COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS SITUATION IN MALAWI

Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
63rd session
19 August 2003
Morning






The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning considered the situation in Malawi under its review procedure. Malawi has not submitted a report since its accession to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1996.

Committee Experts, including Luis Valencia Rodriguez, the group’s country Rapporteur for Malawi, raised a series of questions, including whether the Committee should ask the Government of Malawi why it continued to neglect the requests of the Committee for a report; what would be the best strategy for overcoming the resistance of Malawi to presenting a report; and how to help the State party, either by urging it to seek technical assistance or by the dispatch of members of the Committee to help the country draw up the report.

Taking part in the debate were Committee Experts Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Morten Kjaerum, Régis de Gouttes, Mohamed Aly Thiam, Nourredine Amir, Jose Augusto Lindgren Alves, Alexei S. Avtonomov, Agha Shahi, Chengyuan Tang, Kurt Herndl and Ion Diaconnu (speaking as Expert).

During the debate, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr requested that the Committee adopt a resolution referring to the several countries that have been States parties to the International Convention for a significant amount of time and yet have not submitted any reports. The Committee then discussed manners of providing assistance and encouragement to non-reporting countries in order to encourage and enable them to fulfill their reporting obligations.

The observations and recommendations on Malawi will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 22 August.

As one of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, Malawi must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to eradicate racial discrimination.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hold a meeting with the States parties to the International Convention.


Discussion

LUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ, Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for Malawi, said Malawi acceded to the International Convention in 1996 and had never submitted any reports. According to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the situation in States parties had to be examined on the basis of reports submitted from the State party, or reports from other treaty bodies, United Nations organizations and non-governmental organizations. The population of Malawi was approximately 12 million, and it was made up of various ethnic groups spread across the country. There were also nationals from Europe and Asia involved in commercial activity, and 12,000 refugees had been received.

Discrimination was forbidden in the Constitution on many grounds including disability, colour, ethnic origin and religion. There was no specific law forbidding racial or other kinds of discrimination. It was worth pointing out the socio-economic situation of the country, which affected minority groups. Sixty percent of the population was made up of the poor, with an income of $ 40 annually. Two thirds of people lived on the land, below the poverty line, and approximately fifty per cent of children suffered from malnutrition. Those in the rural sectors, particularly in places where there were women heads of households, suffered from poverty. Agriculture was the main source of income, and thus drought and other factors interfered in regular income. A programme had been set up for poverty reduction, aimed at increasing productivity and the incomes of small farms, with the aim of increasing employment, but economic restrictions made this aim unrealistic.

Illiteracy amongst adults was quite high, with 56 per cent of women and 27 per cent of men over the age of 15 illiterate. Women suffered from discriminatory practices, particularly expressed in violence against them. Wages received by women were lower than those received by men. Inheritance practices were also discriminatory. Women occupied posts in the public administration and in the armed forces as non-combatants. Levels of education were deficient, with only 15 per cent of students reaching secondary level. This deficiency implied that young people were not able to get good jobs in industry or manufacturing, and the poor from rural areas did not have the training to carry out even elementary tasks. Birth registry was not indispensable, except for non-African children. The health services could not cope with the needs of the population, and the average life expectancy was very low. Similarly, the HIV/AIDS pandemic had considerably affected the population, as had the lack of access to safe drinking water.

While in general the Government respected the human rights of its citizens, there had been problems in several regions including abuses by the police and negligence or violence on their part, with consequent loss of life. Prison conditions were severe, and this had also led to loss of life. There was an Ombudsman who was responsible for overseeing action against public officials who had infringed on human rights, but his activities had been limited. A law prohibiting discrimination in the work place, recently adopted, was significant. Refugees had, as a whole, been treated well, with the provision of basic services and education.

Concluding, Mr. Rodriguez said it was doubtless that the difficult socio-economic factors and widespread poverty made it difficult to apply the International Convention fully in Malawi. Coordinated efforts were required from both Malawi and the international community. Malawi should submit its reports on compliance with the International Convention, and should make use of the support provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Legislation should be passed forbidding racial discrimination as stipulated in the International Convention. A recommendation should be made to the Government to disseminate information on the International Convention in minority languages and to make sure the information reached these groups. Law enforcement officials should be provided with further training in order to foster sympathy between the different ethnic groups.

Other members of the Committee then made comments and addressed assorted issues, including whether the Committee should ask the Government of Malawi why it continued to neglect the requests of the Committee for a report; whether the Committee should stop wasting time on trying to discuss the situation in a country that did not wish to communicate or provide information; what would be the best strategy for overcoming the resistance of Malawi to presenting a report; the need to reassure Malawi that technical assistance could be provided in drawing up the necessary report; how to help the State party, either by urging it to seek technical assistance or by the dispatch of members of the Committee to help the country draw up the report; and whether to draft a letter that would seek a solution of appeasement with Malawi.

The Committee also noted the tragic situation in the country, and that it had made steps forward in a democratic spirit in the recent past, although this progress had recently come under attack.

During the debate, MAHMOUD ABOUL-NASR requested that the Committee adopt a resolution referring to the several countries who had been States parties to the International Convention for a significant amount of time and yet had not submitted an initial report, and which drew the attention of the General Assembly to this point. Other members of the Committee supported this suggestion. REGIS DE GOUTTES suggested that a pedagogical attitude might be taken which provided assistance to Malawi, and that this could be combined with Mr. Aboul-Nasr’s suggestion.

NOURREDINE AMIR noted that those States that had not submitted a report were mostly countries facing difficult situations, and there was a need to maintain a dialogue with these countries. A letter should be drafted to the Secretariat, defining the problem, and asking what were the reasons impeding a dialogue between the countries and the Committee, and only following this could the suggestion of Mr. de Gouttes be implemented, since that would keep the dialogue alive.

JOSE AUGUSTO LINDGREN ALVES noted that there were three paths that could be followed. Firstly, to abandon all attempts to communicate with the countries which had not submitted reports, but this was not a good path, and instead a letter could be sent as suggested by other Experts. Secondly, that an Expert be sent to the country, not necessarily a Committee Expert, but an Expert from the Secretariat, who could explain reporting obligations. Thirdly, they could send a message through the General Assembly, but that would be useless, and therefore it would be a pointless exercise.

ALEXEI S. AVTONOMOV pointed out that there were also many other countries that had not submitted a report for a long period, although they had submitted initial reports. Before administrative measures were taken, there was a need to re-establish contact, not just through correspondence, but in a more ongoing manner through the Secretariat.

MARIO JORGE YUTZIS proposed that the Committee follow a case-by-case basis to deal with States that had not reported, thus attempting to establish a dialogue. He suggested a note be sent to the Government of Malawi, drawing attention to the requirement to report, and that all necessary conditions should be met to indicate as clearly as possible that this was linked to the technical assistance services. A dialogue should be established with the Mission to show the readiness and will of the Committee to maintain communication. The support of the High Commissioner should be sought.

AGHA SHAHI suggested that the non-reporting countries should be treated in the same manner as reporting countries, noting that many reports received contained limited information, and that conclusions on this topic should be submitted to the countries concerned as well as submitted to the State parties, thus putting pressure on the non-reporting countries. The reports of the States parties should not be relied on to provide all information, and thus the Committee would not have to wait for the reporting countries to initiate a dialogue. The Committee should be independent of the State party, he said. CHENGYUAN TANG noted that some countries were simply uninterested in maintaining a dialogue with the Committee, and suggested the Chairman write to the heads of Government of these countries reminding them of the need to fulfill their obligations. KURT HERNDL supported this need to establish contact with the Governments of the countries involved. ION DIACONNU, speaking as a Committee Expert, noted that the extraordinary procedure of consideration without a report should not be commonplace.




* *** *