Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases
Default title
07 November 2000
Share
Fifty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
7 November 2000
50th Meeting (PM)
Humanitarian assistance to refugees was an international responsibility, rather than an act of charity, the representative of Mali said this afternoon, as he called for a stemming of armed conflicts to eradicate the root causes behind refugees flows. He was addressing the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) as it met to take up issues related to refugees, including the High Commissioner's report. Also this afternoon, the Committee heard the introduction of 17 resolutions regarding a range of its mandated concerns.
Mali's representative continued by saying 90 per cent of disaster victims lived in developing countries. Africa, in particular, needed much more support in terms of logistic and financial assistance.
Three main aspects of humanitarian assistance to refugees should serve as a focal point for international action, he said. Assistance should be realistically adequate to needs, international law should be promoted, and questions should be asked about when humanitarian interventions seemed needed. Since that decision should be made by the United Nations, the practical mechanisms and resources needed to be better coordinated and regulated by the United Nations. Also, the close link between refugee assistance and development should be explored.
The representative of China said both the symptoms and root causes should be addressed to resolve the problem of refugees. To eliminate the root causes, countries should abide by the principles of respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Countries of origin, those of asylum and settlement, as well as donor countries, should supply each other with resources in a spirit of cooperation. Existing problems should be resolved through the principle of international solidarity and burden-sharing.
The representative of India said that, regrettably, the well recognized principles of international solidarity and burden-sharing were often flouted by rich countries. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had noted repeatedly that the quality of asylum was deteriorating. Refugees found themselves faced with restrictive practices such as border closures, interdiction at sea, prolonged detention or even expulsion. While the natural inclination of societies to preserve their own prosperity was understood, building walls to shut out refugees was not the solution.
On the related issue of migrants' status, the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said the national groups of the Federation were increasingly concerned with problems stemming from policy confusion about migrants. Sometimes they were treated as asylum-seekers and sometimes not, but they had become especially vulnerable at a time when developed countries were wrestling with restricting immigration while filling talent gaps in their own country's economic mix. Restriction had led to a sharp growth in criminality and people-smuggling, but talent-scouting had also led to problems with talent-drain in developing countries.
The 17 resolutions introduced this afternoon began with one on the enlargement of the UNHCR programme's Executive Committee, which Mexico introduced, and one on the issue of human rights and cultural diversity, introduced by Iran. Mexico also introduced a resolution on protecting migrants, as well as a resolution proclaiming 18 December as International Migrant's Day.
Australia introduced a draft text on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004). Japan introduced one on human rights in Cambodia. Romania introduced a text on promoting and consolidating democracy, while Ireland introduced a draft on eliminating religious intolerance.
A resolution on strengthening the role of law was introduced by Brazil, one on respect for the right of freedom to travel was introduced by Cuba, while a draft on human rights and scientific progress was introduced by Belarus. Cuba then introduced a resolution on strengthening action in the field of human rights, Belgium introduced one on regional arrangements for promoting and protecting rights, and Peru introduced one on rights and extreme poverty. Botswana introduced a number of drafts, one on the right to development, one on cooperation in human rights and, finally, one on rights and unilateral coercive measures. Finally, Sweden introduced a draft on human rights in Myanmar.
Also addressing the Committee this afternoon were the representatives of Angola, Nepal, Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador and Austria.
The representatives of Iran, China and Ireland spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 8 November, to continue considering issues related to refugees, including the High Commissioner's report and humanitarian aspects, as well as returnees and displaced persons.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue considering issues related to refugees, including the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees and questions related to refugees, returnees and displaced persons, as well as humanitarian questions. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3616 of 6 November.)
In addition, the Committee has before it a number of resolutions expected to be introduced.
A draft resolution on enlarging the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.21) would have the Assembly decide to enlarge the membership of that Committee from 57 to 58 States. The Assembly would request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional member at its resumed organizational session for 2001.
By a resolution on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/55/L.34), the Assembly would affirm the importance for all people and nations to hold, develop and preserve their cultural heritage and traditions in a national and international atmosphere of peace, tolerance and mutual respect. It would also affirm that the international community should ensure that the phenomenon of globalization promoted respect for cultural diversity. It would further affirm that inter-cultural dialogue enriched the universality of human rights and that manifestations of cultural prejudice and intolerance generated hatred. Emphasizing that promotion of cultural pluralism and tolerance was important for enhancing respect for cultural rights, the Assembly would call on the international community to recognize and promote respect for cultural diversity in order to advance peace, development and human rights. It would ask the Secretary-General to report on the phenomenon at the Assembly's next session.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Bahrain, Benin, Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Iran, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates.
The Assembly would decide to proclaim 18 December as International Migrant's Day, by a draft resolution on that issue (document A/C.3/55/L.36), which would also ask the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of all governments and appropriate intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
The resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.
A draft resolution on the Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004) and public information activities for human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.37) would take note with appreciation of the High Commissioner's report on the Decade's midterm evaluation. It would urge governments to implement the Programme of Action and to encourage, support and involve national and local non-governmental and community-based organizations in implementing it. Further, it would encourage the Office of the High Commissioner to support national capacity for human rights education activities, and would urge the Department of Public Information (DPI) to utilize Information Centres for the purpose. It would stress the importance of coordination and collaboration between the United Nations system and all actors.
The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Malta, Monaco, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Tanzania, United States and Venezuela.
The Assembly would note with concern the continuing problems related to the role of law and the functioning of the judiciary by a draft text on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/55/L.39). It would urge the Government to take the necessary measures to develop an effective judicial system, including by adopting the draft statute on magistrates, a penal code and a code on criminal procedures. It would also urge reform of the administration of justice, appealing for international assistance to help achieve that.
Further by the draft, the Assembly would express serious concern about the prevalence of impunity in Cambodia, and would note with serious concern the problem of child labour in its worst forms and the condition of prisons. The Assembly would express grave concern about continued violations of human rights and about the devastating consequences and destabilizing effect of anti-personnel landmines in Cambodian society. It would express concern about the large number of small arms, while commending the Government's efforts to curb them. Finally, the Assembly would urge an end to racial violence and vilification of ethnic minorities, asking the Secretary-General to report on progress.
The resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway and Romania.
The Assembly would call on States to promote and consolidate democracy by a large number of measures, according to a resolution on that matter (document A/C.3/55/L.40). Those would include initiatives to promote pluralism and respect for human rights, strengthening the rule of law, implementing free and fair electoral systems and legal frameworks, good governance, the promotion of sustainable development, enhancing social cohesion and solidarity, and strengthening capabilities. It would also ask the Secretary-General to disseminate the present resolution.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.
By a draft on eliminating all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41), the Assembly would urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provided guarantees for freedom of thoughts, conscience, religion and belief, including by providing for effective remedies in instances of violation. The Assembly would also urge that no one within a State's jurisdiction be deprived of those rights, further urging States to take actions preventing such deprivations. All States would be urged to combat intolerance and acts of violence, as well as to educate public officials against discrimination based on religion or belief. The Assembly would emphasize that restrictions on the right to manifest beliefs should be proscribed only to protect the public welfare, and would express grave concern at any attack upon religious places, sites and shrines. Finally, it would request a number of coordinating steps from the United Nations system, deciding to keep the question under review.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Monaco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Sates and Venezuela.
A draft on strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/55/L.44) would have the Assembly express its deep concern at the scarcity of means at the disposal of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for fulfilling its tasks. It would note with concern that the Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in Human Rights did not have sufficient funds to assist national projects. It would welcome cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner and the others of the United Nations system with regard to the rule of law, affirming the High Commissioner as the focal point for coordinating system-wide attention to the issue. Finally, the Assembly would encourage initiatives for further efforts.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
A draft on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/55/L.45) would have the Assembly call on States to guarantee that right for all foreign nationals residing in their territory. It would call on them to allow the free flow of financial remittances and to refrain from legislation intended as a coercive measure discriminating against migrants.
The draft is sponsored by Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Ghana.
A resolution on strengthening action in the field of human rights through promotion of cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/55/L.53) would have the Assembly express the conviction that an unbiased approach to human rights issues contributes to promoting both cooperation and securing of those rights. In that context, the Assembly would stress the need for impartial and objective information on the political, economic and social situations and events of all countries. It would invite States to adopt measures promoting cooperation in encouraging respect for human rights and would request the Commission on Human Rights to consider proposals for strengthening action in the field of human rights.
The resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The Assembly would stress the importance of the programme of technical cooperation in the field of human rights by a resolution on regional arrangements for promoting and protecting human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.54). Further, the Assembly would renew its appeal to governments to make use of that programme's offerings in organizing national information or training courses for government personnel on applying the international human rights standards and experience. It would recall and note with interest the regional mechanisms already in place for promoting human rights, and would invite States in areas without such mechanisms to conclude agreements leading to regional machinery for protecting human rights. It would ask the Secretary-General to strengthen exchanges between the United Nations and regional intergovernmental organizations concerned with human rights, also asking him to make available resources from the regular budget of technical cooperation to fund activities of the Office of the High Commissioner intended to promote regional arrangements. Finally, it would ask the Commission on Human Rights to assist countries and offer recommendations, asking the Secretary-General to report on regional arrangements at the Assembly's fifty-seventh session.
Sponsors of the resolution are Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
The Assembly would reaffirm that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity by a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/C.3/55/L.55). Further, the Assembly would reaffirm that national and international action was required to eliminate those ills, reaffirming also that States must foster participation by the poorest in the decision-making processes of their societies, particularly in the planning and implementing of policies enabling them to become partners in development. The Assembly would emphasize that extreme poverty was a major issue to be addressed by all elements of the international community, and would reaffirm that since widespread absolute poverty rendered democracy fragile, the commitments on development and poverty eradication contained in the Millennium Declaration were also reaffirmed. Inviting the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give attention to the question within the framework of implementing the Decade for eradicating poverty (1997-2006), the Assembly would call upon States and the United Nations system to consider the links between human rights and extreme poverty. Finally, the Assembly would decide to consider the question further at its fifty-seventh session.
The resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
A resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/55/L.57) would have the Assembly reiterate that the essence of that right was the principle that the human person was the central subject of development, and that the right to life included the minimum necessities of life. It would also reiterate that widespread absolute poverty inhibited the enjoyment of human rights and that for peace and stability to endure, national and international action and cooperation were required to eradicate poverty. The Assembly would reaffirm a large number of tenets about democracy, development and respect for human rights, and would welcome the holding of the first session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, encouraging the second session scheduled for January 2001. The Assembly would take note of coordination mechanisms and initiatives within the United Nations system for promoting implementation of the right to development, also urging support for implementing the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights regarding the right to development.
The draft is sponsored by Austria, Botswana, Denmark, France, Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
A resolution on enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.58) would have the Assembly reaffirm that advancement of human rights was a purpose of the United Nations and a responsibility of all States. It would further reaffirm that such advancement of rights should be guided by the principles of universality, non-selectivity, objectivity and transparency, as set out in the Charter, calling for dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding of rights.
A draft text on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/55/L.59) would have the Assembly reject unilateral coercive measures, with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, because of their negative effects on the realizing of human rights. It would reaffirm the right of all peoples to self-determination and would urge the Commission on Human Rights to take fully into account the negative impact of such measures in its tasks of implementing the right to development. It would ask the High Commissioner to give priority to the present resolution in her annual report to the Assembly, and would ask the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of States.
By a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/55/L.38), the Assembly would urge the Government of Myanmar to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, deploring the continuing violations of human rights in the country. It would further urge the Government to cease activities aimed at preventing the free exercise of human rights, strongly urging it to release all detained political leaders and to take into account the assurances it had given on various occasions to take steps towards restoring democracy.
The Assembly would note with grave concern that the Government had failed to cease its widespread and systematic use of forced labour of its own people or to implement recommendations of the International Labour Organization, strongly urging it to enact legislation against such practices. Further deploring violations of human rights and the recruitment of child soldiers, the Assembly would express its grave concern at the high rates of malnutrition among children and the growing incidence of HIV/AIDS infection. It would urge the Government to end the systematic displacement of people, and would strongly urge it to implement the recommendations made by the Committee on eliminating discrimination against women, as well as to ensure full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The draft is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
Introduction of Drafts
The representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.21).
The representative of Iran introduced a draft resolution on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/55/L.34).
The representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution on the Proclamation of 18 December as International Migrant’s Day (document A/C.3/55/L.36).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Azerbaijan, Ghana, Honduras, Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa.
The United States was withdrawn as a co-sponsor.
The representative of Australia introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, and public information activities in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.37).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Armenia, Botswana, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Swaziland, Togo and Vanuatu.
The representative of Japan introduced a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/55/L.39) with a number of technical corrections to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.
The representative of Romania introduced a draft resolution on promoting and consolidating democracy (document A/C.3/55/L.40).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Iceland, Malta, Mongolia, South Africa and Togo.
The representative of Brazil introduced a draft resolution on strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/55/L.44).
Eritrea was added as a co-sponsor of the draft text.
The representative of Cuba introduced a resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/55/L.45), with a number of technical revisions to the text.
Honduras was added as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution.
The representative of Belarus withdrew the draft resolution on human rights and scientific and technological progress (document A/C.3/55/L.46) from consideration during the Committee’s current session. More time was needed for negotiations.
The representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/55/L.53).
To correct errors in the text, Libya was added as a co-sponsor and Ireland was withdrawn.
The representative of Ireland introduced draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41).
The following were added as co-sponsors: India, Peru and Azerbaijan.
The representative of Belgium introduced a draft resolution on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.54), which included a small technical revision to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Poland, Morocco, New Zealand, Bulgaria and the Philippines.
The representative of Peru introduced a draft resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/C.3/55/L.55).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Finland, Denmark, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Belgium and Thailand.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the group of non-aligned countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/55/L.57).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Japan, Mexico and New Zealand.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the non-aligned countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.58), with two technical revisions.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the Non-Aligned countries and China, also introduced a draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/55/L.59).
The representative of Sweden introduced a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/55/L.38), including a technical correction to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Poland and the United States.
The representative of Iran questioned whether it was the general policy of the Committee to allow references to specific country situations during introductory statements of thematic draft resolutions.
The representative of China said that when Ireland introduced the draft resolution on religious intolerance, that representative had regrettably made “irresponsible comments and allegations” against several countries, including China, that were irrelevant to the content of the draft being introduced. Those comments also went beyond the general practice of the Committee of highlighting only the content of a resolution.
ANTONIO LEAL CORDERO (Angola) said he was grateful for the $2 million the United States had announced during the summer session of the Economic and Social Council, as a contribution to the expansion of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme for Angola. His own Government was well known for keeping its obligations. It had devoted $55 million last year for humanitarian assistance. Among priorities for the next months were to continue life-saving operations for the most vulnerable groups, resettle displaced persons, develop contingency plans for areas where new displacements were expected, and prepare rapid-impact projects aimed at restoring basic services and rural infrastructure.
Angola had developed a programme of support for the basic needs of refugees in neighbouring countries, in the spirit of recognizing that humanitarian concerns were at the forefront for a globalizing society. The people and Government of Angola held that respect for international laws was essential, especially in protecting the safety and security of humanitarian personnel. That was basic for any peacekeeping operation. But the international community had to increase its assistance for both refugees and internally displaced persons, with more coordination between all relevant actors.
BHARAT KUMAR REGMI (Nepal) said the increase in the number of refugees over the last 10 years had been unprecedented. Reviewing the causes of refugee movements, he said his country was faced with the burden of more than 100,000 refugees from Bhutan. While Nepal was grateful to the UNHCR for assisting the refugees in camps with food, shelter, water, sanitation, health care, education, training and community services, still the people had the right to return home safely and with dignity.
Bilateral negotiations were going on between Bhutan and Nepal, he said, but the large-scale presence in countries of asylum aggravated the serious economic, social and environmental problems of developing countries, particularly those least developed. Such countries needed help to keep from sinking further into poverty and chaos.
J.G. MOHANTA (India) said that as the global refugee situation expanded and became more complex, there was no substitute for a concerted and coordinated response on the part of the international community. The principles of international solidarity and burden-sharing were now well recognized. Regrettably, however, those principles were often flouted by rich countries. The UNHCR had noted repeatedly that the quality of asylum had deteriorated in a number of countries. Refugees found themselves faced with restrictive practices such as border closures, interdiction at sea, prolonged detention or expulsion. While the natural inclination of societies to preserve their own prosperity was understood, building walls to shut out refugees was not the solution. It should be recognized that the persistence of restrictive practices in the most prosperous parts of the world had a detrimental impact on public opinion in the rest of the world as regarded refugee protection. She noted that scant attention had been paid to abject poverty as the underlying cause of a number of refugee outflows. Moreover, poverty situations also “brought out the worst” in human beings. That often led to conflict, which continued the cycle of refugee outflows. In that regard, preventive strategy through long-term development was obviously the most cost-effective approach available to the international community.
She went on to say that another, even more important reason for strengthening the principle of international solidarity was the need to appropriately address the situation of host countries. Those countries, usually in the developing world, put at risk their fragile environments, economies and social fabrics by providing refuge to millions. It was essential that the economic and social impact of massive refugee populations on developing countries be systematically assessed, and effective means of global cooperation found to cope with it. She noted with concern the High Commissioner’s assertion that the UNHCR was “chronically under-funded” and that new challenges and emergencies had already been projected to surpass allocated funding for the year. It was even more regrettable that cutbacks would directly affect programmes aimed at women and children. Moreover, available funds had not addressed the needs of refugees in various regions in an equitable manner, as donor countries tended to direct their contributions to a few specific refugee situations. Thus, funds available for Africa had dwindled while contributions for refugee situations in Europe continued to flow. She hoped that donor countries would strive to ensure reliable funding for the UNHCR, while permitting the High Commissioner to determine the priorities for use.
MAKMUR WIDODO (Indonesia) said that not only had his country actively participated with the UNHCR throughout the years on refugee issues in South-East Asia, but now Indonesia was experiencing its own problems with refugees and displaced persons. Thousands of refugees had fled East Timor following popular consultations held there in August 1999. Those populations had entered West Timor and other areas of Indonesia. That phenomenon, along with the multi-dimensional problems created by the prolonged presence of border refugee camps, highlighted the need for a comprehensive solution with concerted effort and shared responsibility between all the parties involved. Indonesia recognized the need to move quickly and had adopted a Comprehensive Plan of Action, formulated with the aid of concerned international agencies such as the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migrations (IOM). During the year, approximately 155,000 refugees had returned to East Timor. But despite some initial progress, difficulties had been encountered, including the tragic deaths of the UNHCR staff in Atambua. The Government of Indonesia strongly condemned that attack. To date, a number of arrests had been made and the investigation was continuing.
As a further sign of the genuine commitment of Indonesia to cooperative resolution of that problem, Indonesia had also extended an invitation to the Security Council to visit Atambua on 13 November. The purpose of that visit was for members of the Council to view first hand the progress that Indonesia had achieved in restoring security in East Nusa Tenggara, and, among other things, the preparations being made for the registration of refugees. That visit was not for the purpose of meeting any conditions laid down by the UNHCR for that agency’s return to operation in the region. The UNHCR had a responsibility to the refugees in East Timor, and should resume cooperation with the Government of Indonesia to find lasting solutions. He found it most unfortunate that because of a criminal act -- which Indonesia was addressing -- the UNHCR had withdrawn all of its personnel from West Timor. The UNHCR continued to operate in many parts of the world in difficult and dangerous situations, however. Any options to resolve refugee questions should be with the consent of the country concerned, so that the particulars of each situation could be taken into account. The safety and security of aid workers could not be compromised, and Indonesia would always give full priority to securing their safety.
MARCELA MARIA NICODEMOS (Brazil) said varying factors were making it difficult to provide aid to those in need. Also, the killings of UNHCR staff earlier this year had cast a shadow over the international humanitarian community. It was imperative that governments ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel working under their jurisdictions. Brazil was committed to strengthening international cooperation aimed at protecting United Nations personnel and humanitarian workers, she said. In that spirit, Brazil had ratified the Convention on Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel during the Millennium Summit. Another hurdle was the lack of adequate resources to face the magnitude of the problem of refugees and displaced persons. Entire regions and countries plagued by humanitarian crises did not receive the deserved attention. The lack of political will was another factor making it difficult to provide for those in need.
She said that the UNHCR had done a great job assisting those compelled to flee their homes -- especially those out of the spotlight of international media attention. But it was up to Member States to provide the agency with the necessary political and material support to carry out its tasks. It was disturbing that refugees and asylum-seekers were increasingly targeted in armed conflicts. It was vital for the international community to uphold its commitment to the institution of asylum and the principle of non-refoulement, which constituted the legal and moral foundations of international protection of refugees. For Brazil’s part, a national Commission for Refugees had strengthened its cooperation with the UNHCR. Partnerships with civil society had also proved to be an important way to meet the basic needs of refugees.
MARIO ALEMAN (Ecuador) said that, some 50 years ago, the UNHCR had been created to solve a problem that was expected to be eliminated within a specific time period, and whose termination was expected in the not-too-distant future. But as new and complex challenges had emerged, and the global population of refugees continued to grow, the need for the agency’s unique humanitarian abilities also increased. He commended the work of the High Commissioner during her decade-long stewardship of the agency. Turning to his own country’s experience with refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing Colombia, he said his Government had set up border liaison offices to deal with those refugees. The offices had been established jointly with the UNHCR and the Catholic Church. He said that Ecuador would continue to accept refugees, but appealed for understanding and support from the international community to enhance the country’s response capacity.
He next drew the Committee’s attention to a situation involving the extradition of a banker held in Lebanon. After crooked dealings in Ecuador, that banker had fled to Lebanon. While there, under false identity, he had posed as a refugee. When UNHCR officials in Lebanon intervened, the banker, after having agreed to return to Ecuador, disappeared. Ecuador felt that the UNHCR’s intervention in the extradition of that criminal openly contradicted the international community’s commitment to fight against corruption.
CONG JUN (China) said that both the symptoms and root causes needed to be addressed in resolving the problem of refugees. To eliminate the root causes, countries should abide by the principles of respecting each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. They should promote economic and social development to support the global society's overall progress. Existing problems should be resolved through the principle of international solidarity and burden-sharing. Countries of origin, those of asylum and settlement, as well as donor countries, should fulfil their obligations and supply each other with resources in a spirit of cooperation for settling the problem of refugees once and for all.
He welcomed the global negotiations being undertaken by the UNHCR to make refugee protection more effective and dynamic. He said negotiations should aim at enabling the UNHCR to meet its international responsibilities in a more secure humanitarian-assistance environment.
GEORG WEISS (Austria) said the massive exodus of Hungarian refugees into his country in 1956 had been UNHCR's first major emergency. In the last 50 years, nearly a million persons had sought and received refuge on Austrian soil. Today, former refugees and their descendants made up about 10 per cent of the Austrian population, offering valuable contributions to all walks of life.
He said the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was presently in the charge of an Austrian Chairperson-in-Office. That organization was evolving an operational cooperation with the United Nations. One of OSCE's priorities was to start working on comprehensive approaches to migration management. The framework was already in place. It would focus on a culture of cooperation between players involved in migration, rather than the uncoordinated competitiveness of the past few years. For example, in the framework of the Chechen conflict, a regular information and consultation network had been set up between the OSCE, UNHCR, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Council of Europe, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). A humanitarian aid phase was being implemented at present, with a focus on helping children and young people.
NOUHOUM SANGARE (Mali) called for a stemming of armed conflicts to eradicate the root causes behind the flows of refugees and displaced persons. He said 90 per cent of disaster victims lived in developing countries. Africa, in particular, needed much more support in terms of logistic and financial assistance.
He added that three main aspects of humanitarian assistance to refugees should serve as a central focus point for international action. First, the assistance itself should be realistically adequate for the needs. It must also be remembered that humanitarian assistance was not charity but a responsibility of the international community. Second, the provisions of international law needed to be promoted and incorporated into national practice and legislation. His country, for example, supported the Rome Statute, while international law was taught at the university and was being translated into national languages.
Finally, he said that with regard to the principle of humanitarian intervention, there were questions to be answered by the international community. Who would decide whether the intervention should be undertaken? In his view, it should be the United Nations, which meant that both practical mechanisms and resources needed to be better coordinated and regulated by the United Nations. Also, the close link between refugee assistance and development should be explored.
ROBBIE THOMPSON, Senior Officer, Refugee Unit of the Permanent Observer Office of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies at the United Nations, said the humanitarian refugee crises of long duration suffered from the fact that they did not retain the interest of the international community long enough to ensure the flow of assistance to needy people for as long as necessary. That was particularly relevant to crises in Africa and to those whose causes failed to get media attention.
The Federation was the UNHCR's largest single partner, he continued. But there were differences in the two mandates. The Federation worked with individuals regardless of whether they were refugees or displaced persons. The Federation's societies worked within the law of their countries. They took an active role in improving the plight of internally displaced persons, whose crises far surpassed those of refugees.
Those displacements were increasing and also changing in character, he said. Natural disasters were increasing in both frequency and intensity, causing hardships and displacements all over the world. Also, certain governments were forcibly displacing their people to make way for intensive agricultural or development projects, such as dam constructions or politically expedient undertakings. Those kinds of crises often did not garner media attention, which often tended to influence policy. The Federation was working to counteract that tendency. In addition, it was taking an increased interest in the welfare of migrants, about whom there appeared to be a confusion of policy in some States. Sometimes they were treated as asylum-seekers, but the gist was that they were vulnerable to the point of especial concern.
Since that was occurring at a time when developed countries were wrestling with the twin problems of how to restrict immigration and how to fill talent gaps in their own country's economic mix, he said some troubling developments had emerged. Restriction had led to a sharp growth in criminality and people-smuggling, but talent-scouting had also led to problems with talent-drain in developing countries.
Right of Reply
The representative of Iran clarified that the opportunity for speaking which he had requested earlier had been on procedural grounds, rather than a request for a right of reply. He said the representative of Ireland had transgressed procedural practice on a thematic resolution by mentioning his country's name. He would like the reference removed from the official record and would like Ireland's representative to clarify the matter so that it did not set a precedent.
Ireland's representative said she had taken note of Iran's statement and would take it up with her Ambassador and her authorities.
The representative of China echoed Iran's view.
* *** *
Third Committee
7 November 2000
50th Meeting (PM)
Humanitarian assistance to refugees was an international responsibility, rather than an act of charity, the representative of Mali said this afternoon, as he called for a stemming of armed conflicts to eradicate the root causes behind refugees flows. He was addressing the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) as it met to take up issues related to refugees, including the High Commissioner's report. Also this afternoon, the Committee heard the introduction of 17 resolutions regarding a range of its mandated concerns.
Mali's representative continued by saying 90 per cent of disaster victims lived in developing countries. Africa, in particular, needed much more support in terms of logistic and financial assistance.
Three main aspects of humanitarian assistance to refugees should serve as a focal point for international action, he said. Assistance should be realistically adequate to needs, international law should be promoted, and questions should be asked about when humanitarian interventions seemed needed. Since that decision should be made by the United Nations, the practical mechanisms and resources needed to be better coordinated and regulated by the United Nations. Also, the close link between refugee assistance and development should be explored.
The representative of China said both the symptoms and root causes should be addressed to resolve the problem of refugees. To eliminate the root causes, countries should abide by the principles of respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Countries of origin, those of asylum and settlement, as well as donor countries, should supply each other with resources in a spirit of cooperation. Existing problems should be resolved through the principle of international solidarity and burden-sharing.
The representative of India said that, regrettably, the well recognized principles of international solidarity and burden-sharing were often flouted by rich countries. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had noted repeatedly that the quality of asylum was deteriorating. Refugees found themselves faced with restrictive practices such as border closures, interdiction at sea, prolonged detention or even expulsion. While the natural inclination of societies to preserve their own prosperity was understood, building walls to shut out refugees was not the solution.
On the related issue of migrants' status, the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said the national groups of the Federation were increasingly concerned with problems stemming from policy confusion about migrants. Sometimes they were treated as asylum-seekers and sometimes not, but they had become especially vulnerable at a time when developed countries were wrestling with restricting immigration while filling talent gaps in their own country's economic mix. Restriction had led to a sharp growth in criminality and people-smuggling, but talent-scouting had also led to problems with talent-drain in developing countries.
The 17 resolutions introduced this afternoon began with one on the enlargement of the UNHCR programme's Executive Committee, which Mexico introduced, and one on the issue of human rights and cultural diversity, introduced by Iran. Mexico also introduced a resolution on protecting migrants, as well as a resolution proclaiming 18 December as International Migrant's Day.
Australia introduced a draft text on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004). Japan introduced one on human rights in Cambodia. Romania introduced a text on promoting and consolidating democracy, while Ireland introduced a draft on eliminating religious intolerance.
A resolution on strengthening the role of law was introduced by Brazil, one on respect for the right of freedom to travel was introduced by Cuba, while a draft on human rights and scientific progress was introduced by Belarus. Cuba then introduced a resolution on strengthening action in the field of human rights, Belgium introduced one on regional arrangements for promoting and protecting rights, and Peru introduced one on rights and extreme poverty. Botswana introduced a number of drafts, one on the right to development, one on cooperation in human rights and, finally, one on rights and unilateral coercive measures. Finally, Sweden introduced a draft on human rights in Myanmar.
Also addressing the Committee this afternoon were the representatives of Angola, Nepal, Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador and Austria.
The representatives of Iran, China and Ireland spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 8 November, to continue considering issues related to refugees, including the High Commissioner's report and humanitarian aspects, as well as returnees and displaced persons.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue considering issues related to refugees, including the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees and questions related to refugees, returnees and displaced persons, as well as humanitarian questions. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3616 of 6 November.)
In addition, the Committee has before it a number of resolutions expected to be introduced.
A draft resolution on enlarging the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.21) would have the Assembly decide to enlarge the membership of that Committee from 57 to 58 States. The Assembly would request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional member at its resumed organizational session for 2001.
By a resolution on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/55/L.34), the Assembly would affirm the importance for all people and nations to hold, develop and preserve their cultural heritage and traditions in a national and international atmosphere of peace, tolerance and mutual respect. It would also affirm that the international community should ensure that the phenomenon of globalization promoted respect for cultural diversity. It would further affirm that inter-cultural dialogue enriched the universality of human rights and that manifestations of cultural prejudice and intolerance generated hatred. Emphasizing that promotion of cultural pluralism and tolerance was important for enhancing respect for cultural rights, the Assembly would call on the international community to recognize and promote respect for cultural diversity in order to advance peace, development and human rights. It would ask the Secretary-General to report on the phenomenon at the Assembly's next session.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Bahrain, Benin, Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Iran, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates.
The Assembly would decide to proclaim 18 December as International Migrant's Day, by a draft resolution on that issue (document A/C.3/55/L.36), which would also ask the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of all governments and appropriate intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
The resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.
A draft resolution on the Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004) and public information activities for human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.37) would take note with appreciation of the High Commissioner's report on the Decade's midterm evaluation. It would urge governments to implement the Programme of Action and to encourage, support and involve national and local non-governmental and community-based organizations in implementing it. Further, it would encourage the Office of the High Commissioner to support national capacity for human rights education activities, and would urge the Department of Public Information (DPI) to utilize Information Centres for the purpose. It would stress the importance of coordination and collaboration between the United Nations system and all actors.
The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Malta, Monaco, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Tanzania, United States and Venezuela.
The Assembly would note with concern the continuing problems related to the role of law and the functioning of the judiciary by a draft text on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/55/L.39). It would urge the Government to take the necessary measures to develop an effective judicial system, including by adopting the draft statute on magistrates, a penal code and a code on criminal procedures. It would also urge reform of the administration of justice, appealing for international assistance to help achieve that.
Further by the draft, the Assembly would express serious concern about the prevalence of impunity in Cambodia, and would note with serious concern the problem of child labour in its worst forms and the condition of prisons. The Assembly would express grave concern about continued violations of human rights and about the devastating consequences and destabilizing effect of anti-personnel landmines in Cambodian society. It would express concern about the large number of small arms, while commending the Government's efforts to curb them. Finally, the Assembly would urge an end to racial violence and vilification of ethnic minorities, asking the Secretary-General to report on progress.
The resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway and Romania.
The Assembly would call on States to promote and consolidate democracy by a large number of measures, according to a resolution on that matter (document A/C.3/55/L.40). Those would include initiatives to promote pluralism and respect for human rights, strengthening the rule of law, implementing free and fair electoral systems and legal frameworks, good governance, the promotion of sustainable development, enhancing social cohesion and solidarity, and strengthening capabilities. It would also ask the Secretary-General to disseminate the present resolution.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.
By a draft on eliminating all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41), the Assembly would urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provided guarantees for freedom of thoughts, conscience, religion and belief, including by providing for effective remedies in instances of violation. The Assembly would also urge that no one within a State's jurisdiction be deprived of those rights, further urging States to take actions preventing such deprivations. All States would be urged to combat intolerance and acts of violence, as well as to educate public officials against discrimination based on religion or belief. The Assembly would emphasize that restrictions on the right to manifest beliefs should be proscribed only to protect the public welfare, and would express grave concern at any attack upon religious places, sites and shrines. Finally, it would request a number of coordinating steps from the United Nations system, deciding to keep the question under review.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Monaco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Sates and Venezuela.
A draft on strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/55/L.44) would have the Assembly express its deep concern at the scarcity of means at the disposal of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for fulfilling its tasks. It would note with concern that the Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in Human Rights did not have sufficient funds to assist national projects. It would welcome cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner and the others of the United Nations system with regard to the rule of law, affirming the High Commissioner as the focal point for coordinating system-wide attention to the issue. Finally, the Assembly would encourage initiatives for further efforts.
The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
A draft on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/55/L.45) would have the Assembly call on States to guarantee that right for all foreign nationals residing in their territory. It would call on them to allow the free flow of financial remittances and to refrain from legislation intended as a coercive measure discriminating against migrants.
The draft is sponsored by Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Ghana.
A resolution on strengthening action in the field of human rights through promotion of cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/55/L.53) would have the Assembly express the conviction that an unbiased approach to human rights issues contributes to promoting both cooperation and securing of those rights. In that context, the Assembly would stress the need for impartial and objective information on the political, economic and social situations and events of all countries. It would invite States to adopt measures promoting cooperation in encouraging respect for human rights and would request the Commission on Human Rights to consider proposals for strengthening action in the field of human rights.
The resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The Assembly would stress the importance of the programme of technical cooperation in the field of human rights by a resolution on regional arrangements for promoting and protecting human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.54). Further, the Assembly would renew its appeal to governments to make use of that programme's offerings in organizing national information or training courses for government personnel on applying the international human rights standards and experience. It would recall and note with interest the regional mechanisms already in place for promoting human rights, and would invite States in areas without such mechanisms to conclude agreements leading to regional machinery for protecting human rights. It would ask the Secretary-General to strengthen exchanges between the United Nations and regional intergovernmental organizations concerned with human rights, also asking him to make available resources from the regular budget of technical cooperation to fund activities of the Office of the High Commissioner intended to promote regional arrangements. Finally, it would ask the Commission on Human Rights to assist countries and offer recommendations, asking the Secretary-General to report on regional arrangements at the Assembly's fifty-seventh session.
Sponsors of the resolution are Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
The Assembly would reaffirm that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity by a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/C.3/55/L.55). Further, the Assembly would reaffirm that national and international action was required to eliminate those ills, reaffirming also that States must foster participation by the poorest in the decision-making processes of their societies, particularly in the planning and implementing of policies enabling them to become partners in development. The Assembly would emphasize that extreme poverty was a major issue to be addressed by all elements of the international community, and would reaffirm that since widespread absolute poverty rendered democracy fragile, the commitments on development and poverty eradication contained in the Millennium Declaration were also reaffirmed. Inviting the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give attention to the question within the framework of implementing the Decade for eradicating poverty (1997-2006), the Assembly would call upon States and the United Nations system to consider the links between human rights and extreme poverty. Finally, the Assembly would decide to consider the question further at its fifty-seventh session.
The resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
A resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/55/L.57) would have the Assembly reiterate that the essence of that right was the principle that the human person was the central subject of development, and that the right to life included the minimum necessities of life. It would also reiterate that widespread absolute poverty inhibited the enjoyment of human rights and that for peace and stability to endure, national and international action and cooperation were required to eradicate poverty. The Assembly would reaffirm a large number of tenets about democracy, development and respect for human rights, and would welcome the holding of the first session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, encouraging the second session scheduled for January 2001. The Assembly would take note of coordination mechanisms and initiatives within the United Nations system for promoting implementation of the right to development, also urging support for implementing the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights regarding the right to development.
The draft is sponsored by Austria, Botswana, Denmark, France, Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
A resolution on enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.58) would have the Assembly reaffirm that advancement of human rights was a purpose of the United Nations and a responsibility of all States. It would further reaffirm that such advancement of rights should be guided by the principles of universality, non-selectivity, objectivity and transparency, as set out in the Charter, calling for dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding of rights.
A draft text on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/55/L.59) would have the Assembly reject unilateral coercive measures, with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, because of their negative effects on the realizing of human rights. It would reaffirm the right of all peoples to self-determination and would urge the Commission on Human Rights to take fully into account the negative impact of such measures in its tasks of implementing the right to development. It would ask the High Commissioner to give priority to the present resolution in her annual report to the Assembly, and would ask the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of States.
By a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/55/L.38), the Assembly would urge the Government of Myanmar to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, deploring the continuing violations of human rights in the country. It would further urge the Government to cease activities aimed at preventing the free exercise of human rights, strongly urging it to release all detained political leaders and to take into account the assurances it had given on various occasions to take steps towards restoring democracy.
The Assembly would note with grave concern that the Government had failed to cease its widespread and systematic use of forced labour of its own people or to implement recommendations of the International Labour Organization, strongly urging it to enact legislation against such practices. Further deploring violations of human rights and the recruitment of child soldiers, the Assembly would express its grave concern at the high rates of malnutrition among children and the growing incidence of HIV/AIDS infection. It would urge the Government to end the systematic displacement of people, and would strongly urge it to implement the recommendations made by the Committee on eliminating discrimination against women, as well as to ensure full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The draft is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
Introduction of Drafts
The representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.21).
The representative of Iran introduced a draft resolution on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/55/L.34).
The representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution on the Proclamation of 18 December as International Migrant’s Day (document A/C.3/55/L.36).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Azerbaijan, Ghana, Honduras, Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa.
The United States was withdrawn as a co-sponsor.
The representative of Australia introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, and public information activities in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.37).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Armenia, Botswana, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Swaziland, Togo and Vanuatu.
The representative of Japan introduced a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/55/L.39) with a number of technical corrections to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.
The representative of Romania introduced a draft resolution on promoting and consolidating democracy (document A/C.3/55/L.40).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Iceland, Malta, Mongolia, South Africa and Togo.
The representative of Brazil introduced a draft resolution on strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/55/L.44).
Eritrea was added as a co-sponsor of the draft text.
The representative of Cuba introduced a resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/55/L.45), with a number of technical revisions to the text.
Honduras was added as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution.
The representative of Belarus withdrew the draft resolution on human rights and scientific and technological progress (document A/C.3/55/L.46) from consideration during the Committee’s current session. More time was needed for negotiations.
The representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/55/L.53).
To correct errors in the text, Libya was added as a co-sponsor and Ireland was withdrawn.
The representative of Ireland introduced draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41).
The following were added as co-sponsors: India, Peru and Azerbaijan.
The representative of Belgium introduced a draft resolution on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.54), which included a small technical revision to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Poland, Morocco, New Zealand, Bulgaria and the Philippines.
The representative of Peru introduced a draft resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/C.3/55/L.55).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Finland, Denmark, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Belgium and Thailand.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the group of non-aligned countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/55/L.57).
The following were added as co-sponsors: Japan, Mexico and New Zealand.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the non-aligned countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.58), with two technical revisions.
The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the Non-Aligned countries and China, also introduced a draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/55/L.59).
The representative of Sweden introduced a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/55/L.38), including a technical correction to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Poland and the United States.
The representative of Iran questioned whether it was the general policy of the Committee to allow references to specific country situations during introductory statements of thematic draft resolutions.
The representative of China said that when Ireland introduced the draft resolution on religious intolerance, that representative had regrettably made “irresponsible comments and allegations” against several countries, including China, that were irrelevant to the content of the draft being introduced. Those comments also went beyond the general practice of the Committee of highlighting only the content of a resolution.
ANTONIO LEAL CORDERO (Angola) said he was grateful for the $2 million the United States had announced during the summer session of the Economic and Social Council, as a contribution to the expansion of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme for Angola. His own Government was well known for keeping its obligations. It had devoted $55 million last year for humanitarian assistance. Among priorities for the next months were to continue life-saving operations for the most vulnerable groups, resettle displaced persons, develop contingency plans for areas where new displacements were expected, and prepare rapid-impact projects aimed at restoring basic services and rural infrastructure.
Angola had developed a programme of support for the basic needs of refugees in neighbouring countries, in the spirit of recognizing that humanitarian concerns were at the forefront for a globalizing society. The people and Government of Angola held that respect for international laws was essential, especially in protecting the safety and security of humanitarian personnel. That was basic for any peacekeeping operation. But the international community had to increase its assistance for both refugees and internally displaced persons, with more coordination between all relevant actors.
BHARAT KUMAR REGMI (Nepal) said the increase in the number of refugees over the last 10 years had been unprecedented. Reviewing the causes of refugee movements, he said his country was faced with the burden of more than 100,000 refugees from Bhutan. While Nepal was grateful to the UNHCR for assisting the refugees in camps with food, shelter, water, sanitation, health care, education, training and community services, still the people had the right to return home safely and with dignity.
Bilateral negotiations were going on between Bhutan and Nepal, he said, but the large-scale presence in countries of asylum aggravated the serious economic, social and environmental problems of developing countries, particularly those least developed. Such countries needed help to keep from sinking further into poverty and chaos.
J.G. MOHANTA (India) said that as the global refugee situation expanded and became more complex, there was no substitute for a concerted and coordinated response on the part of the international community. The principles of international solidarity and burden-sharing were now well recognized. Regrettably, however, those principles were often flouted by rich countries. The UNHCR had noted repeatedly that the quality of asylum had deteriorated in a number of countries. Refugees found themselves faced with restrictive practices such as border closures, interdiction at sea, prolonged detention or expulsion. While the natural inclination of societies to preserve their own prosperity was understood, building walls to shut out refugees was not the solution. It should be recognized that the persistence of restrictive practices in the most prosperous parts of the world had a detrimental impact on public opinion in the rest of the world as regarded refugee protection. She noted that scant attention had been paid to abject poverty as the underlying cause of a number of refugee outflows. Moreover, poverty situations also “brought out the worst” in human beings. That often led to conflict, which continued the cycle of refugee outflows. In that regard, preventive strategy through long-term development was obviously the most cost-effective approach available to the international community.
She went on to say that another, even more important reason for strengthening the principle of international solidarity was the need to appropriately address the situation of host countries. Those countries, usually in the developing world, put at risk their fragile environments, economies and social fabrics by providing refuge to millions. It was essential that the economic and social impact of massive refugee populations on developing countries be systematically assessed, and effective means of global cooperation found to cope with it. She noted with concern the High Commissioner’s assertion that the UNHCR was “chronically under-funded” and that new challenges and emergencies had already been projected to surpass allocated funding for the year. It was even more regrettable that cutbacks would directly affect programmes aimed at women and children. Moreover, available funds had not addressed the needs of refugees in various regions in an equitable manner, as donor countries tended to direct their contributions to a few specific refugee situations. Thus, funds available for Africa had dwindled while contributions for refugee situations in Europe continued to flow. She hoped that donor countries would strive to ensure reliable funding for the UNHCR, while permitting the High Commissioner to determine the priorities for use.
MAKMUR WIDODO (Indonesia) said that not only had his country actively participated with the UNHCR throughout the years on refugee issues in South-East Asia, but now Indonesia was experiencing its own problems with refugees and displaced persons. Thousands of refugees had fled East Timor following popular consultations held there in August 1999. Those populations had entered West Timor and other areas of Indonesia. That phenomenon, along with the multi-dimensional problems created by the prolonged presence of border refugee camps, highlighted the need for a comprehensive solution with concerted effort and shared responsibility between all the parties involved. Indonesia recognized the need to move quickly and had adopted a Comprehensive Plan of Action, formulated with the aid of concerned international agencies such as the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migrations (IOM). During the year, approximately 155,000 refugees had returned to East Timor. But despite some initial progress, difficulties had been encountered, including the tragic deaths of the UNHCR staff in Atambua. The Government of Indonesia strongly condemned that attack. To date, a number of arrests had been made and the investigation was continuing.
As a further sign of the genuine commitment of Indonesia to cooperative resolution of that problem, Indonesia had also extended an invitation to the Security Council to visit Atambua on 13 November. The purpose of that visit was for members of the Council to view first hand the progress that Indonesia had achieved in restoring security in East Nusa Tenggara, and, among other things, the preparations being made for the registration of refugees. That visit was not for the purpose of meeting any conditions laid down by the UNHCR for that agency’s return to operation in the region. The UNHCR had a responsibility to the refugees in East Timor, and should resume cooperation with the Government of Indonesia to find lasting solutions. He found it most unfortunate that because of a criminal act -- which Indonesia was addressing -- the UNHCR had withdrawn all of its personnel from West Timor. The UNHCR continued to operate in many parts of the world in difficult and dangerous situations, however. Any options to resolve refugee questions should be with the consent of the country concerned, so that the particulars of each situation could be taken into account. The safety and security of aid workers could not be compromised, and Indonesia would always give full priority to securing their safety.
MARCELA MARIA NICODEMOS (Brazil) said varying factors were making it difficult to provide aid to those in need. Also, the killings of UNHCR staff earlier this year had cast a shadow over the international humanitarian community. It was imperative that governments ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel working under their jurisdictions. Brazil was committed to strengthening international cooperation aimed at protecting United Nations personnel and humanitarian workers, she said. In that spirit, Brazil had ratified the Convention on Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel during the Millennium Summit. Another hurdle was the lack of adequate resources to face the magnitude of the problem of refugees and displaced persons. Entire regions and countries plagued by humanitarian crises did not receive the deserved attention. The lack of political will was another factor making it difficult to provide for those in need.
She said that the UNHCR had done a great job assisting those compelled to flee their homes -- especially those out of the spotlight of international media attention. But it was up to Member States to provide the agency with the necessary political and material support to carry out its tasks. It was disturbing that refugees and asylum-seekers were increasingly targeted in armed conflicts. It was vital for the international community to uphold its commitment to the institution of asylum and the principle of non-refoulement, which constituted the legal and moral foundations of international protection of refugees. For Brazil’s part, a national Commission for Refugees had strengthened its cooperation with the UNHCR. Partnerships with civil society had also proved to be an important way to meet the basic needs of refugees.
MARIO ALEMAN (Ecuador) said that, some 50 years ago, the UNHCR had been created to solve a problem that was expected to be eliminated within a specific time period, and whose termination was expected in the not-too-distant future. But as new and complex challenges had emerged, and the global population of refugees continued to grow, the need for the agency’s unique humanitarian abilities also increased. He commended the work of the High Commissioner during her decade-long stewardship of the agency. Turning to his own country’s experience with refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing Colombia, he said his Government had set up border liaison offices to deal with those refugees. The offices had been established jointly with the UNHCR and the Catholic Church. He said that Ecuador would continue to accept refugees, but appealed for understanding and support from the international community to enhance the country’s response capacity.
He next drew the Committee’s attention to a situation involving the extradition of a banker held in Lebanon. After crooked dealings in Ecuador, that banker had fled to Lebanon. While there, under false identity, he had posed as a refugee. When UNHCR officials in Lebanon intervened, the banker, after having agreed to return to Ecuador, disappeared. Ecuador felt that the UNHCR’s intervention in the extradition of that criminal openly contradicted the international community’s commitment to fight against corruption.
CONG JUN (China) said that both the symptoms and root causes needed to be addressed in resolving the problem of refugees. To eliminate the root causes, countries should abide by the principles of respecting each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. They should promote economic and social development to support the global society's overall progress. Existing problems should be resolved through the principle of international solidarity and burden-sharing. Countries of origin, those of asylum and settlement, as well as donor countries, should fulfil their obligations and supply each other with resources in a spirit of cooperation for settling the problem of refugees once and for all.
He welcomed the global negotiations being undertaken by the UNHCR to make refugee protection more effective and dynamic. He said negotiations should aim at enabling the UNHCR to meet its international responsibilities in a more secure humanitarian-assistance environment.
GEORG WEISS (Austria) said the massive exodus of Hungarian refugees into his country in 1956 had been UNHCR's first major emergency. In the last 50 years, nearly a million persons had sought and received refuge on Austrian soil. Today, former refugees and their descendants made up about 10 per cent of the Austrian population, offering valuable contributions to all walks of life.
He said the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was presently in the charge of an Austrian Chairperson-in-Office. That organization was evolving an operational cooperation with the United Nations. One of OSCE's priorities was to start working on comprehensive approaches to migration management. The framework was already in place. It would focus on a culture of cooperation between players involved in migration, rather than the uncoordinated competitiveness of the past few years. For example, in the framework of the Chechen conflict, a regular information and consultation network had been set up between the OSCE, UNHCR, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Council of Europe, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). A humanitarian aid phase was being implemented at present, with a focus on helping children and young people.
NOUHOUM SANGARE (Mali) called for a stemming of armed conflicts to eradicate the root causes behind the flows of refugees and displaced persons. He said 90 per cent of disaster victims lived in developing countries. Africa, in particular, needed much more support in terms of logistic and financial assistance.
He added that three main aspects of humanitarian assistance to refugees should serve as a central focus point for international action. First, the assistance itself should be realistically adequate for the needs. It must also be remembered that humanitarian assistance was not charity but a responsibility of the international community. Second, the provisions of international law needed to be promoted and incorporated into national practice and legislation. His country, for example, supported the Rome Statute, while international law was taught at the university and was being translated into national languages.
Finally, he said that with regard to the principle of humanitarian intervention, there were questions to be answered by the international community. Who would decide whether the intervention should be undertaken? In his view, it should be the United Nations, which meant that both practical mechanisms and resources needed to be better coordinated and regulated by the United Nations. Also, the close link between refugee assistance and development should be explored.
ROBBIE THOMPSON, Senior Officer, Refugee Unit of the Permanent Observer Office of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies at the United Nations, said the humanitarian refugee crises of long duration suffered from the fact that they did not retain the interest of the international community long enough to ensure the flow of assistance to needy people for as long as necessary. That was particularly relevant to crises in Africa and to those whose causes failed to get media attention.
The Federation was the UNHCR's largest single partner, he continued. But there were differences in the two mandates. The Federation worked with individuals regardless of whether they were refugees or displaced persons. The Federation's societies worked within the law of their countries. They took an active role in improving the plight of internally displaced persons, whose crises far surpassed those of refugees.
Those displacements were increasing and also changing in character, he said. Natural disasters were increasing in both frequency and intensity, causing hardships and displacements all over the world. Also, certain governments were forcibly displacing their people to make way for intensive agricultural or development projects, such as dam constructions or politically expedient undertakings. Those kinds of crises often did not garner media attention, which often tended to influence policy. The Federation was working to counteract that tendency. In addition, it was taking an increased interest in the welfare of migrants, about whom there appeared to be a confusion of policy in some States. Sometimes they were treated as asylum-seekers, but the gist was that they were vulnerable to the point of especial concern.
Since that was occurring at a time when developed countries were wrestling with the twin problems of how to restrict immigration and how to fill talent gaps in their own country's economic mix, he said some troubling developments had emerged. Restriction had led to a sharp growth in criminality and people-smuggling, but talent-scouting had also led to problems with talent-drain in developing countries.
Right of Reply
The representative of Iran clarified that the opportunity for speaking which he had requested earlier had been on procedural grounds, rather than a request for a right of reply. He said the representative of Ireland had transgressed procedural practice on a thematic resolution by mentioning his country's name. He would like the reference removed from the official record and would like Ireland's representative to clarify the matter so that it did not set a precedent.
Ireland's representative said she had taken note of Iran's statement and would take it up with her Ambassador and her authorities.
The representative of China echoed Iran's view.
* *** *