Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Special Procedures
Default title
25 October 2000
Share
Fifty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
34th Meeting (AM)
25 October 2000
A “development compact” would be the basis for a new economic framework to implement the basic right to development, the Independent Expert on that right said this morning. Arjun Sengupta, the Expert, made that proposal as he addressed the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) during its continuing consideration of human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations, the Vienna Declaration and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The old North-South, East-West debate about development was dead, he continued. The new economic order was rights-based. It affirmed that all people had equal rights of access to the world’s resources. It would be based on a structural transformation of developing economies to ensure economic growth with equity and justice in the world order.
Further, he said the right to development would be realized through a step-by-step focus on three core issues, namely food, primary education and health. The development compact to meet those needs would be country-specific, but complemented by international action such as trade, access to markets and debt adjustment.
In his address to the Committee, the Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance, Abdelfattah Amor, stressed his obligation to uphold standards of objectivity in his investigations. Whether he reached his conclusions through the use of statistics or open dialogue was not the point. His duty was to uphold his mandate.
Leonardo Franco, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, introduced his report by noting the adverse impact of continued conflict on the human rights situation of that country. While recently there had been some encouraging political developments, he said those should be viewed in the context of the region. The upcoming elections should respect the rights of all parties.
Responding to the report on his country, the representative of Sudan said he had written to the Secretary-General requesting monitors for the election. The only way to stop the human rights violations in the country was to call a ceasefire. His Government was ready for that. The international community should induce the other side to agree.
Also taking part in the question and answer segments with the Special Rapporteur and Independent Expert were the representatives of Armenia, Bangladesh, France (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Nigeria, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Tunisia, Turkey, China, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Cuba and Viet Nam.
In addition this morning, the representative of the United States introduced a draft resolution on combating the misuse of information technologies.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. to continue considering human rights issues and to exchange views on reports with rapporteurs and representatives.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue considering human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee would also consider human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993); and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October.)
The Committee also has before it a draft resolution on combating the criminal misuse of information technology (document A/C.3/55/L.8/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly invite States to take into account certain measures in their efforts to combat the criminal misuse of information technologies. Those measures include steps to insure that laws and practice eliminate safe havens for those who criminally misuse information technologies. States would also be invited to train and secure the cooperation of law enforcement personnel and the exchange of information. Legal systems would protect the confidentiality of data and computer systems from unauthorized impairment, and would permit quick access to data pertaining to particular criminal investigations. Mutual assistance regimes would ensure timely investigation and the public would be made aware of the need to combat criminal misuse of the technologies. The Assembly would also decide to maintain the question on its agenda as part of the item on crime prevention and criminal justice.
The draft is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
Introduction of Draft
The representative of the United States introduced a draft resolution on combating the criminal misuse of information technologies (document A/C.3/55/L.8/Rev.1) with two technical amendments to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Liechtenstein, Croatia.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Special Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights on the question of religious tolerance, introduced his report to the Committee. He stressed that there was no country in the world that did not suffer from some form of religious intolerance. In fact, the situation with regard to intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief was alarming. The global trend towards increasing contacts in the social, cultural and economic spheres was accompanied by the growth of extremism and of policies detrimental to society, particularly to women and children. He also highlighted the notion that religious freedom was closely related to the promotion of democracy and development.
He briefly highlighted some of the details of his visits to Turkey and Bangladesh during the reporting period. On his visit to Turkey, he noted that the country’s legislation provided guarantees of freedom of religion, while imposing some limitations. On the other hand, some of those limitations were found to contain vague expressions that could be interpreted broadly and which could lead to intervention by the State. He noted that some violations of religious freedom were multifaceted and included confiscation of property, restriction of public demonstrations and disruption of places of worship. On his visit to Bangladesh, he said that the focus of that mission had been on the influence of politics on the freedom of religion. Another focus of his visit was the status of women. He noted that he would soon be visiting Argentina, at the invitation of that country’s Government.
Finally, he drew the Committee’s attention to the upcoming international consultative conference on education and religion, set for November 2001 in Madrid. He said that this type of conference was important and deserved the full support of the international community, as education was the surest way to promote prevention of religious intolerance. Every effort should be made to address the root causes of problems, he added: it was not enough to come into a situation as a “firefighter”.
Questions and Answers
Committee members posed a broad image of questions to the Special Rapporteur. Several representatives, including those of Armenia and Bangladesh, dwelt on the history of the evolution of religious practices and on the current situation of religious tolerance in their countries. Having been subject to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, but unable to receive the proper translation of his findings in time for today’s dialogue, the representative of Bangladesh asked the Chairman for time to study the documents more closely and comment on them in detail later. He added, however, that his Government would certainly take the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations under serious consideration. He also wondered if the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which involved a dispute between ethnic minorities, fell under the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
The representative of Turkey, also having been subject to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, took the floor to dispute what he felt were “prominent inconsistencies and flaws” in his report. He focused particularly on the Special Rapporteur’s “selective and slanted” use of historical context to characterize the situation in his country. He also said it appeared that the Special Rapporteur had relied only on figures and percentages to support his conclusions.
The representative of Libya was concerned about the effect of the portrayal of Muslims in the Western media. She asked the Special Rapporteur if his work had uncovered a tendency towards religious intolerance for certain Muslim religions because of such negative portrayals. The representative of Tunisia wondered if the Special Rapporteur could highlight any aspects of his work which had focused on the sanctity and protection of religious monuments and places of worship. The representative of Iraq said it was important to note that throughout the Special Rapporteur’s report, it appeared that it was only Muslims who prosecuted others and spread religious intolerance. That type of selectivity in reporting had painted an unfortunate picture that perhaps in itself fostered a form of religious intolerance. The representatives of Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China, Egypt and France (on behalf of the European Union) also posed questions.
Before responding to the concerns of the Committee, the Special Rapporteur thanked members for their comments and criticism. He hoped that today’s dialogue would foster better cooperation in the spirit of tolerance and non-discrimination, and would help strength his mandate.
Turning to comments by the representative of Bangladesh, he agreed that it was unacceptable that the report under consideration today had not been translated in a timely manner. He hoped that the representative would have the opportunity to study the report more closely, and welcomed the Government’s intention to further consider the recommendations contained therein. He also said that while the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts did involve a dispute between ethnic minorities, it was widely understood to have important religious dimensions as well. It was that implication that placed consideration of the incident squarely within his mandate. He was hopeful that the implementation of the peace agreement in the region would go a long way to easing the tensions there.
He went on to say that practically everywhere, the status of women required more initiatives and more attention. Looking at their status from a religious angle, one could not help but see that religion was used to maintain certain traditions that led to discrimination against women. Such “aggravated intolerance” faced by women was caused by the convergence of many negative factors, such as poverty and illiteracy.
On the treatment of certain religions in the media, he endorsed the representative of Libya’s assertion that Muslims were often portrayed in a negative manner. He went further, however, saying that certain portrayals were not merely negative but quite often aggressively so -- geared towards eliciting a strong response from viewers. Some media depictions of Muslims as fanatical or untrustworthy were examples of this. He said that while Muslims were not always portrayed in a negative light, it was unfortunate that the prevalence of clichés and stereotypes to define Muslims and other religious groups was on the rise. He said that it was the job of the international community to ensure that the mass media at all times acted in the service of human rights and the promotion of a culture of tolerance.
He added that places of worship must not serve as forums for provocation or political motivation. It was also important that places of worship be sheltered from extremism.
Responding to several questions about his working methods, the Special Rapporteur said that it was his duty to translate the sociological reality of situations as they really existed. Differences of opinion on statistical data would always exist, and whether he reached his conclusions through the use of statistics or open dialogue was not the point. His duty was to uphold his mandate. He tried to reflect all sides of the issues under consideration. In fact, any special rapporteur was duty-bound to be totally independent in his actions. His personal conviction was that while he always respected all the people he met and talked with during his missions, he would admit no concessions whatsoever to the fulfilment of his mandate. “You can’t teach a grandmother to suck eggs,” he said.
He went on to say that it was not his habit to foster polemical digressions, but he wished to point out that religious intolerance, whether directed at Muslims living in particular areas, or perpetrated by Muslims or other members of religious minorities, would continue to be reported in a comprehensive manner. His methods of reporting did not show a “blind eye” to religious intolerance towards Muslims. In fact, the report gave careful consideration to accounts of incidents in the Palestinian-occupied territories, as well as Israel. All situations were worthy of scrutiny in the service of the protection and promotion of human rights, he said.
Statement by Independent Expert on Right to Development
ARJUN SENGUPTA, the Independent Expert on the right to development, presented his second report. He said the right to development had now been accepted as a human right. Further, the international community had accepted it not merely as a single right but one encompassing all the others, which made it a priority obligation for States to fulfil. The principle element of the right was that it included the entirety of all rights within a new conception of development, putting the responsibility for implementation on States within the context of international cooperation for such implementation. The unique component in the plan was that all elements of cooperation were elaborated with each country’s specific problems taken into consideration, because all countries had different strengths and needs. Some countries needed technology transfer, for example, while others needed market access.
A most basic violation of rights could be used to illustrate the approach, he continued. That basic violation was extreme poverty -- which had two components. The first was income poverty, which meant there was too little money to live on. The second component was capacity poverty, which meant the absence of skills and knowledge to overcome poverty itself. It was not worth taking up the old debate of whose rights were being violated, and where those violations were occurring, whether in North or South or East or West. The new economic order was rights-based. It affirmed that all people had equal rights of access to the world’s resources. It was based on a structural transformation of developing economies in order to ensure economic growth with equity and justice in the world order.
He stressed equity and justice as the heart of human rights, saying that the concrete programme outlined in his report was intended to realize the right to development through a step-by-step approach that addressed the three core issues of food, primary education and health. Each would have varying levels of priority for countries, but the approach would be formulated as a national plan supported by an international cooperation framework to make a “development compact” for each country. Thus, while the development compact was country-specific, it would be complemented with international action in such forms as trade and access to markets and debt adjustment. The whole would require the restructuring of the international financial system to promote equity and justice.
Questions and Answers
The representative of Pakistan pointed out that the old polarizations of the East-West, North-South debate had been dead since the end of the cold war, but since activity in one part of the world impacted on the other, how could the development pact be implemented? The representative of Cuba agreed that the world was multipolar now, but the gap between the developed and developing worlds was larger due to lack of opportunities for the latter. What about a convention on the right to development, which would bring about global affirmative action by making support of development an obligation? he asked.
France’s representative said the European Union had noted the report, and was curious about whether the Independent Expert’s dialogue with agencies would continue. The representative of Viet Nam asked why a national human rights commission was linked with development. Iraq’s representative asked why sanctions had not been listed in the report as a major impediment to development.
MR. SENGUPTA said he agreed with the representatives of Pakistan and Cuba that the world situation today was based on solidarity. He stressed that the new economic order was based on international cooperation. While it was true that the gap between rich and poor had increased, he said he said the primary aim of any development plan was to reduce that gap. How could that be done in real terms? he asked, adding that he was open to further consideration of the question with delegations. For a start, he reiterated the heartening fact that the right to development had been affirmed as a basic human right. That imposed on States the obligation to fulfil that right, not just as an individual right but as a means of fulfilling all rights.
Further, he said the right to development did not reduce the responsibility of States, but made it a responsibility of the international community to assist all States to realize it. The international community would now have to ask: how will the assistance being provided bring about a reduction of disparities? Each country’s problems would be tackled with a tailor-made development compact.
Responding to France’s representative, he said he intended to continue discussions with agencies because the development contract was the only way to meet today’s needs, with the international community being responsible for helping to satisfy each country’s requirements. With regard to the notion of “conditionality”, he said the question could be rephrased as: “How do you monitor whether the responsibility assumed is being met?” Under the new development compact, donors would no longer tell the countries they were doing wrong. It would be left up to the national commissions to monitor their own country’s human rights conduct. The time had come to abandon the rhetoric of confrontation and to draw up a new charter of international cooperation.
The representative of Iran asked about the fit between the right to development and unilateral measures, which were an obstacle to that right. Following up on the question asked by Viet Nam’s representative, that of Pakistan asked whether the requirement to establish a national human rights commission was not a conditionality?
MR. SENGUPTA responded to Iran’s representative by agreeing that unilateral measures were an obstacle to development, but the new framework of international cooperation was needed before such obstacles could be eliminated. To the representative of Pakistan, he elaborated on the idea that development compacts were country-specific, with the country itself assuming the compact. That shifted the question away from conditionality, since it was not a condition imposed on the country assuming the compact, but rather, an obligation the country assumed. That was in contrast to present practice, where donors were monitors. In the new system, the country’s own human rights commission would monitor.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Sudan
LEONARDO FRANCO, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, introduced his report to the Committee by evoking the impact of the ongoing conflict on the human rights situation there. The civil war in Sudan, soon to enter its 18th year, had continued to put an enormous strain on the country’s civilian population, particularly women and children. Unfortunately, no credible prospects for peace were on the horizon. In fact, the latest round of talks had failed to bring the parties to the conflict any closer to agreement on basic issues such as the question of State and religion. Not only had the civil war continued, but, since his visit, there had also been increased deterioration of the security situation in southern Sudan caused by an escalation of military operations. Both parties to the conflict had openly violated their respective unilateral declarations of ceasefire. On one hand, the Government had intensified its policy of systematic bombing of civilians and humanitarian targets. And on the other hand, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) had launched an offensive in the North in June which further exacerbated the conflict.
There had been reports of 250 bombs dropped and 33 bombing incidents in July alone. In August, relief agencies had been targeted, leading to a United Nations decision to suspend all flights temporarily. He drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights had reiterated their concern over the practice of aerial bombarding of civilian and humanitarian targets. Sadly, official response to that concern left much to be desired. He called on the international community to renew its unconditional condemnation of such practices. He also urged that the bombings cease immediately and that the perpetrators be identified and brought to justice.Finally, he said that his report addressed a number of other serious violations by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, including forced recruitment of children, diversion of food aid, planting of mines and undue treatment of civilians. Those violations must be of concern to the international community. He had raised those issues with representatives and received scarcely more than scant reassurance or flat denials. He also noted that food shortages were now affecting millions of people in Sudan, and the intensification of fighting was severely limiting the delivery of humanitarian assistance. That exacerbated the already serious situation for internally displaced persons. While there had been some encouraging political developments in recent months, he urged the Committee to view any such developments in the broader context of the overall situation in the region. He expressed concern that the announced general elections might represent merely a token gesture, unless they took place as a result of a solid process of consultations that respected the rights of all parties and political forces involved.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the report on his country, Sudan’s representative affirmed his country’s willingness to work with the United Nations in promoting and protecting human rights. However, the Special Rapporteur had relied heavily on reports from unspecified sources whose information had turned out to be unverifiable. The only conclusion was that the sources of the reports were groups, organizations and individuals who systematically entered Sudan to carry out illegal activities. They were allied with the rebel movement and operating under its protection.
The state of emergency noted in the report would be lifted next month during the presidential and legislative elections, he continued. The United Nations Secretary-General had been contacted with a request to provide monitors to oversee the election. However, it should be pointed out that targeting civilians was not a policy of Sudan. Rather, the rebels continued to use civilian installations during a time of war. He then detailed notations to other observations in the report, concerning abductions and conscription of children as well as the oil situation in the North. In conclusion, he said the way to stop the human rights violations in the country was to call a ceasefire. The government was ready for that. The international community should induce the other side to agree.
The Committee Chairwoman then announced that the question and answer session on the situation of human rights in Sudan would continue in the afternoon.
* *** *
Third Committee
34th Meeting (AM)
25 October 2000
A “development compact” would be the basis for a new economic framework to implement the basic right to development, the Independent Expert on that right said this morning. Arjun Sengupta, the Expert, made that proposal as he addressed the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) during its continuing consideration of human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations, the Vienna Declaration and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The old North-South, East-West debate about development was dead, he continued. The new economic order was rights-based. It affirmed that all people had equal rights of access to the world’s resources. It would be based on a structural transformation of developing economies to ensure economic growth with equity and justice in the world order.
Further, he said the right to development would be realized through a step-by-step focus on three core issues, namely food, primary education and health. The development compact to meet those needs would be country-specific, but complemented by international action such as trade, access to markets and debt adjustment.
In his address to the Committee, the Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance, Abdelfattah Amor, stressed his obligation to uphold standards of objectivity in his investigations. Whether he reached his conclusions through the use of statistics or open dialogue was not the point. His duty was to uphold his mandate.
Leonardo Franco, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, introduced his report by noting the adverse impact of continued conflict on the human rights situation of that country. While recently there had been some encouraging political developments, he said those should be viewed in the context of the region. The upcoming elections should respect the rights of all parties.
Responding to the report on his country, the representative of Sudan said he had written to the Secretary-General requesting monitors for the election. The only way to stop the human rights violations in the country was to call a ceasefire. His Government was ready for that. The international community should induce the other side to agree.
Also taking part in the question and answer segments with the Special Rapporteur and Independent Expert were the representatives of Armenia, Bangladesh, France (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Nigeria, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Tunisia, Turkey, China, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Cuba and Viet Nam.
In addition this morning, the representative of the United States introduced a draft resolution on combating the misuse of information technologies.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. to continue considering human rights issues and to exchange views on reports with rapporteurs and representatives.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue considering human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee would also consider human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993); and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October.)
The Committee also has before it a draft resolution on combating the criminal misuse of information technology (document A/C.3/55/L.8/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly invite States to take into account certain measures in their efforts to combat the criminal misuse of information technologies. Those measures include steps to insure that laws and practice eliminate safe havens for those who criminally misuse information technologies. States would also be invited to train and secure the cooperation of law enforcement personnel and the exchange of information. Legal systems would protect the confidentiality of data and computer systems from unauthorized impairment, and would permit quick access to data pertaining to particular criminal investigations. Mutual assistance regimes would ensure timely investigation and the public would be made aware of the need to combat criminal misuse of the technologies. The Assembly would also decide to maintain the question on its agenda as part of the item on crime prevention and criminal justice.
The draft is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
Introduction of Draft
The representative of the United States introduced a draft resolution on combating the criminal misuse of information technologies (document A/C.3/55/L.8/Rev.1) with two technical amendments to the text.
The following were added as co-sponsors: Liechtenstein, Croatia.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Special Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights on the question of religious tolerance, introduced his report to the Committee. He stressed that there was no country in the world that did not suffer from some form of religious intolerance. In fact, the situation with regard to intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief was alarming. The global trend towards increasing contacts in the social, cultural and economic spheres was accompanied by the growth of extremism and of policies detrimental to society, particularly to women and children. He also highlighted the notion that religious freedom was closely related to the promotion of democracy and development.
He briefly highlighted some of the details of his visits to Turkey and Bangladesh during the reporting period. On his visit to Turkey, he noted that the country’s legislation provided guarantees of freedom of religion, while imposing some limitations. On the other hand, some of those limitations were found to contain vague expressions that could be interpreted broadly and which could lead to intervention by the State. He noted that some violations of religious freedom were multifaceted and included confiscation of property, restriction of public demonstrations and disruption of places of worship. On his visit to Bangladesh, he said that the focus of that mission had been on the influence of politics on the freedom of religion. Another focus of his visit was the status of women. He noted that he would soon be visiting Argentina, at the invitation of that country’s Government.
Finally, he drew the Committee’s attention to the upcoming international consultative conference on education and religion, set for November 2001 in Madrid. He said that this type of conference was important and deserved the full support of the international community, as education was the surest way to promote prevention of religious intolerance. Every effort should be made to address the root causes of problems, he added: it was not enough to come into a situation as a “firefighter”.
Questions and Answers
Committee members posed a broad image of questions to the Special Rapporteur. Several representatives, including those of Armenia and Bangladesh, dwelt on the history of the evolution of religious practices and on the current situation of religious tolerance in their countries. Having been subject to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, but unable to receive the proper translation of his findings in time for today’s dialogue, the representative of Bangladesh asked the Chairman for time to study the documents more closely and comment on them in detail later. He added, however, that his Government would certainly take the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations under serious consideration. He also wondered if the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which involved a dispute between ethnic minorities, fell under the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
The representative of Turkey, also having been subject to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, took the floor to dispute what he felt were “prominent inconsistencies and flaws” in his report. He focused particularly on the Special Rapporteur’s “selective and slanted” use of historical context to characterize the situation in his country. He also said it appeared that the Special Rapporteur had relied only on figures and percentages to support his conclusions.
The representative of Libya was concerned about the effect of the portrayal of Muslims in the Western media. She asked the Special Rapporteur if his work had uncovered a tendency towards religious intolerance for certain Muslim religions because of such negative portrayals. The representative of Tunisia wondered if the Special Rapporteur could highlight any aspects of his work which had focused on the sanctity and protection of religious monuments and places of worship. The representative of Iraq said it was important to note that throughout the Special Rapporteur’s report, it appeared that it was only Muslims who prosecuted others and spread religious intolerance. That type of selectivity in reporting had painted an unfortunate picture that perhaps in itself fostered a form of religious intolerance. The representatives of Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China, Egypt and France (on behalf of the European Union) also posed questions.
Before responding to the concerns of the Committee, the Special Rapporteur thanked members for their comments and criticism. He hoped that today’s dialogue would foster better cooperation in the spirit of tolerance and non-discrimination, and would help strength his mandate.
Turning to comments by the representative of Bangladesh, he agreed that it was unacceptable that the report under consideration today had not been translated in a timely manner. He hoped that the representative would have the opportunity to study the report more closely, and welcomed the Government’s intention to further consider the recommendations contained therein. He also said that while the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts did involve a dispute between ethnic minorities, it was widely understood to have important religious dimensions as well. It was that implication that placed consideration of the incident squarely within his mandate. He was hopeful that the implementation of the peace agreement in the region would go a long way to easing the tensions there.
He went on to say that practically everywhere, the status of women required more initiatives and more attention. Looking at their status from a religious angle, one could not help but see that religion was used to maintain certain traditions that led to discrimination against women. Such “aggravated intolerance” faced by women was caused by the convergence of many negative factors, such as poverty and illiteracy.
On the treatment of certain religions in the media, he endorsed the representative of Libya’s assertion that Muslims were often portrayed in a negative manner. He went further, however, saying that certain portrayals were not merely negative but quite often aggressively so -- geared towards eliciting a strong response from viewers. Some media depictions of Muslims as fanatical or untrustworthy were examples of this. He said that while Muslims were not always portrayed in a negative light, it was unfortunate that the prevalence of clichés and stereotypes to define Muslims and other religious groups was on the rise. He said that it was the job of the international community to ensure that the mass media at all times acted in the service of human rights and the promotion of a culture of tolerance.
He added that places of worship must not serve as forums for provocation or political motivation. It was also important that places of worship be sheltered from extremism.
Responding to several questions about his working methods, the Special Rapporteur said that it was his duty to translate the sociological reality of situations as they really existed. Differences of opinion on statistical data would always exist, and whether he reached his conclusions through the use of statistics or open dialogue was not the point. His duty was to uphold his mandate. He tried to reflect all sides of the issues under consideration. In fact, any special rapporteur was duty-bound to be totally independent in his actions. His personal conviction was that while he always respected all the people he met and talked with during his missions, he would admit no concessions whatsoever to the fulfilment of his mandate. “You can’t teach a grandmother to suck eggs,” he said.
He went on to say that it was not his habit to foster polemical digressions, but he wished to point out that religious intolerance, whether directed at Muslims living in particular areas, or perpetrated by Muslims or other members of religious minorities, would continue to be reported in a comprehensive manner. His methods of reporting did not show a “blind eye” to religious intolerance towards Muslims. In fact, the report gave careful consideration to accounts of incidents in the Palestinian-occupied territories, as well as Israel. All situations were worthy of scrutiny in the service of the protection and promotion of human rights, he said.
Statement by Independent Expert on Right to Development
ARJUN SENGUPTA, the Independent Expert on the right to development, presented his second report. He said the right to development had now been accepted as a human right. Further, the international community had accepted it not merely as a single right but one encompassing all the others, which made it a priority obligation for States to fulfil. The principle element of the right was that it included the entirety of all rights within a new conception of development, putting the responsibility for implementation on States within the context of international cooperation for such implementation. The unique component in the plan was that all elements of cooperation were elaborated with each country’s specific problems taken into consideration, because all countries had different strengths and needs. Some countries needed technology transfer, for example, while others needed market access.
A most basic violation of rights could be used to illustrate the approach, he continued. That basic violation was extreme poverty -- which had two components. The first was income poverty, which meant there was too little money to live on. The second component was capacity poverty, which meant the absence of skills and knowledge to overcome poverty itself. It was not worth taking up the old debate of whose rights were being violated, and where those violations were occurring, whether in North or South or East or West. The new economic order was rights-based. It affirmed that all people had equal rights of access to the world’s resources. It was based on a structural transformation of developing economies in order to ensure economic growth with equity and justice in the world order.
He stressed equity and justice as the heart of human rights, saying that the concrete programme outlined in his report was intended to realize the right to development through a step-by-step approach that addressed the three core issues of food, primary education and health. Each would have varying levels of priority for countries, but the approach would be formulated as a national plan supported by an international cooperation framework to make a “development compact” for each country. Thus, while the development compact was country-specific, it would be complemented with international action in such forms as trade and access to markets and debt adjustment. The whole would require the restructuring of the international financial system to promote equity and justice.
Questions and Answers
The representative of Pakistan pointed out that the old polarizations of the East-West, North-South debate had been dead since the end of the cold war, but since activity in one part of the world impacted on the other, how could the development pact be implemented? The representative of Cuba agreed that the world was multipolar now, but the gap between the developed and developing worlds was larger due to lack of opportunities for the latter. What about a convention on the right to development, which would bring about global affirmative action by making support of development an obligation? he asked.
France’s representative said the European Union had noted the report, and was curious about whether the Independent Expert’s dialogue with agencies would continue. The representative of Viet Nam asked why a national human rights commission was linked with development. Iraq’s representative asked why sanctions had not been listed in the report as a major impediment to development.
MR. SENGUPTA said he agreed with the representatives of Pakistan and Cuba that the world situation today was based on solidarity. He stressed that the new economic order was based on international cooperation. While it was true that the gap between rich and poor had increased, he said he said the primary aim of any development plan was to reduce that gap. How could that be done in real terms? he asked, adding that he was open to further consideration of the question with delegations. For a start, he reiterated the heartening fact that the right to development had been affirmed as a basic human right. That imposed on States the obligation to fulfil that right, not just as an individual right but as a means of fulfilling all rights.
Further, he said the right to development did not reduce the responsibility of States, but made it a responsibility of the international community to assist all States to realize it. The international community would now have to ask: how will the assistance being provided bring about a reduction of disparities? Each country’s problems would be tackled with a tailor-made development compact.
Responding to France’s representative, he said he intended to continue discussions with agencies because the development contract was the only way to meet today’s needs, with the international community being responsible for helping to satisfy each country’s requirements. With regard to the notion of “conditionality”, he said the question could be rephrased as: “How do you monitor whether the responsibility assumed is being met?” Under the new development compact, donors would no longer tell the countries they were doing wrong. It would be left up to the national commissions to monitor their own country’s human rights conduct. The time had come to abandon the rhetoric of confrontation and to draw up a new charter of international cooperation.
The representative of Iran asked about the fit between the right to development and unilateral measures, which were an obstacle to that right. Following up on the question asked by Viet Nam’s representative, that of Pakistan asked whether the requirement to establish a national human rights commission was not a conditionality?
MR. SENGUPTA responded to Iran’s representative by agreeing that unilateral measures were an obstacle to development, but the new framework of international cooperation was needed before such obstacles could be eliminated. To the representative of Pakistan, he elaborated on the idea that development compacts were country-specific, with the country itself assuming the compact. That shifted the question away from conditionality, since it was not a condition imposed on the country assuming the compact, but rather, an obligation the country assumed. That was in contrast to present practice, where donors were monitors. In the new system, the country’s own human rights commission would monitor.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Sudan
LEONARDO FRANCO, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, introduced his report to the Committee by evoking the impact of the ongoing conflict on the human rights situation there. The civil war in Sudan, soon to enter its 18th year, had continued to put an enormous strain on the country’s civilian population, particularly women and children. Unfortunately, no credible prospects for peace were on the horizon. In fact, the latest round of talks had failed to bring the parties to the conflict any closer to agreement on basic issues such as the question of State and religion. Not only had the civil war continued, but, since his visit, there had also been increased deterioration of the security situation in southern Sudan caused by an escalation of military operations. Both parties to the conflict had openly violated their respective unilateral declarations of ceasefire. On one hand, the Government had intensified its policy of systematic bombing of civilians and humanitarian targets. And on the other hand, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) had launched an offensive in the North in June which further exacerbated the conflict.
There had been reports of 250 bombs dropped and 33 bombing incidents in July alone. In August, relief agencies had been targeted, leading to a United Nations decision to suspend all flights temporarily. He drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights had reiterated their concern over the practice of aerial bombarding of civilian and humanitarian targets. Sadly, official response to that concern left much to be desired. He called on the international community to renew its unconditional condemnation of such practices. He also urged that the bombings cease immediately and that the perpetrators be identified and brought to justice.Finally, he said that his report addressed a number of other serious violations by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, including forced recruitment of children, diversion of food aid, planting of mines and undue treatment of civilians. Those violations must be of concern to the international community. He had raised those issues with representatives and received scarcely more than scant reassurance or flat denials. He also noted that food shortages were now affecting millions of people in Sudan, and the intensification of fighting was severely limiting the delivery of humanitarian assistance. That exacerbated the already serious situation for internally displaced persons. While there had been some encouraging political developments in recent months, he urged the Committee to view any such developments in the broader context of the overall situation in the region. He expressed concern that the announced general elections might represent merely a token gesture, unless they took place as a result of a solid process of consultations that respected the rights of all parties and political forces involved.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the report on his country, Sudan’s representative affirmed his country’s willingness to work with the United Nations in promoting and protecting human rights. However, the Special Rapporteur had relied heavily on reports from unspecified sources whose information had turned out to be unverifiable. The only conclusion was that the sources of the reports were groups, organizations and individuals who systematically entered Sudan to carry out illegal activities. They were allied with the rebel movement and operating under its protection.
The state of emergency noted in the report would be lifted next month during the presidential and legislative elections, he continued. The United Nations Secretary-General had been contacted with a request to provide monitors to oversee the election. However, it should be pointed out that targeting civilians was not a policy of Sudan. Rather, the rebels continued to use civilian installations during a time of war. He then detailed notations to other observations in the report, concerning abductions and conscription of children as well as the oil situation in the North. In conclusion, he said the way to stop the human rights violations in the country was to call a ceasefire. The government was ready for that. The international community should induce the other side to agree.
The Committee Chairwoman then announced that the question and answer session on the situation of human rights in Sudan would continue in the afternoon.
* *** *