GOVERNMENT MINISTERS FROM EAST TIMOR, PORTUGAL, POLAND, GERMANY AND MOROCCO ADDRESS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
20 March 2002
Afternoon




Commission Concludes Consideration of the Report
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights


The Commission on Human Rights heard from four Government Ministers of Foreign Affairs and one Minister for Human Rights this afternoon on issues ranging from the fight against terrorism to the situation in the Middle East to the problems of establishing democracy.

The Commission also concluded debate under its agenda item on the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office, hearing from several national delegations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Jose Ramos-Horta, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Second Transitional Government of East Timor, told the Commission of progress achieved in East Timor, remarking that the security and confidence of the people had been largely restored following disturbances related the country's establishment of independence from Indonesia. No cross-border incidents had occurred since June of last year, the transitional East Timorese Government had been set up, democratic institutions had been built, a Constituent Assembly elected and its members -- more than 30 per cent of them women -- had drafted a very progressive Constitution to be formally adopted later this month, he said.

Jaime Gama, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal and Chairman in Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), recounted recent work undertaken by the organization to combat and prevent violence against women, reform penitentiary systems, establish community policing, build confidence between minority groups and national majorities, enhance human rights, and abolish the death penalty.

Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said in no case could the fight against terrorism serve as an excuse for any unjustified violations and limitations of human rights. The Commission could not close its eyes to the fact that under the banner of combating terrorism, many countries had declared war on political opposition members or had repealed legitimate minority rights, he said.

Joschka Fischer, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, echoed this sentiment and said putting security above liberty, as was being demanded again in some quarters in the face of the terrorist threat to world peace, would be a dangerous, fatal mistake from a human rights and political point of view. Liberty and human rights were fundamental values, he said; if one was to surrender them, the terrorists would already have won their first victory -- security and liberty were not opposites and were not rival forces in a zero-sum game, but were mutually dependent and must be realized together.

And Mohammed Aujajjar, Minister for Human Rights of Morocco, condemned terrorism but said an end should be put to the confusion between Islam and terrorism and between the fight against terrorism and violations committed against the human rights innocent people. The challenge for States was not to promote security at the expenses of human rights. Islam was a religion of tolerance, of protection of human rights and dignity, and could by no means be a pretext for acts in violation of human rights values, he said.

Also speaking this afternoon were representatives of Egypt, Indonesia, Venezuela, India, Algeria, India, Kuwait and the United States.

The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) delivered statements: Amnesty International (on behalf of Human Rights Watch); International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies; and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues.

Representatives of Israel, China, Egypt, Palestine, and Germany spoke in right of reply. .
The Commission reconvened at 6.20 p.m. for an evening session scheduled to conclude at 9 p.m., at which it planned to debate the right of peoples to self-determination.


Statements

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Second Transitional Government of East Timor, said the people of East Timor had struggled for their human rights, including their right to self-determination, for decades while they were occupied. Now he stood before the Commission as the representative of a free country on the verge of independence, a country that was finally exercising its right to self-determination as a result of the sacrifice of so many people who had struggled against great odds for freedom, but also as a result of the concern shown by the international community at a critical moment. He thanked all Governments and NGOs which had assisted the country .

Mr. Ramos-Horta said that in the past two years, since the United Nations had established the Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET), much had been achieved. The security and confidence of the people had been largely restored. No cross-border incidents had occurred since June of last year. However, there was a disturbingly high level of domestic violence, although a major public-education campaign to address this issue had been launched. A transitional East Timorese government had been established which was increasingly taking charge. Democratic institutions had been built, a Constituent Assembly elected, and its members -- more than 30 per cent of whom were women -- had drafted a very progressive Constitution which would be formally adopted later this month. Mr. Ramos-Horta thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the valuable assistance and guidance her Office had provided in regard to the Constitution.

One situation the East Timorese were facing was the dispensation of justice and the facilitation of reconciliation in relation to crimes committed in the course of the past conflict, Mr. Ramos-Horta said. The Office of the General Prosecutor had to date filed 33 indictments charging 83 individuals with crimes committed between 1 January and 25 October 1999. These incidents included 11 charges of crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, progress in the courts was slow, owing to limited human and financial resources. East Timor would not forget its brothers and sisters in various parts of the world who continued to suffer from systematic and gross violations of human rights, he said.

JAIME GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal and Chairman in Office of the OSCE, said security was an issue of extreme complexity. To safeguard it one had to address political and military matters, but also democratic values, human rights, and acceptance of cultural diversity, including cultural and religious differences. The fight against terrorism was a priority for the OSCE and topped the concern of the Portuguese Chairmanship. Preventing and combating terrorism required strict respect for human rights, which were at the core of the policies of OSCE participating States. The OSCE could greatly benefit from a closer dialogue and cooperation with non-governmental organizations. To further improve the link between the human dimension and the political reality of the OSCE was another priority of the Chair. It was important to ensure a good articulation between the human dimension and the economic and environmental dimensions.

Mr. Gama said work had been undertaken by the OSCE to combat and prevent violence against women, to reform penitentiary systems, to establish community policing, to build confidence between minorities, governments and the majority ethnic groups, to improve involvement of judicial systems in human rights issues, and to abolish the death penalty. There must be no place for the death penalty in today's society. Life was inalienable and justice must uphold respect for human life. In this context, the decision of several OSCE participating States to abolish the death penalty was welcome.

The Portuguese Chairmanship attached particular importance to the work of the OSCE at the regional level, in the realm of the human dimension, Mr. Gama said. Southeast Europe was the region where the OSCE had its largest missions, and the "institution and capacity building" area constituted its main field of expertise. Today, through its field missions, the OSCE was considered an essential partner in providing sustainable assistance to national Governments throughout the region. Many important developments could be seen in the ongoing process in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia towards the concrete implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement. The OSCE mission to Skopje was deeply involved in monitoring the police re-entry process and in the multi-ethnic police training programme. In the Former Yugoslavia, OSCE presence was a key asset in ensuring the respect for democratic principles and the rule of law. The OSCE also had an active presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chechnya, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. The OSCE was constantly faced with challenges that forced it to react and adapt to new situations. In the search for peace and security, its efforts must be joined with all the other organizations that worked towards the same aim.

WLODZIMIERZ CIMOSZEWICZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said the genocidal dimension of acts of terror and the violation of human rights they were associated with called for close cooperation by the international community to combat such crimes. It was necessary however to approach with utmost attention deep-seated causes of radical or extremist movements and activities, organizations and fighters who usurped for themselves the right to armed -- also terrorist -- struggles for diverse causes. These root causes were poverty, inequality, injustice, backwardness and a sense of marginalization and hopelessness, all of which were shared by many countries and societies.

In no case could combat against terrorism serve as an excuse for any unjustified violations and limitations of human rights, Mr. Cimoszewicz said. The Commission could not close its eyes to the fact that under the banner of fighting terrorism in many countries war had been declared on political opposition or on legitimate national minority rights.

Democratic order was the best means for achieving peace and security, as had been proven on many occasions in places as diverse as former Yugoslavia and East Timor. If the walls between the North and the South were to be lowered, a solution had to be found to the problem of economic development that would help satisfy the basic needs of individuals. This could be done best by good governance, where democracy and a market economy went hand in hand. The international community should turn much greater attention to protection of the rights of the child and the rights of women. Slavery and trafficking in persons were among the most ugly breaches of human rights. It was a disgrace to the contemporary world that this phenomenon continued to exist and be tolerated by Governments.

The situation in the Middle East was a cause for deep concern, Mr. Cimoszewicz said. The sufferings of both Palestinians and Israelis must be brought to an end. There was no military solution; peace could be achieved only through negotiations. Poland welcomed in this regard the adoption of Security Council resolution 1937.

JOSCHKA FISCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, said tough action and repression alone did not constitute a satisfactory response to modern terrorism. It would only be curbed through a policy of prevention, a new joint approach to effectively fight its many different causes. This included strategies against hunger, poverty and lack of opportunity as well as socially just management of economic globalization. It included above all the protection of human rights -- civil and political as well as socio-economic and cultural rights. Human rights were not a luxury, not an exotic issue that could be pushed to the side when security policy was back at the top of the agenda. The very opposite was true. An old dilemma in a new form had been faced since the horrific attacks in the United States. What was the right balance between freedom and security? How could one best protect security without restricting the rights and liberties of the individual? These questions were not easy to answer. In principle there could only be one convincing response. Freedom and security had to be realized simultaneously.

Despite the release of political prisoners and an increased readiness to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms, Germany still took a very critical view of the human rights situation in China. The situation in Chechnya was also a source of concern as the Russian Federation continued to define the conflict in Chechnya as an "anti-terrorist operation" and a "domestic matter". The dramatic escalation of the situation in the Middle East in recent weeks had deeply shocked the world. The daily images of dead and wounded Israelis and Palestinians had revealed the depth of the hatred and despair on both sides. Mr. Fischer called on both sides to fully respect international humanitarian law and human rights.

Putting security above liberty, as was being demanded again in some quarters in the face of the emergence of a new threat to world peace, would be a dangerous, fatal mistake from a human rights and political point of view, the Foreign Minister said. Liberty and human rights were fundamental values. If they were surrendered, the terrorists would already have won their first victory. Security and liberty were not opposites and were not rival forces in a zero-sum game. Far from it -- security and liberty were mutually dependent and must therefore be realized together. Germany's commitment to this goal would not fail.

MOHAMMED AUJAJJAR, Minister for Human Rights of Morocco, said the country was in a phase of fundamental reform aimed at enlarging liberty. The attachment of Morocco to democracy could be seen through the political project of the King Mohammed VI, which aimed to accelerate this democratic process. An extraordinary session of the Parliament with an ambitious order of the day had recently been opened. A new electoral code would be examined and the national legislative elections to be held next September would use this code. The code would give all guaranties of liberty and transparency to elections and equal treatment to all candidates. A national list of women also should be introduced during these elections. A Code of Public Liberties, which included a law on the press, associations, and public meetings had also been adopted last week during this extraordinary Parliamentary session.

Mr. Aujajjar said an independent commission was in charge of complaints concerning the past of the country. Indeed, the country wished a political, social and psychological rehabilitation of all victims of the past. Not only had the State made the irrevocable choice to be a State of law but it also wished to assure the best protection to the citizens. On 9 December 2001, his Majesty the King Mohammed VI had created an Obudsman's post.

Mr. Aujajjar firmly condemned terrorism, but said he wished to put an end to the confusion of Islam with terrorism. The challenge to States was not to promote security at the expenses of human rights. Islam was a religion of tolerance, of protection of human rights and dignity, and could not be a pretext for acts violating human rights. Mr. Aujajjar urged the Commission to help free 1,362 Moroccans detained in Algeria for the last 20 years.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Arab League, said the visit of High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson to Bahrain, Lebanon and Egypt at the end of February had given these countries the opportunity to explain their special needs in the field of human rights. It was absolutely necessary to respect all human rights while fighting terrorism and not to use combat against terrorism as a pretext for violating human rights. The Arab countries firmly condemned terrorism but not the right to resist occupation such as that occurring the occupied Arab Territories. International cooperation had to be enhanced in order to fight terrorism and establish an adequate international mechanism in this regard. The Commission could help to establish such a mechanism.

The Arab League was very concerned about Islamophobia in various countries and rejected the link made by the mass media between Islam and all kinds of terrorism. The Arab League firmly condemned terrorism, and efforts had to be oriented to fight terrorism but also to understand the circumstances that created terrorism. The Arab States asked the High Commissioner to protect the immigrant Muslims living in various countries against violations of their rights. The Arab League condemned what occurred in the Arab Occupied Territories because of the Israeli occupation but also condemned the failure of the International community to respond effectively to these violations.

NUGROHO WISNUMURTI, (Indonesia) said the effects of the tragic events of 11 September lingered on in the form of growing insecurity and rising intolerance. The prominent place terrorism now occupied on national and international agendas testified to the deep fears running through civilised society. Indonesia had consistently condemned all acts of terrorism in line with its long-held view that indiscriminate violence must never be allowed to subjugate the rule of law. It was imperative for the civilised world to avoid interpreting acts of violence such as the terrorist attacks of September 11 as representing a conflict between Islam and other religions, for Islam taught peace and tolerance, not violence.

Indonesia was deeply concerned both by the increase in religious intolerance, especially Islamophobia, and the anti-terrorist approach taken by certain countries in the aftermath of the attacks which targeted specific ethnic or religious groups. Such discriminatory measures contradicted the basic principles of human rights and carried the very real risk of engendering an upsurge of racist sentiment. Terrorism as well as the insecurity and intolerance which inevitably followed in its wake were global problems which required a
global response. It was essential to emphasize, however, that efforts to eradicate terrorism would only yield results if its root causes were seriously addressed.

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said Venezuela fully supported resolution 1373 2001 of the Security Council and the principles that were covered in the High Commissioner's report. The High Commissioner had given a vision for combating terrorism with full respect for human rights. To leave aside human rights in this moment would do irreparable harm to them. Latin America had a certain experience in this field and could contribute to this discussion. To combat terrorism from a legal point of view was imperative for justice and the prevention of violence. A response to the challenge of terrorism could not go against standards of international law. The High Commissioner had also indicated that all causes of terrorism must be faced, not only on an operational but also on a structural level. This included focusing on the right to development, on discrimination, and on poverty.

The protection of displaced persons must be a focus for the Commission. Venezuela was actively involved in the support of international standards for refugees and respected these standards, as reflected in its adoption of various legislation and national procedures. Venezuela had also been active in establishing appropriate protection for displaced persons. With the entry into force of the Statute of Rome and the creation of the International Criminal Court, the international community would take a further fundamental step in the right direction.

SAVITRI KUNADI, (India) said the world changed after September 11. The horror of the terrorist outrage perpetrated on that day showed that no society, however powerful and however distant from the turbulence of other regions was secure or its citizens safe. Another day that should be remembered was December 13, when the Indian Parliament, the symbol of Indian democracy, was attacked by terrorists. What these events highlighted was the irony that it was the States which maintained open and democratic systems and respected human rights that were particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. India believed that international cooperation and the fight against terrorism should not get mired in issues such as a comprehensive definition of terrorism and was also of the view that a global convention on international terrorism would be a key element for effective international action against terrorism.

Open democratic societies targeted by terrorism, must necessarily take steps to defend their citizens. This necessitated constricting some civil liberties in the interests of security. Some States sponsored terrorism to bolster their foreign policy ends -- that was a sad reality. India had been suffering terrorist outrages by a neighbouring State that regarded such outrages as a means of keeping its agenda of territorial aggrandisement alive on the international scene. India was firmly of the view that the current imbalances that failed to address the abuses perpetrated by terrorist individuals or groups and placed undue emphasis on the human rights of terrorists, while ignoring the gross violation of human rights of others by them, needed to be redressed.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI, (Algeria) said the fight against terrorism was a duty of States but could not be a screen for criticizing a religion, a culture or a civilization. The right to self-determination and of defense against foreign occupation enshrined in the UN Charter could not be denied under the guise of battling terrorism -- it was a human right recognized by the international community. The international community had to find adequate solutions so that peoples and communities did not consider themselves victims of injustice. In this regard, the situation in Palestine required the immediate creation of a Palestinian State. Following the attacks of 11 September, an international conference should be held by United Nations. Algeria was also concerned about human rights violations suffered by the Arabs living in western countries. It condemned the link made between Islam and terrorism and violence. Extreme poverty was also a violation of human rights, as the Millenium Declaration had stated. This must not be forgotten.

ABDULLAH AL-ASKAR, (Kuwait) said that the country supported the conclusions of the High Commissioner's report. Kuwait also wished to draw attention to the fact that many countries did not respect the resolutions adopted by the Commission and refused to cooperate with other international human rights mechanisms. This trend was a cause for grave concern and a true obstacle to the promotion and protection of human rights, and the Commission was urged to address it promptly.

KEVIN E. MOLEY, (the United States) said the paper of the High Commissioner on a human-rights based "unifying strategy" to combat terrorism did not focus on Al Qaeda's aims, essence and ideology and indeed seemed to have more to do with counter-terrorism than terrorism. Nonetheless the report did note United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which was a fundamental affirmation of the right to self-defence and of ongoing efforts to defeat and destroy the terrorist threat to international peace and security. Following this resolution, other United Nations bodies had taken action in their spheres of responsibility. These actions demonstrated that the response to terrorism as a practical matter must be multi-faceted. Respect for human rights must be central on all levels.

The report under discussion had defined the attacks as "crimes against humanity". However characterized, terrorism was best addressed directly by States and in the appropriate United Nations fora. Concerning "human security", it was essential to draw a clear distinction between terrorists and the environments in which they could flourish, and one must be careful not to allow the ills of the world to be used to justify terrorism or support for terrorist organizations. Let no one be under the illusion that necessary commitment to human rights would be a compelling argument with the terrorists themselves. The fact was that societies that promoted tolerance, pluralism and individual freedoms were precisely the ones terrorists most reviled and whose openness they sought to exploit.

LOUBNA FREIH, of Amnesty International, speaking on behalf of Human Rights Watch, said that since the attacks on 11 September 2001, many States had taken steps to enhance the protection of people within their territories from similar criminal acts. However, some of the measures adopted violated or facilitated the violation of human rights. The challenge to States was not to promote security at the expense of human rights, but rather to ensure full respect for human rights for all, even in situations where national security was at stake.

In response to international calls for a "war against terrorism", India had taken steps to enact new anti-terrorism legislation giving Indian police sweeping powers of arrest and detention. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were also concerned about the deprivation of certain basic rights guaranteed under international law to detainees who remained in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of the United Kingdom, enacted on 14 December 2001, permitted non-nationals to be detained without charge or trial indefinitely. Finally, in the aftermath of 11 September the Government of Egypt had ordered some 285 suspected Islamists to be tried in three separate cases before the Supreme Military Court, despite their civilian status. The Commission must urge all States to ensure respect for human rights while taking action against terrorism, and should encourage States to make use of expertise available within the UN system and externally to ensure compliance with international human rights standards.

H. SHARFELDDIN, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said that perhaps one of the most serious challenges facing the UN was the financial problem that was keeping it from truly fulfilling its mission. All this had been due to the unwillingness of some States, especially the US, to fulfil their membership obligations and pay the dues they had pledged to pay to this institution.

Financial contributions from individual people worldwide to secure the budget of the UN would have two important outcomes concerning the future of the organization. First, the sense of people throughout the world of their active participation in the very existence of this institution would encourage them to follow up its activities and safeguard its success in carrying out its missions. Second, the financial contributions from individual people worldwide would provide a fair distribution of contributions to meet the financial needs of the UN.

REENA MARWAH, of the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, said the events of the past six months demonstrated the imperative need for the international human rights community to remain vigilant against the forces of extremism, fundamentalism and bigotry. The diverse faiths of the constituents of the global family all called for peace and love between human beings. Yet tragically, in the name of these faiths, members of the human family indulged in slaughter and destruction. Diversity should not be a cause of conflict but rather should lend strength to humanity.

The essential prerequisite for the observance of human rights was respect for the individual. The spread of awareness about individual human rights could only come about through a non-confrontational process that allowed different cultures and societies to interact with the objective of ensuring that oppression found no place in day-to-day life.

ANTOINE MADELIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Federation condemned all international terrorist attacks. The perpetrators should be brought to justice based on international human rights law. Justice must be preferred to revenge. Nevertheless, various countries had limited the fundamental freedoms of their citizens and FIDH had created a web site where all these violations were noted. There were two kinds of countries, those who panicked after the 11 September attacks and limited fundamental freedoms and those who used this opportunity to enact laws that didn't respect some human rights.

Examples of these responses could be found in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, China, Indonesia and Jordan. The Commission must not sacrifice human rights because of the fight against terrorism.


Rights of Reply

A Representative of Israel, speaking in right of reply, said that when delegates in the Commission spoke about the distinction between terrorism and so-called right of resistance, what they meant in actual fact was that they had the right to kill innocents. Nobody had the right to take another human life. When speaking about a cease-fire, one needed to bear in mind who began the violence and why. The violence in the Middle East had been initiated by the Palestinian Authority. It was in the hands of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership to put an end to this violence forthwith. In fact, Israel had twice declared unilaterally a cease-fire which was not followed in kind by the Palestinians. The Egyptian delegate would do well to condemn unequivocally any acts of terrorism and not just lay the blame on one side.

A Representative of China, speaking in right of reply and responding to the German Foreign Minister's speech, said national minorities in China benefited from equal civil, economic and political rights, and the matter was not one open to criticism from foreign governments. The Falun Gong had caused the deaths of many innocent victims and in order to prevent more loss of life, the Chinese Government had banned this sect. He appreciated the attention of Germany to human rights; Germany could and should do things to do with human rights, for example study how to combat neo-Nazism and xenophobia on its own soil to avoid a tragic recurrence of events. It was difficult to face one's past -- perhaps more difficult that pointing one's finger at other States.

A Representative of Egypt, speaking in right of reply, said Egypt had condemned the attacks against Israeli civilians. But Israeli occupation also violated Palestinian human rights, and those had the same value as Israeli rights. No attempt had been made by Israel to bring peace to the region while various Arab counties had tried to find a solution in recent years.

A Representative of Palestine, speaking in right of reply, said the representative of Israel claimed his country was a victim. How could an aggressor become a victim? Violence in the occupied territories started after the Israeli occupation of these lands in 1967. For more than 30 years, the Israeli Army had been killing innocent civilians and demolishing Palestinian houses. Just a few days ago, Israel had destroyed ambulances and prevented medicine from reaching hospitals. The killings of Palestinians did not bother Israel because it was not Jewish blood that was being spilled. Israel should not expect the Palestinians to greet it with flowers.

A Representative of Germany, speaking in right of reply, said he had looked forward to China's response but had expected more facts about these allegations. Instead the delegation of China had suggested that Germany had not been active in preventing xenophobia and racism. Germany was in fact actively involved in ensuring that the past did not repeat itself through its independent judicial system. May others take an example from this.

A Representative of Israel, in a second right of reply, and responding to representatives of Algeria and Palestine, said that both sides had the right to have their human rights and fundamental freedoms respected. Israel had also tried to find a peace solution on several occasions, and it respected the suffering of the Palestinians. It was not a question of victory but a question of human rights.

A Representative of China, in a second right of reply, invited Germany to speak about its own deficiencies before criticizing China.

A Representative of Egypt, in a second right of reply, said the peace initiative of 1977 had begun in Egypt and was an Egyptian initiative. The facts were clear. Even Israelis had said that until the landing of Sadat's plane they did not know whether peace would occur. The dialogue between Egypt and Israel was continuing. Unfortunately, until now this had not been successful and it would not be without respect for Palestinians' human rights.

A Representative of Palestine, in a second right of reply, said it was true several hundred Israelis had been killed during the last 17 months, but 1,200 Palestinians had been killed during that time. This was a total war being conducted by Israel against the Palestinian people who were defending their integrity and children and had no planes and no tanks. Israel could bring peace to the region by doing one thing, which withdrawing from the occupied territories.



CORRIGENDUM

In press release HR/CN/02/6 of 20 March 2002, the two rights of reply by the Representative of China on page 9 should read as follows:
A Representative of China, speaking in right of reply and responding to the German Foreign Minister's speech, said national minorities in China benefited from equal civil, economic and political rights, that fact could not be changed by the slandering of any foreign government or individual. The Falun Gong had caused the deaths of many innocent victims and in order to prevent more loss of life, the Chinese Government had banned this sect. He appreciated the attention of Germany to human rights; Germany could and should do things to do with human rights, for example study how to combat neo-Nazism and xenophobia on its own soil to avoid a tragic recurrence of events. It was difficult to face and address one's own problems. Perhaps more difficult than pointing one 's finger at other States.
A Representative of China, in a second right of reply, pointed out that though proclaimed independent, the judicial system in Germany did not prevent effectively serious human rights violations such as neo-Nazism, racial discrimination etc. The German delegate admitted human rights deficiencies in his own country in his report, but it would be more courageous if he could confess on his own initiative.


*****