Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases
Default title
30 October 2000
Share
Fifty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
30 October 2000
40th Meeting (AM)
The perspective on protecting human rights must change from a purely political or legal angle to a holistic and pragmatic approach, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told this morning, as it met to continue considering human rights questions.
The representative of Malaysia said human rights should be seen as national and global public goods, provided by duty-bearers with the responsibility of fulfilling those particular rights. That approach would be more flexible and would be a more realistic tool for policy analysis, focusing on the world as it was and not as it should be.
The representative of Cuba said the challenge was to promote and protect human rights in a world where only a minority elite had full access to the benefits of civilization. In order to capitalize on the enormous potential of globalization, it would be necessary to promote a new democratic and equitable world order, based on the principle of justice and solidarity and promoting the participation of so-called third world countries in political processes.
With regard to the fundamental right to free speech, governments had a double duty, the representative of Israel said. They had to both guarantee free speech and simultaneously combat incitement to violence. In the Middle East, that issue stirred such heated debate that the need for balance between free speech, the maintenance of public order and the prevention of incitement was obvious. Since history had shown that racist expression led to racist deeds, racists were barred from elections. Even the most ardent supporters of free expression recognized it could not be an absolute right but was subject to limitations arising from other legitimate rights.
Statements were also made by the representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belarus, Viet Nam and Jordan.
The Deputy Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) also addressed the Committee.
The Committee will meet again at 3:00 p.m. to continue its consideration of approaches to human rights, human rights situations, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
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 is also expected to 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.)
Statements
ANDRE MWAMBA KAPANGA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the terror and the gross violations of rights in territories under occupation must stop. His country had made human rights a priority, as the Special Rapporteur's report on his country had shown. As to the facts, Mr. Garreton had not minced words in his oral presentation on 25 October. He had described the war as having the characteristics of an international conflict, stating point blank that the Democratic Republic was definitely under foreign assault. "Rwanda and Uganda have exported their own conflict," the Special Rapporteur had said. In June, the representative added, the fighting in Kisingani had killed 1,000 people.
The recommendations in the Special Rapporteur's report had already been addressed, he continued. The Government had submitted its own proposals for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and reeducation of the people, as well as for a renewal of the judicial system. The total abolition of capital punishment had already been stated as a goal, pursued as a gradual process with a moratorium on the death penalty in effect since February. Amnesty had also been declared, thereby freeing civilians, while the process of demobilizing children was being undertaken. Recruitment was heaviest in the East, and in the territories under Government control: it was recognized that children belonged at home, not on the war field. Overall, the primacy of international law was being recognized through national legislative changes.
He said his Government had asked for a readjustment of the Lusaka Agreements because there were elements who were not cooperating at present. The Government was willing to enter into an immediate ceasefire or into direct negotiations in order to bring peace back to the country and to the Great Lakes region. Further, to end the violation of human rights, the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to international norms and to its sacred respect for humanitarian law. That was in contrast to the Rwanda and Uganda aggressors. To back up its word, the Government had requested an international inquiry commission to investigate the conditions in the fighting zones.
YAACOV PARAN (Israel) said governments had a double duty with regard to the fundamental right of freedom of speech. They had to guarantee its exercise at the same time they combated incitement to violence. Every democratic regime struggled with the question, which was also of great concern to the international community. With regard to Israel and the Middle East, the issue stirred heated debate and highlighted the need to strike the balance between free speech, the maintenance of public order and the prevention of incitement.
While the highest priority was accorded to freedom of expression in the multiculturally democratic society that was Israel, both penal law and jurisprudence had long prohibited incitement to racism and violence. Racists were barred from elections, and the policy had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Even the most ardent supporters of free expression recognized it could not be an absolute right, but was subject to the limitations arising from other legitimate rights and interests, such as State security or an individual's reputation. Absolute freedom of expression could also adversely affect the delicate web of relations between Arabs and Jews. History had shown that extreme racist expression inevitably led to racist deeds. The struggle against racism began with a total uprooting of expressions of racist incitement.
For Israel, he said, the assassination of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been a turning point. Manifestations of racism, anti-Semitism and hate speech continued to pervade the world, however. In some parts of Europe, the phenomenon was reaching worrisome levels. It was vital to turn from using the freedom of expression to fan the flames of hatred, and instead to use it as a bridge to enhance respect and tolerance between neighbours. It should be used to halt hatred and hostility in a genuine public discourse and exchange of views.
STANISLAV OGURTSOV (Belarus) said international cooperation was at the heart of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Vienna Declaration stated that all human rights were interconnected. Belarus prescribed to that view -- believing that protection of human rights was the most important job of any State. Democracy, he continued, was one of the basic conditions for the full achievement of human rights. That was one of the main focuses of his country’s constitution. It was important to note, however, that the artificial process of speeding up democratization without regard to the real concerns of societies could cause social and economic conflicts. Therefore, gradual movement towards democracy was necessary. Belarus was a State where there were no social, religious or State conflicts. It was a stable, open society, ready to cooperate with the United Nations in the whole area of human rights.
The country participated in all the international human rights treaties and conventions. While State participation was essential, however, it was important to consider the importance of the cooperation of the wider international community. He added that international actors should not allow anyone to exploit human rights instruments as tools to interfere with others. What was needed was international solidarity and partnership, aimed at eliminating the violation of human rights. What was also needed was a recognition of the concept of peace based on human rights, as well as economic and social progress. There was a need to work for equitable access to scientific and technological progress so that economic, political and social progress could occur.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it was imperative for the Committee to address the challenge of promoting and protecting human rights -- the rights of individuals and peoples -- in a world where only a minority elite had full access to the benefits of civilization. While identifying alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of those rights was an important aspect of the Committee’s work, focal objectives such as eradication of poverty, equity and social justice, and the right to peace and development had been unfortunately consigned to countless rhetorical speeches. It was vital to first address the effects of globalization. In order to capitalize on the enormous potential of that phenomenon, it would be necessary to promote a new democratic and equitable world order, based on the principles of justice and solidarity, and promoting the active involvement of so called third world countries in political processes. That approach would also provide more comprehensive and balanced progress in identifying development strategies.
What kind of human rights could the world speak of today when 4.5 billion people living in developing countries consumed only 14 per cent of world production? Could one say that human rights were respected on a planet where one in six of its inhabitants suffered from hunger and where one in five lacked access to basic health services? That was the bitter reality facing the international community -- a world where opulence and self-interest prevailed and a small number of wealthy countries enjoyed insatiable consumerism, while the money needed for treating AIDS patients could not be raised. He added that unilateral intervention by a State or group of States in the affairs of other States, particularly through the use of armed force, was not a legitimate recourse to protect human rights. That approach did not justify inaction in the face of massive human rights violations. On the contrary, it was a matter of respecting the framework for action provided by the Charter. Democracy and universality could only be built on the basis of an authentic respect for a nation’s right to adopt -- without foreign interference -- the political, economic and social organization it deemed suitable.
NGUYEN THANH HA (Viet Nam) said that with the elaboration and adoption of a set of core of legal instruments on human rights, the international community had laid a significant foundation for the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In that regard, she called on Member States to continue to strive for universal ratification and further implementation of those instruments. That would require strengthening the treaty bodies, not only by providing them with more resources but also by undertaking reforms that would ensure equitable geographical representation. The international community had come to a consensus that it was vital to uphold the standard of universality, non-selectivity and objectivity when considering human rights issues. Human rights were inseparable from peace, democracy and development. It was important to highlight that States had the right and the duty to formulate their own national development policies, and the international community had the right to facilitate that process through international and regional cooperation. But while recognizing that comprehensive approach to development, Viet Nam reaffirmed its strong opposition to any form of conditionality or imposition in development assistance.
Viet Nam, she continued, had become party to most of the core international human rights treaties and was considering further treaty actions. To the best of its capacity, her country had implemented its obligations under those treaties through legislative, administrative and educational measures. By mobilizing the participation of all Vietnamese people, including those permanently living abroad, the Government had created an increasingly favourable environment for its people’s enjoyment and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government was aware, however, that certain areas of the country, due to lack of awareness or of implementation capacity, had not fully achieved human rights. It was also aware that Viet Nam was not immune from the spread of organized crime. It was the consistent policy of the Government to look for appropriate and effective measure to meet those challenges.
MOHAMMAD KAMAL YAN YAHAYA (Malaysia) said the preventive measures outlined by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report fell short in a number of ways. It was not comprehensive or coherent enough, there was no distinction between strategies and measures and there was no specification on how the measures were to be applied within the framework of national sovereignty. For example, how would consistency be assured or double standards removed, particularly in light of the developed world's apathy and selectivity with regard to peacekeeping?
Further, he said, while it was heartening that the right to development had been linked with human rights, much work remained to be done on approaches, measures and implementation. Much conceptual work also needed to be done on the impact of international phenomena, such as financial speculation, on the enjoyment of human rights. The perspective on protecting human rights must now be changed from a purely political or legal angle to a more holistic and pragmatic approach. That is, human rights should be seen from the vantage point of national and global public goods, provided by duty bearers who had the responsibility for fulfilling those rights. That approach would be more flexible and would be a more realistic tool for policy analysis. It would also focus on the real world, and not on the world as it should be.
Basically, the struggle for full enjoyment of human rights was a question of national capacity-building through international cooperation and technical assistance. Establishing democratic structures and institutions was of first importance. Within the Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation framework, Malaysia would be hosting a workshop on globalization and human rights. And finally, with regard to capital punishment, that was a criminal justice issue rather than a human rights one.
SAMI GHOSHEH (Jordan) said his country was implementing human rights by incorporating international instruments into its constitution. An entire chapter on human rights now existed, with no distinctions between rights and duties. Women had full rights, including to hold higher office. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society and trade unions had all contributed to elaborating human rights. A national action plan had been developed following international standards. A specialized human rights unit followed developments.
Of first concern throughout the Jordanian kingdom, he continued, was to eliminate intolerance. All citizens were allowed to exercise their rights; no one could interfere. With regard to the death penalty, the constitution forbade its application to pregnant women and juveniles. It also prohibited the arrest of any persons without just cause.
GARETH HOWELL, Deputy Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO), said the rights of migrant workers were of great concern to the ILO. An overall increase in restrictions on immigration was leading to ever greater trafficking in migrants, with tragic human consequences. Those who managed to enter new countries and work there on an unauthorized basis often became victims of abuse and exploitation. The ranks of such people were increasing with the growth of the informal economy and the sweatshops that disfigured the most developed nations. However, even permanently settled immigrants commonly faced discrimination and xenophobic hostility. The ILO was documenting the dimensions of such discriminatory treatment. Solutions were being fashioned with governments, employers and workers, feeding into the preparatory process for the 2001 World Conference against Racism.
Worldwide, he said the ILO was consolidating and expanding its efforts to combat trafficking, to promote prevention by offering sustainable alternatives and to assist victims in re-establishing normal livelihoods. It was part of the campaign to create decent work worldwide, a concept built on four pillars: creating jobs; securing fundamental rights; enhancing social protection; and promoting social dialogue. Once there was freedom of association and freedom from forced labour, child labour and discrimination, working people of whatever national origins would contribute more fully and effectively to their own well-being, to that of their families and to the social and economic advancement of the societies in which they lived and worked.
* *** *
Third Committee
30 October 2000
40th Meeting (AM)
The perspective on protecting human rights must change from a purely political or legal angle to a holistic and pragmatic approach, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told this morning, as it met to continue considering human rights questions.
The representative of Malaysia said human rights should be seen as national and global public goods, provided by duty-bearers with the responsibility of fulfilling those particular rights. That approach would be more flexible and would be a more realistic tool for policy analysis, focusing on the world as it was and not as it should be.
The representative of Cuba said the challenge was to promote and protect human rights in a world where only a minority elite had full access to the benefits of civilization. In order to capitalize on the enormous potential of globalization, it would be necessary to promote a new democratic and equitable world order, based on the principle of justice and solidarity and promoting the participation of so-called third world countries in political processes.
With regard to the fundamental right to free speech, governments had a double duty, the representative of Israel said. They had to both guarantee free speech and simultaneously combat incitement to violence. In the Middle East, that issue stirred such heated debate that the need for balance between free speech, the maintenance of public order and the prevention of incitement was obvious. Since history had shown that racist expression led to racist deeds, racists were barred from elections. Even the most ardent supporters of free expression recognized it could not be an absolute right but was subject to limitations arising from other legitimate rights.
Statements were also made by the representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belarus, Viet Nam and Jordan.
The Deputy Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) also addressed the Committee.
The Committee will meet again at 3:00 p.m. to continue its consideration of approaches to human rights, human rights situations, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
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 is also expected to 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.)
Statements
ANDRE MWAMBA KAPANGA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the terror and the gross violations of rights in territories under occupation must stop. His country had made human rights a priority, as the Special Rapporteur's report on his country had shown. As to the facts, Mr. Garreton had not minced words in his oral presentation on 25 October. He had described the war as having the characteristics of an international conflict, stating point blank that the Democratic Republic was definitely under foreign assault. "Rwanda and Uganda have exported their own conflict," the Special Rapporteur had said. In June, the representative added, the fighting in Kisingani had killed 1,000 people.
The recommendations in the Special Rapporteur's report had already been addressed, he continued. The Government had submitted its own proposals for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and reeducation of the people, as well as for a renewal of the judicial system. The total abolition of capital punishment had already been stated as a goal, pursued as a gradual process with a moratorium on the death penalty in effect since February. Amnesty had also been declared, thereby freeing civilians, while the process of demobilizing children was being undertaken. Recruitment was heaviest in the East, and in the territories under Government control: it was recognized that children belonged at home, not on the war field. Overall, the primacy of international law was being recognized through national legislative changes.
He said his Government had asked for a readjustment of the Lusaka Agreements because there were elements who were not cooperating at present. The Government was willing to enter into an immediate ceasefire or into direct negotiations in order to bring peace back to the country and to the Great Lakes region. Further, to end the violation of human rights, the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to international norms and to its sacred respect for humanitarian law. That was in contrast to the Rwanda and Uganda aggressors. To back up its word, the Government had requested an international inquiry commission to investigate the conditions in the fighting zones.
YAACOV PARAN (Israel) said governments had a double duty with regard to the fundamental right of freedom of speech. They had to guarantee its exercise at the same time they combated incitement to violence. Every democratic regime struggled with the question, which was also of great concern to the international community. With regard to Israel and the Middle East, the issue stirred heated debate and highlighted the need to strike the balance between free speech, the maintenance of public order and the prevention of incitement.
While the highest priority was accorded to freedom of expression in the multiculturally democratic society that was Israel, both penal law and jurisprudence had long prohibited incitement to racism and violence. Racists were barred from elections, and the policy had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Even the most ardent supporters of free expression recognized it could not be an absolute right, but was subject to the limitations arising from other legitimate rights and interests, such as State security or an individual's reputation. Absolute freedom of expression could also adversely affect the delicate web of relations between Arabs and Jews. History had shown that extreme racist expression inevitably led to racist deeds. The struggle against racism began with a total uprooting of expressions of racist incitement.
For Israel, he said, the assassination of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been a turning point. Manifestations of racism, anti-Semitism and hate speech continued to pervade the world, however. In some parts of Europe, the phenomenon was reaching worrisome levels. It was vital to turn from using the freedom of expression to fan the flames of hatred, and instead to use it as a bridge to enhance respect and tolerance between neighbours. It should be used to halt hatred and hostility in a genuine public discourse and exchange of views.
STANISLAV OGURTSOV (Belarus) said international cooperation was at the heart of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Vienna Declaration stated that all human rights were interconnected. Belarus prescribed to that view -- believing that protection of human rights was the most important job of any State. Democracy, he continued, was one of the basic conditions for the full achievement of human rights. That was one of the main focuses of his country’s constitution. It was important to note, however, that the artificial process of speeding up democratization without regard to the real concerns of societies could cause social and economic conflicts. Therefore, gradual movement towards democracy was necessary. Belarus was a State where there were no social, religious or State conflicts. It was a stable, open society, ready to cooperate with the United Nations in the whole area of human rights.
The country participated in all the international human rights treaties and conventions. While State participation was essential, however, it was important to consider the importance of the cooperation of the wider international community. He added that international actors should not allow anyone to exploit human rights instruments as tools to interfere with others. What was needed was international solidarity and partnership, aimed at eliminating the violation of human rights. What was also needed was a recognition of the concept of peace based on human rights, as well as economic and social progress. There was a need to work for equitable access to scientific and technological progress so that economic, political and social progress could occur.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it was imperative for the Committee to address the challenge of promoting and protecting human rights -- the rights of individuals and peoples -- in a world where only a minority elite had full access to the benefits of civilization. While identifying alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of those rights was an important aspect of the Committee’s work, focal objectives such as eradication of poverty, equity and social justice, and the right to peace and development had been unfortunately consigned to countless rhetorical speeches. It was vital to first address the effects of globalization. In order to capitalize on the enormous potential of that phenomenon, it would be necessary to promote a new democratic and equitable world order, based on the principles of justice and solidarity, and promoting the active involvement of so called third world countries in political processes. That approach would also provide more comprehensive and balanced progress in identifying development strategies.
What kind of human rights could the world speak of today when 4.5 billion people living in developing countries consumed only 14 per cent of world production? Could one say that human rights were respected on a planet where one in six of its inhabitants suffered from hunger and where one in five lacked access to basic health services? That was the bitter reality facing the international community -- a world where opulence and self-interest prevailed and a small number of wealthy countries enjoyed insatiable consumerism, while the money needed for treating AIDS patients could not be raised. He added that unilateral intervention by a State or group of States in the affairs of other States, particularly through the use of armed force, was not a legitimate recourse to protect human rights. That approach did not justify inaction in the face of massive human rights violations. On the contrary, it was a matter of respecting the framework for action provided by the Charter. Democracy and universality could only be built on the basis of an authentic respect for a nation’s right to adopt -- without foreign interference -- the political, economic and social organization it deemed suitable.
NGUYEN THANH HA (Viet Nam) said that with the elaboration and adoption of a set of core of legal instruments on human rights, the international community had laid a significant foundation for the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In that regard, she called on Member States to continue to strive for universal ratification and further implementation of those instruments. That would require strengthening the treaty bodies, not only by providing them with more resources but also by undertaking reforms that would ensure equitable geographical representation. The international community had come to a consensus that it was vital to uphold the standard of universality, non-selectivity and objectivity when considering human rights issues. Human rights were inseparable from peace, democracy and development. It was important to highlight that States had the right and the duty to formulate their own national development policies, and the international community had the right to facilitate that process through international and regional cooperation. But while recognizing that comprehensive approach to development, Viet Nam reaffirmed its strong opposition to any form of conditionality or imposition in development assistance.
Viet Nam, she continued, had become party to most of the core international human rights treaties and was considering further treaty actions. To the best of its capacity, her country had implemented its obligations under those treaties through legislative, administrative and educational measures. By mobilizing the participation of all Vietnamese people, including those permanently living abroad, the Government had created an increasingly favourable environment for its people’s enjoyment and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government was aware, however, that certain areas of the country, due to lack of awareness or of implementation capacity, had not fully achieved human rights. It was also aware that Viet Nam was not immune from the spread of organized crime. It was the consistent policy of the Government to look for appropriate and effective measure to meet those challenges.
MOHAMMAD KAMAL YAN YAHAYA (Malaysia) said the preventive measures outlined by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report fell short in a number of ways. It was not comprehensive or coherent enough, there was no distinction between strategies and measures and there was no specification on how the measures were to be applied within the framework of national sovereignty. For example, how would consistency be assured or double standards removed, particularly in light of the developed world's apathy and selectivity with regard to peacekeeping?
Further, he said, while it was heartening that the right to development had been linked with human rights, much work remained to be done on approaches, measures and implementation. Much conceptual work also needed to be done on the impact of international phenomena, such as financial speculation, on the enjoyment of human rights. The perspective on protecting human rights must now be changed from a purely political or legal angle to a more holistic and pragmatic approach. That is, human rights should be seen from the vantage point of national and global public goods, provided by duty bearers who had the responsibility for fulfilling those rights. That approach would be more flexible and would be a more realistic tool for policy analysis. It would also focus on the real world, and not on the world as it should be.
Basically, the struggle for full enjoyment of human rights was a question of national capacity-building through international cooperation and technical assistance. Establishing democratic structures and institutions was of first importance. Within the Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation framework, Malaysia would be hosting a workshop on globalization and human rights. And finally, with regard to capital punishment, that was a criminal justice issue rather than a human rights one.
SAMI GHOSHEH (Jordan) said his country was implementing human rights by incorporating international instruments into its constitution. An entire chapter on human rights now existed, with no distinctions between rights and duties. Women had full rights, including to hold higher office. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society and trade unions had all contributed to elaborating human rights. A national action plan had been developed following international standards. A specialized human rights unit followed developments.
Of first concern throughout the Jordanian kingdom, he continued, was to eliminate intolerance. All citizens were allowed to exercise their rights; no one could interfere. With regard to the death penalty, the constitution forbade its application to pregnant women and juveniles. It also prohibited the arrest of any persons without just cause.
GARETH HOWELL, Deputy Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO), said the rights of migrant workers were of great concern to the ILO. An overall increase in restrictions on immigration was leading to ever greater trafficking in migrants, with tragic human consequences. Those who managed to enter new countries and work there on an unauthorized basis often became victims of abuse and exploitation. The ranks of such people were increasing with the growth of the informal economy and the sweatshops that disfigured the most developed nations. However, even permanently settled immigrants commonly faced discrimination and xenophobic hostility. The ILO was documenting the dimensions of such discriminatory treatment. Solutions were being fashioned with governments, employers and workers, feeding into the preparatory process for the 2001 World Conference against Racism.
Worldwide, he said the ILO was consolidating and expanding its efforts to combat trafficking, to promote prevention by offering sustainable alternatives and to assist victims in re-establishing normal livelihoods. It was part of the campaign to create decent work worldwide, a concept built on four pillars: creating jobs; securing fundamental rights; enhancing social protection; and promoting social dialogue. Once there was freedom of association and freedom from forced labour, child labour and discrimination, working people of whatever national origins would contribute more fully and effectively to their own well-being, to that of their families and to the social and economic advancement of the societies in which they lived and worked.
* *** *