HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES APPEALS FOR INTERNATIONAL RESOLVE IN MEETING CRISES IN KOSOVO, SIERRA LEONE AND OTHER REGIONS

HR/CN/99/5
24 March 1999 (a.m.)



Four Government Ministers Address Commission on Human Rights;
Special Rapporteur on Use of Mercenaries Presents Report


Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), told the Commission on Human Rights this morning that greater international will was needed to apply existing human-rights standards to mounting catastrophes in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and other locations.

Human-rights principles were a powerful framework for dealing with such issues, but they had to be enforced, Mrs. Ogata said.

She reported with regret that UNHCR workers had had to withdraw the previous night from Kosovo under mounting pressure from Serbian forces, thus leaving large groups of displaced persons in their hour of need. Mrs. Ogata deplored mounting violence against civilians there and in Sierra Leone, where rebels had staged a campaign of killings and mutilations of innocent women and children. She also cited concern over mounting ethnic violence in Indonesia, saying large forced population displacements were likely if such abuses did not cease.

A series of Government ministers addressed the Commission as well.

Carmen Moreno del Cueto, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, reviewed Government efforts to resolve problems in Chiapas, saying the focus was on dialogue and negotiation and on improving living conditions in the province.

Pierre-Claver Zeng Ebome, Minister for Human Rights of Gabon, told the Commission of the country's transition to democracy and described efforts to enhance human rights.

Liz O'Donnell, Minister of State for Human Rights of Ireland, said experience within her country had shown that human-rights abuses were best approached through a spirit of real dialogue, a solutions-oriented approach, and the development of effective mechanisms.

And Carlos Lage Davila, Vice-President of the Council of State and Secretary of the Council of Ministers of Cuba, castigated the United States for the economic embargo imposed against Cuba, saying the United States was attempting genocide against the people of Cuba.

In addition, the Commission heard from Enrique Bernales Ballesteros of Peru, Special Rapporteur on the question of the use of mercenaries, who introduced a report on the topic by citing cases in Angola, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo as examples of blatant abuses of the use of private security firms.

In between these speakers, the Commission carried on with its debate on the right to self-determination. Pleas again were heard for the granting of independence and territorial control to Palestinians. Meanwhile a Representative of China cautioned that exercise of the right to self-determination should not constitute interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States.

And ideas continued to be put forward by some countries for reform of the Commission's working mechanisms.

Speaking at the morning meeting were Representatives of the Russian Federation, China, Cuba, Tunisia, Indonesia, Germany, Norway, Chile, Canada, South Africa, Latvia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Commission will convene this afternoon at 3 p.m. in the form of a working group to discuss proposals for the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.

The right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation

Before the Commission under this agenda item is a report (E/CN.4/1999/11) submitted by Enrique Bernales Ballesteros (Peru), Special Rapporteur pursuant to Commission resolution 1998/6 on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.

The report lists the implementation of his activities, his correspondence with Member States on mercenary activities (including a letter from Miroslav Milosevic, then Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on mercenary activities and terrorist actions in Kosovo and Metohija); correspondence regarding mercenary activities against Cuba; a summary of mercenary activities in Sierra Leone; and the current situation concerning mercenary persistence and evolution. After dealing with the activities of private security and military assistance companies and the current status of the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, the report concludes that the abuses against human rights and liberties remain grave and growing.

The Special Rapporteur states the problem is especially acute in Sierra Leone. The current mercenary situation is marked by the inadequacy of international rules and with legal gaps and ambiguities. At the tenth anniversary of the General Assembly's adoption of the International Convention Against Mercenaries, the report underscores that only 16 States have agreed to be bound by it. Among the recommendations is a call for the Commission to prioritize international protection against mercenaries and their extreme abuses; to adopt measures and provide financial support to ensure better communication; to prevent and punish violations and abuses (particularly terrorism); and to promote more adherence by Member States to the adoption of the International Convention.

The Commission also had before it a letter (E/CN.4 1999/123) from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan contesting Armenian claims to sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh as described in Armenia's initial report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Statements

ENRIQUE BERNALES BALLESTEROS, Special Rapporteur on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, addressed the issue of mercenary activities, especially in Africa. He referred to his report (E/CN.4/1999/11) which cited the cases of Angola, Sierra Leon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo where blatant abuses of the use of private security firms had occurred. Mercenary abuses against human rights and international law in Sierra Leone were detailed. The use of private mercenary firms and support by a military security company financed apparently from neighbouring Liberia and founded by an ex-Israeli Colonel, Yair Klein, were examples of the need for international oversight. The situation today in Sierra Leone was a human rights disaster in which the presence of mercenaries had no other purpose than to continue the conflict.

Mr. Ballesteros underscored the lack of an oversight body at the international level, which would have the responsibility and the authority to review the use of private security firms and mercenaries on a case by case basis. Alarming data revealed the negative abuses of military security firms. There were, however, some positive steps in this matter. As an example, he cited South Africa which enforced legislation and regulated military foreign assistance and private security firms within the scope of international law and human rights. He also underscored and applauded the efforts of the United Kingdom to find a global and legal solution regarding mercenaries and their abuses within the scope of self-determination and human rights.

SADAKO OGATA, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said it was sometimes hard to avoid a sense of powerlessness in viewing the extent of human-rights violations committed against refugees and internally displaced persons. In Kosovo, she had appealed to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for a halt to use of excessive force against civilians, yet on several occasions temporary lull had been ended by resumed hostilities; the humanitarian situation on the ground was getting worse, and last night, after accompanying the last convoys of humanitarian assistance into the region, UNHCR had had to withdraw its staff from Kosovo, a matter of great concern, as people were being left at their time of greatest need.

Sierra Leone was another example, Mrs. Ogata said; rebels fighting a democratically elected Government had deliberately targeted women and children; she had visited the country and had seen horrific examples of mutilation of women and young girls and heard reports of children being forcibly taken from their parents for recruitment as combatants. A third example was Indonesia, where ethnic and religious violence had increased following the country's economic problems; fighting had involved indigenous Malay, Bugis, Daya, and ethnic Chinese against Madurese immigrants; a major displacement and refugee crisis could emerge if such violence did not stop.

The international community had a shared responsibility to address peace and security concerns raised by forced displacements of populations, and also a responsibility to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of such displacements. Human-rights standards were a powerful framework for dealing with such issues, but they had to be enforced, Mrs. Ogata said. It also was necessary to help refugees to return to their homes eventually -- for example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, returnees were still having difficulties reclaiming their rightful homes and property; in fact many still were unable to return. Another example was Georgia, where restitution of real property and compensation for loss of personal property were essential for the sustainable return of ethnic Ossets.

In addition, the family rights of the displaced had to be protected, and women and girls given special security; UNHCR recently had launched a project to combat sexual violence against refugees in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

As taught by experience, the High Commissioner said, humanitarian action could not be a substitute for timely and firm action at the political level -- Kosovo was a political problem, for example, whose dire humanitarian consequences could only in the end be solved politically. The Commission and the High Commissioner for Human Rights could help by transforming human rights theory into firm practice in the case of refugees and forcibly displaced persons.

CARMEN MORENO DEL CUETO, Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, stated that her country had taken steps in reforming its laws with respect to human rights. Last year saw intense legislative reform to insure compliance with international human rights. Mexico was aware that legislation reform was not enough and that judicial empowerment was necessary. Six thousand human-rights defenders had visited Chiapas in the spirit of maintaining an open and transparent review policy. Chiapas was a priority in their humanitarian, political and social rights efforts. Mexico was working toward peace through dialogue and negotiation and had renounced the use of force and violence. There was a concerted effort to improve living conditions in Chiapas, its economy, agriculture, health, employment and poverty. However, much remained to be accomplished in Chiapas.

Ms. del Cueto stated that Mexico would submit a project resolution on the rights of migrants. Special Rapporteurs had been received by Mexico to review abuses concerning the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the illicit movement and dumping of toxic waste. This year, Mexico had extended invitations to the High Commissioner for Human Rights along with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

PIERRE-CLAVER ZENG EBOME, Minister for Human Rights of Gabon said that human rights were fundamental for human existence and these rights existed in all civilizations without exception. Freedom was the respect for humanity for men and women and this called for the responsibility of each person. Gabon was prepared to preserve civil peace and protect the dignity of all.

In 1990, Gabon had made a transition from the single party system to political pluralism, allowing the people to achieve democracy at their own pace. The Minister said institutions had been set up in Gabon in Parliament and other Government bodies to promote human rights. Gabon was constantly forging forward to democracy and had ratified the major human rights conventions. The implementation of these conventions would be the first step in the building of an ongoing process to help protect and promote human rights in the daily lives of Gabon’s population.

Mr. Ebome said Gabon’s new Government, which had been in place since 25 January 1998, had established a Ministry of Human Rights which he was proud to lead. The right to education, the right to health, the right to work, the right to peace, and above all the right to development were all advocated by the Ministry. He called on the international community to put an end to sales of arms from the developed countries which hindered progress and development in Africa.

LIZ O'DONNELL, Minister of State for Human Rights of Ireland, associated the Irish delegation with the speech made by Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany on behalf of the European Union yesterday. Based on their own direct and recent experience of conflict resolution in Ireland, the Irish Delegation would also associate itself with the statement to be delivered by the Presidency of the European Union under item 9 of the agenda, which dealt with violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. She called for a spirit of real dialogue, a solutions-oriented approach, and the development of mechanisms in order to deal with the issues of human rights abuses. The World Conference on Racism in 2001 should deal with the world-wide abuse of racial discrimination and should focus on the relevant and practical rather than relying on the old approaches.

Ms. O'Donnell cited the recent murder of Rosemary Nelson in Northern Ireland. Ms. Nelson had been no stranger to the mechanisms of human rights and had paid the ultimate price for her advocacy in alleviating injustice on behalf of those she represented. She noted that the murder 10 years ago of human rights lawyer Patrick Finuncane had been dealt with comprehensively by Param Cumaraswamy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The Irish Government would be urging the relevant authorities to respond fully to Mr. Cumaraswamy's report in the context of the widespread calls for an independent inquiry into Mr. Finucane's murder.

CARLOS LAGE DAVILA, Vice-President of the Council of State and Secretary of the Council of Ministers of Cuba, said the rigid time constraints imposed on speakers at the Commission indicated that the world's lone superpower, the United States, did not want the truth to be spoken. Who authorized the United States to arrogate to itself, apparently for life, the role as prosecuting attorney of Cuba; and to appoint itself the prime authority on human rights for the rest of the world? How could the United States continue its cruel economic blockade against Cuba against the repeatedly expressed wishes of the United Nations?

The United States was the richest and most powerful country in the world, Mr. Davila said, yet it had some 1 million people who lived homeless, under bridges or on the streets; millions of others lacked health insurance; millions more, women and children mostly, had recently been cut from public aid programmes; millions of women had been raped, and roughly half the women in the United States had been subject to some form of violence. Blacks in the United States suffered greatly, and they and Hispanics were subject to pervasive discrimination; and the United States had the largest prison population in the world.

The campaign waged by the United States against Cuba for decades still continued, Mr. Davila said; the embargo even resulted in shipments of medicines being turned away from Cuba; elsewhere in the world there was increasing solidarity with the cause of Cuba, but this fact was ignored by the United States. The United States continued to support and finance rebel agents in Cuba and otherwise sought to disrupt Cuba's legitimate Government. The economic blockade was an attempt at genocide, an effort to exterminate the people of Cuba; the actions of the United Nations must not be directed only against underdeveloped countries and their human-rights records, but against the most powerful country in the world, which committed unimaginable human-rights violations.

SERGUEI TCHOUMAREV (the Russian Federation) said there was a need to redefine the principle of the right to self-determination and link it to the principle of the right to integrity of territory so that it was not seen as a way to threaten the stability of States and encourage those with separatist tendencies. The right to self-determination was encouraged as one of the principles for the freedom of peoples and it was fundamental to the principle of equality. The Middle East continued to require close monitoring by the international community. The problem there was a complex one and it was hoped that the issues concerning Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the final status of these territories, including Jerusalem, were resolved. Underlining the humanitarian situation in the region which was also important, Russia welcomed any humanitarian work to especially help the refugees.

WANG MIN (China) said it was important for there to be an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the principle of self-determination; from China's point of view, respect for the right first of all called for opposing any foreign aggression, interference or control, thus safeguarding national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, so that peoples of all countries could choose their own political and social systems, economic models, and paths of development. Second, the right could not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any actions that dissolved or violated the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign States, so long as those States acted properly and had Governments representing all the people within their territories. In recent years some individuals with ulterior motives had distorted the principle of self-determination; what they wanted was to dismember sovereign States; the United Nations must oppose such activities. By contrast, the people of Palestine deserved to exercise their right to self-determination.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the historic development of the right to self-determination was based on the struggle of peoples under colonial domination; these days such colonialism continued in a new form -- efforts by the powerful to bind the fates of less powerful countries and peoples to forms of existence that did not meet their needs; such authoritarianism from outside violated the United Nations Charter. The vitality and viability of States depended on pursuit of their individuality and variety; peoples must have the right to pursue their own futures; they should not be at the mercy of powerful States and the monopoly view of economic globalization. As long as these forces existed, human rights could not progress. Cuba still sought the return of Guantanamo, seized improperly from its territory for a north American naval base. As for mercenaries, they were a scourge; Cuba had had difficulties with them based on the decades-long campaign waged against it from the territory of the United States and Cuba fully supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on the topic.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said the right of people to self-determination in the territories occupied by Israel was an explosive one. The people were suffering because of the Israeli practices in these areas. As a result, the political and economic situation was deteriorating in the occupied territories. This created a clear threat to peace in the Middle East. The occupation of Jerusalem by Israel was also a threat to international peace. It had been hoped that the Madrid Accords would lead to Israel’s returning of the occupied territories to its people. However, Israel continued to defy the international community and was creating tension in the region. Tunisia supported the need for peace in the Middle East and encouraged Israel to live up to its commitment.

LUCIE RUSTAM (Indonesia) said little progress had been achieved lately in improving the human-rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories; the peace process had stalled as a result of vexing questions over Jewish settlements in the West Bank and security commitments from the Palestinians to Israel. The Palestinians currently had full or partial autonomy in 27 per cent of the West Bank. Israel's strategy to give away only a limited amount of land could only increase the frustration of the Palestinians; and renewed violence in the region was a cause for mounting concern; the Commission must send a strong message to Israel requesting that it take immediate action to end human-rights violations in the territories. The root cause of these abuses was the failure of Israel to respect Palestinians' right to self-determination.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union, spoke on organizational issues raised in the inaugural address by the Chairman and some delegations on item 3. They had agreed on the principal of allowing all delegations to participate in an open and transparent dialogue on the report of the Bureau. However, there was a mandatory need to start the dialogue process without undue delay because of the crucial role played by the mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights. Further, it was not acceptable to postpone substantive issues since this would postpone action.

Mr. Hoynek stressed the need for cooperation, which was not only a slogan but the Commission's preferred method of work. There was a need for immediate talks to begin on substantive issues of the report with the following objectives: to identify recommendations which could be adopted at the end of the session by general agreement; to decide if and how further work needed to be done on other recommendations; and to decide which framework would be the most adequate one to carry out this work in the next Commission.

MANUEL BENITEZ (Argentina) thanked the Bureau for holding transparent consultations in which all the participants were able to express their respective points of view. The interdependence of the different mechanisms of the Commission should not overshadow the fact that there existed different problems in front of the Commission which had differing degrees of urgency. It would be useful to create an intersessional mechanism in the form of a working group to deal with certain issues.

BJORN SKOGMO (Norway), speaking on behalf of the Western Group, said it shared the chairperson's opinion that reform of the Commission's mechanisms should be based on an understanding that the issues involved were important enough to warrant serious reflection but that such reflection should not become a rationale for indefinite postponement of action. Something had to be done, but the idea for a post-sessional working group should not be decided upon until the question had been considered during the Commission; the best time to discuss reform of Commission mechanisms was during the Commission. In Norway's view, consultations should begin as soon as possible.

ALFREDO LABBE (Chile) said his country believed the review of the mechanisms of the Commission to be both essential and necessary. The intensive consultations conducted by the outgoing Bureau needed to be analysed and scrutinized. Informal consultation on mechanisms could be useful but

Chile would prefer that such consultations be reserved only when they were useful.

MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said they supported the statement made on behalf of the Western Group; overall, it would be disappointing if efforts to streamline the Commission’s mechanisms resulted in the creation of another mechanism; Canada thought open-ended meetings should be held on Wednesday nights based on the recommendations in the relevant report; that was a good way to start; through such talks the easy and more difficult issues could be identified. The proposal to establish an intersessional working group should not be considered until later, in Canada's view.

S.G. NENE (South Africa) said it would be pre-emptive to establish a pre-meditated mechanism prior to any debate in the Commission. South Africa was opposed to a decision which did not take into account a specific time-frame to conclude its work. It would be unfair to African countries which did not have resident Missions in Geneva and whose delegations were only available during the Commission to deny them an opportunity to participate in a debate of this issue. Therefore, South Africa would support any initiative which was the result of broad agreement by all members of the Commission. Its delegation was ready to actively participate when the debate took place.

ROMANS BAUMANIS (Latvia) said discussions should start with proposals that were easy. There should also be an open-ended or chapter-by-chapter approach during discussion of agenda item 20.

AUDREY GLOVER (the United Kingdom) said reform of the Commission's mechanisms was of course going to be a sensitive topic, but the Commission reviewed sensitive topics all the time, and there was no reason not to begin such discussions now. Such dialogue was possible and necessary in this session; many delegations were very interested in the subject; the relevant report had already been studied in great depth by some delegations. Momentum and time should not be lost; other Commission work should not be interfered with, of course, and any dialogue should be transparent; the United Kingdom supported the idea of a series of evening meetings held in an open-ended fashion. From there the Commission could decide how else to proceed.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said her country associated itself with comments made earlier by Norway; the delegation felt the report of the Bureau deserved to be considered at this session; the report already was the result of broad consultations and many delegations had had the time to study it carefully and to develop further ideas about how to proceed. If all worked together in an open and transparent manner, it should be possible to reach agreements on several of the report's recommendations. To create another working group -- another mechanism -- in an effort to streamline the Commission's mechanisms did not seem to be a good idea.