialogue for resolution of all issues between India and Pakistan, including self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/05/8 of 16 March, the Representative of Japan who exercised the right of reply of Japan twice at the end of the press release was misidentified. The correct name of the speaker is Ichiro Fujisaki.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
MORNING
17 March 2005
Representatives of Moldova, Paraguay, Israel, Gabon,
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Russian Federation, Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Burundi,
Uzbekistan and United States Take the Floor
The Commission on Human Rights this morning continued with its high-level segment, hearing addresses from representatives of Moldova, Paraguay, Israel, Gabon, the Russian Federation, Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Uzbekistan and the United States, as well as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Several speakers outlined national efforts to promote and protect human rights and raised issues concerning the reform of the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights, and terrorism.
Eugenia Kistruga, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Moldova, said Moldova shared the view that all of the global challenges facing the United Nations had a human rights dimension, whether they were the international response to terrorism, the existence of armed conflict in various parts of the world, the crisis of trafficking in people, the scourge of HIV/AIDS, or the continued existence of extreme poverty. These were trans-national issues that required multilateral engagement.
Jose Martinez Lezcano, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Paraguay, said that commitment to strengthening the protection and promotion of universal human rights constituted part of Paraguay's external policy. This had been demonstrated by Paraguay's compliance with human rights treaty monitoring bodies and special procedures of the Commission.
Aaron Leshno Yaar, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Israel, said a window of opportunity had opened for Israelis, Palestinians and all people of good faith interested in seeing improvements in the Middle East. That could mean the first step towards the Roadmap, the internationally recognized plan for the end of violence, renewing dialogue and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians leading towards the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.
Paul Mba Abessole, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in charge of Human Rights of Gabon, said the annual meeting of the Commission as always gave the opportunity not only to reaffirm the universal and inviolable character of human rights, but also to make a reckoning of the action of each State in that field. Since 2002, when Gabon had last presented its progress in the institutional area and provided information on its signature and ratification of various international Conventions, significant progress had been made.
Markku Niskala, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said whereas a strong commitment to improving the field of disaster management was evident, the same could not be said of the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Governments must now make a targeted commitment to work against HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases both at home and abroad. They must acknowledge that HIV/AIDS threatened all communities, as well as the economic, social and cultural world.
Yuri V. Fedotov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said past years had demonstrated that the international community had no right to underestimate the threat of terrorism to human rights. Russia had declared on many occasions that it was ready and determined to develop and strengthen inter-state cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism, including in its human rights aspect. Russia stood for an uncompromising and firm fight against any form and manifestation of terrorism.
Victorine Wodie, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, said Côte d’Ivoire had been 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 rebels. The attempt to change the regime had been condemned by the Security Council and the African Union. The armed groups were pillaging the raw materials of the country and had established parallel State functions in the areas they controlled.
Patrick Anthony Chinamasa, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said it was most odd that foreign powers that had colonial vested interests in Zimbabwe should posture at the Commission and seek to lecture Zimbabwe on human rights. There was no surprise that the United Kingdom and some of its allies in the West should want to prejudge Zimbabwe’s elections as they knew that they had backed a losing horse over all these years.
Deogratias Rusengwamihigo, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Relations with the Parliament of Burundi, said that Burundi had experienced a period of internal crisis, but added that significant steps had been taken to improve the situation. The approval of the Constitution by popular referendum on 28 February 2005 had also constituted a major advance in the peace process.
Akmal Saidov, Minister and Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said human rights issues had the priority position in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan. Great importance was attached to the realisation of international cooperation in the sphere of human rights. These efforts were carried out on the basis of fundamental principles and measures developed by the United Nations.
Paula Dobriansky, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the United States, said all democratic governments on every continent, and all those who aspired to liberty, shared the belief in freedom. Democracy was on the march, as demonstrated by the recent Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine, and by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Palestinians in their recent elections. The people of Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries had raised their voices for democracy, free and fair elections, and the rights enjoyed by many throughout the world, as well.
India and Pakistan exercised their right to reply.
When the Commission finished its morning meeting at 1 p.m., it immediately started a midday meeting until 3 p.m. to continue the high-level segment.
Statements
EUGENIA KISTRUGA, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Moldova, said Moldova shared the view that all of the global challenges facing the United Nations had a human rights dimension, whether they were the international response to terrorism, the existence of armed conflict in various parts of the world, the crisis of trafficking in people, the scourge of HIV/AIDS, or the continued existence of extreme poverty. These were trans-national issues that required multilateral engagement. In addressing them, it was crucial that the United Nations system, in particular the United Nations human rights institutions, operated with maximum effectiveness. As a global standard-setting institution, the Commission was regarded as a universal body to promote the respect for human rights worldwide, react and respond promptly to human rights violations and assist countries in strengthening their human rights capacity. The Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change had in its proposals explicitly one major goal - to increase the Commission’s capacity for performing effectively and ensuring that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights fulfilled its mandate and functions better. The report should therefore be given further consideration.
The primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights rested with national Governments, with civil society, media and non-governmental organizations playing an important role. One of the greatest challenges to the international community nowadays was to further devise effective responses to human rights violations. In this context, no efforts should be spared to make the best use of the mechanisms and instruments that have been created to promote and protect human rights and react firmly and decisively to violations, wherever they occurred. The international community had the responsibility to protect human rights and the responsibility to protect implied, above all, the responsibility to react to situations of compelling need for human protection. When preventive and legal measures failed to resolve the situation and when a State was unable or restrained to redress the situation, intervention measures by other members of a broader community of States was required. These measures, coercive and proportionate, could include political, economic or judicial measures towards those responsible for human rights violations.
The Commission, in order to remain credible, should strive to end human rights violations wherever they occurred. The prevention of gross violations of human rights could serve also to prevent conflict. The Commission was the body mandated to bring to the attention of the international community issues of fundamental concern regarding the promotion and protection of human rights. All should work together to ensure that the Commission met the responsibility entrusted to it by the countries of the United Nations. Commission members should ensure that they acted collectively in the best interests of human rights. This was a serious and vital challenge.
JOSE MARTINEZ LEZCANO, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Paraguay, said that the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change could contribute a positive focus to the Commission, particularly regarding the drafting of a global human rights report, and the question of the universal membership of the Commission. However, the structural reforms required would only be feasible to the extent that States generated trust in the recommendations. Approaching the end of its first mandate as a member of the Commission, Paraguay had decided to put forward its candidacy for a second mandate, from 2007 to 2009. Additionally, he called upon the international community to cooperate in the criminal prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Cecilia Cubas, and the kidnapping of Maria Estela Vargas.
Commitment to strengthening the protection and promotion of universal human rights constituted part of Paraguay's external policy, the Vice-Minister stated, and had been demonstrated by its compliance with human rights treaty monitoring bodies and special procedures of the Commission. Among other steps, the national Government had received the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in children, child prostitution and child pornography as an important contribution to the process of strengthening the rights of children. A national policy against the sexual exploitation of children had been elaborated, and a report on the phenomenon had been drafted. Also attaching particular interest to the promotion of women’s rights, Paraguay had presented its fourth and fifth reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women this year, and had set up an intersectoral bureau to address the issue of trafficking in women.
Finally, the Vice-Minister of Paraguay noted that the right to truth continued to be sought urgently by those countries that had suffered human rights abuses in the past. To honour the thousands who had been disappeared, MERCOSUR would give vigorous support to the draft resolution on the right to truth to be submitted to the Commission by Argentina. This issue was of particular concern for the Government which had established a National Truth and Justice Commission in 2003 to investigate and clarify abuses under the military dictatorship, from 1954 to 1989, and right up to 2003. The Government of Paraguay had also asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to sit in Asuncion in May 2004, as a measure to bring such human rights bodies closer to their Member States.
AARON LESHNO YAAR, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Israel and Head of the United Nations and International Organizations Division, recalled that last year, the Commission had included a rejection of anti-Semitism within a few of its resolutions. That had been an important step to counter this severe threat. Events of the past year had emphasized the connection between the horrors of the Holocaust and the founding of the United Nations. Similarly, the Berlin Declaration against anti-Semitism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of 29 April 2004 had included a series of binding commitments for Members States to take action through the collection of data on anti-Semitic incidents and the promotion of educational initiatives to counteract anti-Jewish sentiment, prejudice and bigotry. The Commission should take upon itself the messages of those events and make their words and lessons part of its dialogue.
Recent events in the Middle East had offered some real hope for progress. A window of opportunity had opened for Israelis, Palestinians and all people of good faith interested in seeing improvements in the region. That could mean the first steps towards the Roadmap, the internationally recognized plan for the end of violence, renewing dialogue and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians leading towards the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security. In recent months, Israel had initiated a significant number of steps to improve the situation for Israelis and Palestinians alike. At this unique and sensitive time in relations between Israel and Palestinians, it was crucial that the international community act responsibly by encouraging and strengthening that positive process, to ensure that the reality in the region was reflected in the work of the Commission.
Israel, as a homeland to survivors of persecution, had an inherent deep respect for human rights. In Hebrew, the term for human rights was "z'chuyot Adam", literally “the rights of Adam”. The reference to Adam was significant – a reminder that all had a common ancestor. According to Jewish tradition, the fact that all mankind were descended from a single individual came to remind the human beings of a lesson that should lie at the heart of the Commission’s deliberations: "we are all brothers and sisters; we must all be treated equally, for all of us, irrespective of race, religion or gender, are created in the divine image".
PAUL MBA ABESSOLE, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in charge of Human Rights of Gabon, said this meeting of the Commission as always gave the opportunity not only to reaffirm the universal and inviolable character of human rights, but also to make a reckoning of the action of each State in that field. Since 2002, when Gabon had last presented its progress in the institutional area and provided information on its signature and ratification of various international Conventions, significant progress in five areas had been made.
This progress included the publication of a White Book of Human Rights in Gabon; a human rights campaign that was currently taking place in the capital of the country; a campaign on the rights of the child, which took place in 2004; the creation of a National Independent Commission on human rights; and, the creation of a Ministry in Charge of the Fight Against Poverty and against Illicit Enrichment. Gabon was also planning other human rights advances, namely: to translate into seven local languages the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; to introduce human rights education into school programmes; and, to improve the standard of living of the people of Gabon in many ways.
Regarding the promotion and protection of human rights, Gabon dreamt of efficient collaboration with international institutions. Its calls on these institutions, as well as upon the so-called developed countries, often remained without answer. It was thought that a dynamic cooperation with them could allow Gabon to reach more rapidly its goal to install a true culture of human rights in that country. On the international level, there was concern for the tensions and wars that some regions of the world still knew. Dialogue was the best weapon in these situations, as it was the only thing that could reconcile antagonists and give them confidence in the future. War impeded development and trampled upon human rights. To impose the respect for human rights, it was necessary for all countries to come together and to adopt common strategies.
MARKKU NISKALA, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said the recent World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, had served as an opportunity to build a better understanding among Governments, international organizations, and civil society on the importance of community resilience -- the ability of communities to preserve their economic, social and cultural values even in times of the worst adversity -- which underpinned all effective work to prepare for and rebuild after disasters, and depended upon the ability of whole communities to work together without discrimination of any kind. For example, the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society had been managing the country’s Cyclone Preparedness Programme since 1972, and its activities reached every community in areas prone to cyclones, without distinction of ethnic background, gender, social status or any other element. As a result, Bangladesh had one of the world’s most effective disaster preparedness and response systems. Moreover, the strength of a community could be felt economically, with the empowerment of women and other marginalized populations contributing to growth and development.
Yet, whereas a strong commitment to improving the field of disaster management was evident, the same could not be said of the struggle against HIV/AIDS, he stated. No investment in treatment or medical care could reach the bulk of the most vulnerable without an active campaign against stigma and discrimination. This task encompassed vulnerability reduction in the fullest sense of the term. HIV/AIDS remained surrounded by an uninformed, yet powerful, stigma; commitments were frequently delivered in terms of aid programmes, the language of which implied that HIV/AIDS was something foreign, which happened to other people. However, one of the key outcomes of the September 2004 Pan-African Conference of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had been the adoption of the Algiers Plan of Action, which reinforced commitments already made in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Governments must now make a targeted commitment to work against HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases both at home and abroad. They must acknowledge that HIV/AIDS threatened all communities, as well as the economic, social and cultural world.
Noting that it was not possible for Governments to build community resilience in disaster situations or communities empowered through the removal of stigma without alliances and partnerships with the communities themselves, Mr. Niskala stressed the interdependence of all human rights -- civil, political, economic, social and cultural -- and that everyone, and every institution, had a responsibility to help secure a peaceful world in which people could live with dignity and prosperity. There was particular value in developing partnership opportunities between national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and national human rights institutions, and the International Federation stood ready to proceed with signing an agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to encourage such collaboration.
YURI V. FEDOTOV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said the past 60 years had witnessed the adoption of many human rights instruments both at the universal and regional levels, including those which had a binding nature. A system of international bodies and monitoring mechanisms had been created. Unfortunately, that complex and extremely indispensable system at times failed. As a result, the ones who suffered were people who were presumed to be its main beneficiaries. Measures should be taken for the effective and well coordinated functioning of that system, and what was most important – to ensure that it reacted adequately to contemporary threats and challenges in the field of promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms. The report and recommendations of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was an extremely timely and useful document. Russia supported and adhered to the goals stipulated in the report – to raise the authority of the Commission by eliminating double standards while solving human rights problems.
Past years had demonstrated that the international community had no right to under-estimate the threat of terrorism to human rights. Russia had declared on many occasions that it was ready and determined to develop and strengthen inter-state cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism, including in its human rights aspect. One of the concrete and noticeable steps in that direction was the adoption at the last session of the General Assembly of the resolution "Human Rights and Terrorism" that was initiated by Russia. Russia stood for an uncompromising and firm fight against any form and manifestation of terrorism. Any attempts to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists while manipulating public opinion had a negative impact on the process of consolidating the international anti-terrorist coalition. Misuse of human rights rhetoric for justifying terrorists contradicted legal, moral and ethical norms.
Discrimination against minorities, infringement of their rights, violation of basic principles of fair trial and other abuses – all of these constituted a breeding environment and a source of new conflict situations. If such practices were not eliminated, the consequences might be extremely serious. In that regard, Russia was concerned about the absolutely inadequate humanitarian situation prevailing in Latvia and Estonia – States, which had become members of the European Union that had declared a relatively high-level of observance of international human rights standards. Those countries should observe basic human rights norms, in particular in the field of minority rights. Massive statelessness among other factors continued to create a deficit of democracy.
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.
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.
PATRICK ANTHONY CHINAMASA, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said it was time that economic, social and cultural rights were put on an equal footing with civil and political rights. The Government of Zimbabwe was doing its best to ensure that its people were able to exercise their sacred right to vote freely and peacefully. The people of Zimbabwe had embarked on a protracted 15-year war to ensure that they enjoyed this right along with other fundamental freedoms. As a revolutionary Government, or rather as a people’s Government, it derived its legitimacy to govern from the mandate given by the people expressed regularly in democratic elections. There was utter contempt therefore for the preaching of the erstwhile colonisers and oppressors on the subjects of freedoms, human rights, good governance and the rule of law. Democracy was not an event but a process, and as a young country Zimbabwe was very proud of the achievements scored in the evolution of the democratic process in a very short time since independence in 1980.
It was most odd that foreign powers that had colonial vested interests in Zimbabwe should posture at the Commission and seek to lecture Zimbabwe on human rights. There was no surprise that the United Kingdom and some of its allies in the West should want to prejudge Zimbabwe’s elections as they knew that they had backed a losing horse over all these years. British interference in internal affairs commenced with their financing of the founding of the opposition party and had continued with their partisan hostile broadcasts beamed to the population of the country to sow dissent and lawlessness with the goal of unconstitutionally changing the Government. The enemies of Zimbabwe, led by the United Kingdom, would not succeed. Everything was being done to safeguard everyone’s human rights beyond the elections.
Zimbabwe was not perfect in human rights matters, but rejected vehemently lectures from those who disregarded international law and violated the territorial integrity of sovereign States. Zimbabwe was at one with the values espoused by the Commission, and humbly submitted that the fullest collective and critical attention be given to the exercise of change. With regards to the mooted new remit to report on the situation of human rights worldwide, this was problematical on many fronts. With regards to the perennial double standards, the spotlight was only and always discriminately turned on those countries which were perceived to be not in good favour with powerful countries. Zimbabwe had faced many challenges recently, but had not failed its people. It was committed to work for the betterment of human rights in its country, and well-wishers in the international community were welcome to assist.
DEOGRATIAS RUSENGWAMIHIGO, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Relations with the Parliament of Burundi, noted that there was not always common understanding of the many problems confronting humanity. Differences had arisen in inter-state relations in the areas of terrorism and the question of human rights and development; human rights and conflict prevention; economic, social and cultural rights; the growing disparity between developed and developing States; and approaches to gender, disease, poverty and hunger, among others. The principles of non-selectivity, impartiality, and objectivity must be joined with those of interdependence and universality in the application of human rights in order to create a common base of universal, and universally respected, human values. Rich States must help to strengthen the capacities of developing States to honour their commitments in the field of human rights.
For its own part, Burundi had experienced a period of internal crisis. However, significant steps had been taken to improve the situation. A ceasefire had been signed between the Government and the CNDD-FDD, and the cantonment, disarmament and reintegration of belligerents had begun under the national demobilization programme. An independent national electoral commission had been established, and the National Assembly had adopted the communal law and electoral code. The law on the establishment, mission and functions of the new National Defence Forces had come into effect, although it was regretted that the National Liberation Front remained outside the process. Moreover, a law for the establishment of a national truth and reconciliation commission had been elaborated. The approval of the Constitution by popular referendum on 28 February 2005 also constituted a major advance in the peace process.
However, in spite of Government efforts, infringements of human rights continued to be observed in the judicial system in Burundi, with the issues of impunity, prisoners, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention remaining sources of concern. Other recent violations had been witnessed including violence against women, rape, famine and disease, armed robberies and vigilantism. The Government continued to combat these scourges. In addition to other initiatives, the Government had consecrated 30 per cent of seats in the National Assembly, Senate and Governmental ministries to women, and had made similar arrangements for the indigenous population. Burundi retained its noble objectives with regard to human rights, and requested the assistance of the international community in achieving them.
AKMAL SAIDOV, Minister and Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said today a dynamic process of reforms in all fields of society, development of political and ideological pluralism, spiritual revival and affirmation of democratic values was taking place in Uzbekistan. A consecutive process of construction of a democratic legal State and formation of a civil society was going on. It was not possible to provide the irreversibility of democratic reforms without fundamental transformation of thinking and attitude towards democratic values, taking into account that during seven decades of the totalitarian Soviet regime, several generations were brought up in the spirit of absolute non-recognition of democratic values. Democratic processes in Uzbekistan had gained a progressive and irreversible nature.
Human rights issues had the priority position in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan. Great importance was attached to the realisation of international cooperation in the sphere of human rights. These efforts were carried out on the basis of fundamental principles and measures developed by the United Nations. International norms on human rights had a priority above national legislation. Multilateral dialogues with Member States opened for Uzbekistan huge opportunities to familiarise itself with invaluable democratic experience and the universal values of democracy and human rights gained by countries in the past through the uneasy path of democratic development on a way of establishment of a legal state and civil society.
The Commission was at a critical state of its development, since the experience and achieved results of its work created a foundation to speak about the accumulated problems in the activity of the Commission in the course of the United Nations reforms. For almost 60 years of its existence, the Commission was, as one of a few bodies, able to implement continuously the Charter objectives of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights. Uzbekistan was committed to the universally recognised principles and norms of international law on human rights, to consistently implement its international obligations in this area, and to deepen cooperation with all bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations.
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the United States, recalled United States President Bush’s statement, in his inaugural address, about the importance of ensuring human freedom, and stressed that there was an unmistakable link between human rights and democracy and peace. That quest for liberty was shared by people everywhere, and formed the bedrock on which the United Nations and its Commission on Human Rights were originally founded. All democratic governments on every continent, and all those who aspired to liberty, shared the belief in freedom. Democracy was on the march, as demonstrated by the recent Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine, and by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Palestinians in their recent elections. The people of Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries had raised their voices for democracy, free and fair elections, and the rights enjoyed by many throughout the world, as well.
Expressing pleasure with the response to the President’s call for establishment of a United Nations Democracy Fund, she noted that the United States was one of the many supporters of the Community of Democracies, an association of nations committed to democratic principles. The United States would take part in a democracy caucus during the present session of the Commission, which would act not as a bloc, but as a network of countries sharing a common commitment to freedom and democracy. The country would seek to advance a resolution on the freedom of association and the right of labour to organize.
Democracies should offer leadership in refocusing the Commission on its core mission, she concluded. Governments elected to membership, and which recognized their citizens’ rights at home, were in the best position to protect fundamental rights globally. A stop must be put to the trend of the world’s worst human rights abusers securing membership on the Commission in order to deflect criticism of their abuses at home. The United States did not support the recommendation to make membership of the Commission universal.
Right of Reply
PANKAJ SARAN (India), speaking in a right of reply, referred to the statement of Pakistan the day before. The issue needed to be seen in a correct perspective. Jammu and Kashmir were an integral and inalienable part of India, which as a transparent and democratic society had given the people of that area the right to exercise their democratic choice. The assertions made by the Minister of Pakistan were surprising and unacceptable. Furthermore, the two countries had signed the Simla agreement in 1972, which expressed the will to resolve issues through dialogue. There was no understanding of what benefit Pakistan could see in vitiating that dialogue in the context of the Commission. There could be no selective treatment of the issues involved. The sustained dialogue hinged on building an atmosphere of trust, and it was hoped that Pakistan would uphold its commitment to arrest all cross-border terrorists, as it had assured India it would do so. Pakistan was encouraged to join the rest of the world in a democratic spirit.
MANSOOR AHMAD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the Indian delegate had described Kashmir as an integral part of India, which ignored various legal realities, including United Nations resolutions calling on India to make the final decision on Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of the region’s people through a plebiscite. The fact that Jammu and Kashmir remained on the agenda of the composite dialogue between the two countries testified to its contested status. The people of Jammu and Kashmir remained subject to gross violations of human rights in their struggle for self-determination, and despite the ongoing composite dialogue, Indian authorities had continued the gross violation of human rights, and had even stepped them up. Pakistan remained committed to the composite dialogue for resolution of all issues between India and Pakistan, including self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/05/8 of 16 March, the Representative of Japan who exercised the right of reply of Japan twice at the end of the press release was misidentified. The correct name of the speaker is Ichiro Fujisaki.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: