DIGNITARIES ADDRESS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN SPECIAL DEBATE ON TOLERANCE AND RESPECT

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
26 March 2001
Morning





The Commission on Human Rights began a one-day special debate on the subject of tolerance and respect by focusing this morning on how such qualities applied to religion and reconciliation.

In introducing the panellists, Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the special debate offered an opportunity to deepen the sense of shared values at the beginning of a new century. The purpose of the debate was to explore action-oriented ways and means for promoting the principles of tolerance and respect. It was to be hoped that the discussion would be an enlightening contribution to preparations for the upcoming World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, one of the three panellists, told the Commission that religion, which should encourage tolerance, respect, compassion, and peace, had far too frequently done the opposite; yet it need not be so if one could learn the obvious, that no religion could hope to have a monopoly on God, goodness, virtue or truth.

Aden Ridgeway, the only indigenous Senator in the Parliament of Australia, said, among other things, that recognizing and implementing the demands of indigenous peoples for effective decision-making control would allow them to move away from dependency and its negative consequences. What was crucial to reconciliation was promising that the past did not live in the present and did not hinder access to the full range of human rights.

Sheikh Sahib Ben Sheikh, the Mufti of Marseille, said, among other things, that because of globalization, no culture was exotic or remote anymore. Islam was a philosophy and not a law. Crimes committed in the name of Islam were not acceptable. Islam was extremely liberal and individualist. It was a great philosophy which preached the equality of human beings and tolerance among them.

A discussion followed, with several countries describing national efforts to enhance cultures of tolerance -- particularly through educational programmes -- and expressing pride in the diversity of their societies.

Contributing to the debate were Representatives of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the United States, the Russian Federation, Egypt (on behalf of the League of Arab States), Uruguay, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Bahrain, Israel, Ireland, Germany, and India.

The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also provided statements: International Association against Torture; World Federation for Mental Health; and United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its special debate on tolerance and respect.


Statements

MARY ROBINSON, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the special debate offered an opportunity to deepen the sense of shared values at the beginning of a new century. The quality of tolerance was minimal: it countered intolerance such as racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. Respect went farther; it involved listening, valuing, adjusting to what had been heard and embracing difference. The purpose of today's debate was to explore action-oriented ways and means for promoting the principles of tolerance and respect. It was to be hoped that the discussion would be an enlightening contribution to preparations for the upcoming World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Prevention, unfortunately, had yet to take root in the thinking and planning of Governments and the international community, Mrs. Robinson said; the importance of a policy of prevention had to be emphasized, and fostering tolerance and respect was a key preventive strategy. The special debate also could assist the Commission in its endeavours by reflecting on issues such as religious intolerance; economic, political and social exclusion; and discrimination against migrants. It could also ask how better to employ education more effectively to help everyone understand and value cultural, religious, racial and ethnic diversity.

ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, said the universe which the human beings inhabited was characterised by diversity. There was not just one planet or one star, there were galaxies of different sorts, a plethora of animal species, different kinds of plants, and different races and ethnic groups. How could one have a soccer team if all the members of the team were goalkeepers? How would it be an orchestra if all its members played the French horn? For Christians who believed they were created in the image of God, it was a reflection of the Godhead, diversity in unity, and the three-in-oneness of God, which one and all creation reflected.

There could be no superior or inferior race. All human beings were of equal worth in dignity, were born free, and for that reason were deserving of respect whatever their external circumstances. Human beings belonged in a world whose very structure, whose essence was diversity almost bewildering in extent, and it was to live in a fool's paradise to ignore that basic fact.

Religion, which should foster sisterhood and brotherhood, which should encourage tolerance, respect, compassion, peace, reconciliation, caring and sharing, had far too frequently perversely done the opposite. Religion had fuelled alienation and conflict and exacerbated intolerance and injustice and oppression. Some of the ghastliest atrocities had happened and were happening in the name of religion. It need not be so if one could learn the obvious, that no religion could hope to have a monopoly on God, on goodness and virtue and truth. Christians needed to remember that God was not a Christian and that they were the followers of one called the Prince of Peace.

Human beings' survival as a species would depend not on unbridled power lacking moral direction, or on eliminating those who were different and seeking only those who think and speak and behave and look like themselves. That way was stagnating and would lead to ultimately death and disintegration. That was the way of people in times of transition, of instability and insecurity, when there was turmoil and social upheaval, poverty and unemployment, then people seek refuge in fundamentalism of all kinds. They look for scapegoats who were provided by those who were different in appearance, in behaviour, in race and in thought. Differences of opinion were not tolerated and simplistic answers were the vogue whereas the reality was that the issues were complex. People become impatient of ambivalence. Others would discover, as tried in South Africa, that there was no future without forgiveness. There was room for everyone; there was room for every culture, race, language, and point of view,

ADEN RIDGEWAY, the only indigenous Senator in the Parliament of Australia, said he followed in the footsteps of many great indigenous leaders who had attempted to persuade the international community to act in the spirit of truth and justice. The world's indigenous peoples had not gone away, and their problems remained outstanding.

In Australia, the majority of the population had indicated its willingness to start afresh in its relationship with indigenous Australians, Mr. Ridgeway said, and to re-examine the history of their shared country since colonization by the British over two centuries ago. However, when it came to the harder issues of reconciliation, only a minority of Australians were prepared to countenance real equality. Australians were keen to embrace the rhetoric of reconciliation so long as it did not require them to take effective action to share the country's abundant resources and political power. The rights of indigenous Australians included the right to self-determination -- to control decision-making processes that affected them; territorial rights to their land, waters and seas and the resources therein; and rights to culture and heritage, including cultural and intellectual property rights.

Mr. Ridgeway said he recommended that the article referring to indigenous peoples in the draft declaration for the Durban World Conference be amended to reflect the recognition that indigenous peoples had suffered and continued to suffer extreme and systemic levels of racism and racial discrimination. He further recommended that the draft programme of action for the Durban Conference should be amended to call for the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples before the end of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples in 2004; and that the recently created Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples be expeditiously activated and given adequate resources.


He welcomed the recommendation in the draft Durban Declaration that an International Conference on Indigenous Peoples be convened before the end of the International Decade, and welcomed the suggestion that the Commission consider establishment of a position of Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Issues.

Recognizing and implementing the demands of indigenous peoples for effective decision-making control would allow indigenous individuals and communities to move away from dependency and its negative economic, cultural, social and psychological consequences, Mr. Ridgeway said. The process of reconciliation in Australia was very much about dealing with "unfinished business". What was crucial to defeating racism was promising that the past did not live in the present and did not hinder access to the full range of rights; if reconciliation was going to have true meaning in any country, it must be action-oriented and be the vehicle for real change in attitudes and actions.

SHEIKH SAHIB BEN SHEIKH, the Mufti of Marseille, said that the teaching of Islam was one of tolerance and respect for others. Because of globalization, no culture was exotic or remote. Since the beginning of humanity, human beings living in the same community had developed a common standard of ethics. Today, the world was about to see a new standard of ethics emerge. That standard of ethics should be based on law. However, the planet was not populated only with people with religious ethics. A religion, which was sure of itself, did not need to have its values supported by the State or by a secular law. Islam did not belong to Muslims, it was a message addressing all humanity. Muslims were instruments and witnesses of the truth of Islam, not owners or holders of the truth. No one could impose the truth. It was necessary to think of the means to promote the common ethics of humanity.

Islam was a philosophy and not a law. Crimes committed in the name of Islam were not acceptable. Islam was extremely liberal and individualist. In addition, in the tradition of others, there were socio-cultural elements which guided its followers to tolerance and respect. Islam was a great philosophy which preached the equality of human beings and tolerance among them. The Koran was not a piece of legislation but was a source of aspiration for legislators. The Koran could be read through different eyes: in France, it could be read through French eyes and in Yemen, it could be read through Yemenites eyes, for example.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said the world had different religions and cultures, but all belonged to the same root. A world where everyone was the same would be dull. The diversity of the world was no threat to anyone. Tolerance was based on the positive acceptance of diversity. Africa had for centuries suffered from colonialism and slavery; no one could question the extreme negative consequences that had resulted from this; the continent was still suffering. She wondered what the panellists thought about the payment of compensation for such wrongs.

SICHAN SIV (the United States) said freedom of religion was protected by the Constitution of the United States; virtually every religion in the world was practised in the country. People should be able to say what they wished and worship who they pleased. The problem was when cultures and religions were in close proximity; there need not necessarily be problems, but intolerance often resulted. An example was the destruction of irreplaceable Buddhist relics by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Taliban was called upon to respect religious freedom and the world's religious heritage. The United States condemned the destruction of the relics in the strongest terms.

V. ERMAKOV (the Russian Federation) said the accelerating process of globalization had shocked the cultural foundations of the world; the crumbling of frontiers and the shifts in everyday life had been hard for many to grasp and adjust to; the clash of liberal civilizational standards and traditional cultures was becoming more profound. It was not surprising that there had been conflict, given the rate of change and the sense of threat many felt to age-old values. All peoples were entitled to cultural self-realization, but there also were frequent attempts to impose universal norms on the world, and that could only be called flagrant intolerance. There was an attempt to make neo-liberal values universal, and while these values had contributed much to the world it was necessary to recognize that individuals and communities had the right to chose their lifestyles. People had the right to keep their national and religious identities, although extreme nationalism was to be avoided.

FAYZA ABOULNAGA (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said many challenges lay ahead in battling racism and xenophobia; the foundations of tolerance lay in truth and equality among all; any tendency towards racial discrimination must be rejected, and it was necessary to support the right of everyone to his own religion, belief, and culture. The Arab States believed in a culture of peace through tolerance of diversity; it was vital to avoid preconceived ideas and to understand what different religions and cultures truly offered the world. Arab countries had been making every effort to foster tolerance, and education was being used as a major tool to this end. The international community had a major role to play in moderating the effects of globalization. At present, a tragedy was occurring in the occupied areas of Palestine; this was a prime example of the absence of tolerance and respect. Was the world going to support tolerance only in some places, or was it going to respect tolerance everywhere?

FERNANDO LUGRIS (Uruguay) said that his country was among the few countries which put an emphasis on legislation to criminalize any intolerance on the grounds of colour and other conducts. It was also possible to combat any form of segregation on an international level. Mechanisms should be improved to better implement the legislation aimed at fighting such intolerance. Among other means that could be useful was the Internet. Education and preventive lessons could be disseminated through the Internet. Uruguay had build a harmonious society with is indigenous population taking an active part in building the society. As a developing nation, Uruguay had erected principles in which all individuals could live in a harmonious manner. It had also encouraged immigrants because of their expertise and with the aim of enriching the society.

CARINA MARTENSSON (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said promotion of tolerance and respect for diversity should be mutual, but unfortunately the concepts were sometimes used as excuses for infringing on individual rights and freedoms. The European Union had sought to provide and enhance tolerance, and it wondered how religious leaders and communities could foster such tolerance?

ABDEL AZIZ AL KHALIFA (Bahrain) said that his country was entering into a new era and the measures implemented to renew its society were bearing fruit. This was also stabilizing the political situation. The participation of the population was based on human rights and the rule of law. The promotion of the role of women with a bicameral parliament had been strengthened. All detained persons who had been in criminal activities had been released and amnesty was offered to all others who were involved in other anti-government activities. The independence of the judiciary was strengthened while the legislative body was liberalized with free participation of the
population in political affairs of the nation. Bahrain had also offered the chance to many non-governmental organizations to operate in the country in various fields with support provided by the Government. Bahrain had also collaborated with the Commission and had actively participated in its work.

ZEEV LURIA (Israel) said intolerance and prejudice were still very much alive and were often used to incite hatred and discrimination. Israel faced many challenges in this area; its society was composed of many different cultures, as it resulted from the absorption of immigrants from many regions of the world; the challenge was to encourage each cultural group to make its own contribution to Israeli society. There was a great need to develop dialogue and understanding, especially during the current period of tension and violence. Steps had been taken over the last decade to prohibit discrimination in the workplace and the education and health systems; discrimination on the basis of sexes was prohibited, as was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or on the basis of disability. Education was a key factor in nurturing tolerance, and Israel had established several educational programmes to this end, including one on democracy and coexistence which carried out meetings, among other things, between Arabs and Jews.

ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) said religious intolerance was a phenomenon in her country for many years. The scope and tension among great religions was enormous. In Northern Ireland, the tensions between Catholics and Protestants were complex. The tensions should be seen in the context of discrimination in housing and employment, and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement had reflected such issues. The leaders of the religions should underline the spiritual aspect in order to eradicate injustices in the society; and the use of vocabularies of provocation and intolerance would be a shame to religious leaders. The movement of forgiveness in South Africa was a good start. Forgiveness and peace could go hand in hand.

WALTER LEWALTER (Germany) said the Nazi era and the Holocaust had led the fathers of the German Constitution to put human rights and the equality of humans at the forefront; later, Germany had hosted many immigrants whose children had since grown up in the country and had made great contributions to German culture and lifestyle. The Government had realized that steps had to be taken around the country to protect minorities and to develop a culture of tolerance -- immigrant communities in Germany, for example, had come from some 180 countries. There were some 3 million Muslims in Germany. Today there was a consensus that Islamic teaching should be included in the school curriculum on religious instruction. An alliance had been created to bind civil society together to foster tolerance and combat racial violence and xenophobia in Germany; it was clear that more had to be done.

SHARAT SABHARUWAL (India) said the world's civilization was enriched by tolerance; and the process of globalization had enhanced such a phenomenon. However, the recrudescence of intolerance and bigotry was worrying. No religion had the monopoly of tolerance. The freedom of confession and the practice of one's religion had to be tolerated. The Indian society was promoting the culture of tolerance and respect for the building of a society in which people lived in harmony. Its various legislative acts had been designed to that end.

OMOWALI CLAY, of the International Association against Torture, speaking on behalf of the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said the dignity and worth of persons of African descent still suffered from the devastation of Africa's Holocaust, the greatest crime against humanity -- the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was the responsibility of political leaders to engage in political discourse based on the high principles of upholding rights through fighting and correcting injustices-- not by subverting them. Only when discussions of past crimes affecting Africans were discussed would it be clear that there was a search for true remedies; it appeared that tolerance was measured by the security of one's bank account, not the correcting of the historical wrong of stealing a whole nation's land. The recognition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity could move the society of humankind forward towards the goal of true universal tolerance and respect.

WILDA SPALDING, of the World Federation for Mental Health, said that she was enlightened on the issue of intolerance and respect by Reverend. Tutu and the High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson. She said that several Internet sites were being created by several non-governmental organizations which were doing a good job. More had to be done to protect indigenous people.

RENATE BLOEM, of the United Metdist Church General Board of Global Ministries, speaking on behalf of two other NGOs, said that given the horrors of the past, compensatory measures had to be discussed; the time had come to apply the principle that there was "no future without reconciliation" to the entire world. Perhaps, as a result of the upcoming World Conference against Racism, time could be taken to bring the religions of the world together to see if the South African approach of "no future without reconciliation" could be applied internationally.

ARCHBISHOP TUTU, said that they had succeeded in South Africa in handling the dismantling of apartheid and establishing peace and reconciliation. The victory would have not been impossible without international support. Nelson Mandela was freed, and apartheid was dismantled, thanks to international support. If the international community was able to defeat apartheid as it did in South Africa, why could it not overcome the conflicts and problems of racial discrimination everywhere. "Dream God's dream, dream as you did that apartheid would be terminated in South Africa, dream that Arabs and Jews would live peacefully one day." For forgiveness was not forgetting and it was not a denial that the past existed. Confession by perpetrators of crimes would at least help victims' to relief from their grief. No amnesty or compensation could substitute the death of a child or a loved one.


* *** *



CORRIGENDUM


In press release HR/CN/01/7 of 22 March, 2001, the second paragraph on page 2 should read as follows:

Josep Pique, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that unfortunately there still were situations where the basic underpinnings of human rights did not apply, such as in the Balkans and the Caucasus, as well as in other locations too numerous to list. He said that this year, Spain and the European Union would again propose an initiative condemning the policy of settlements by Israel in the occupied territories. The situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime was another matter of serious concern, he added.


In the same press release, the first paragraph on page 6 should read as follows:

Spain was very interested in the Mediterranean region and the progress of democracy there, the Foreign Minister said; problems continued in the Middle East. This year, Spain and the European Union would again propose an initiative condemning the policy of settlements by Israel in the occupied territories.


* *** *